About These Recently Discovered Ansel Adams Negatives

<p>His family is saying they are not his. And if they were his the family owns all publishing rights to Ansel's works. If these negatives were never registered is that not true? Or is any image a photographer takes automatically registered?</p>

<p> The photographer/estate automatically owns copyright (but unless registered, it remains unregistered). The estate's copyright is useless, since it does not own the plates. It is very common for the estate of photographers and artists to reject authentication of any new finds they do not own. The originally stated value of .2 billion was ridiculously high, but they're worth at least a tenth or three of that, which is still a lot of money to be made. The present owner and the estate need each other to realize this.</p>

<p>I expect to see the Estate make every attempt to devalue those plates, then negotiate to buy them for a ridiculously low price, or warily do a joint venture with the present owner.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think what Luis says about the photographer "automatically" owning copyright is only true in the USA for creative works after 1952 when the Universal Copyright Convention was established. I'm not sure what rules apply to something from the 1920s. Back then, copyright only existed upon registration; it was not automatic.</p>

<p>Luis may be correct that the estate has an incentive to deny Adam's authorship of the negatives, but at the same time, Norsigian has a <em>huge</em> financial incentive to claim that they <em>are</em> Adams' work. The burden of proof is clearly on Norsigian's side.</p>

<p>The Ansel Adams Gallery's blog has an interesting article on the negatives and the question of authorship:</p>

<p><a href="http://theanseladamsgallery.blogspot.com/2010/07/response-to-july-27-2010-article.html">http://theanseladamsgallery.blogspot.com/2010/07/response-to-july-27-2010-article.html</a></p>

<p>One of the most convincing points this article makes is that if the Jeffrey Pine negative was in fact taken at the same time as a similar picture known to be by Adams, then it should correspond to an entry in Adams' exposure notebook, considering how meticulous he was about recording such things. If it doesn't, that by itself is fairly convincing evidence that the image is not his; and that would in turn bring the rest of the collection into doubt.</p>

<p>My best guess would be that the estate will continue to deny the authenticity of the images in perpetuity. If the images were Adams' work, they would be interesting as documents; but, at least as shown on the website, the images aren't all that compelling compared to later, known Adams work. The supposed Adams Yosemite images, in particular, don't appear to be well-executed: <br>

<a href="http://ricknorsigian.com/">http://ricknorsigian.com/</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>he estate will continue to deny the authenticity of the images in perpetuity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So we can expect the estate to sit idly by if prints and other revenue generating imagery is made from the plates?</p>

<p>I skimmed over an article the other day in Digital Photo Pro mag about trademarking yourself. I wonder what would happen if the family trademarked AA's name. I would think it might prevent others from making claims the prints were made by him.</p>

<p>They also need a good printer, like Sexton. The images I saw were not treated well at all. As AA said, himself, [to paraphrase]: "The negative is like writing the score, and the print is the performance."</p>

<p>People used recent auction results to justify the $200m estimate, but a print unsigned by AA would have a very different value than one signed "Ansel Adams", or even "A Adams".</p>

<p> I hadn't thought about it, but by denying the connection to AA, the estate has certainly freed up the owner of the plates to sell prints.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>

<p>

<p>Ownership of the negatives does not establish ownership of the copyright. However, if these works were neither published nor registered, they may have been given protection. It might take a while to determine the dates of the pictures, if ever registered or published, etc. Here's a snippet from the Copyright Office Circular 15A: <br>

 

 

</p>

 

<p> </p>

<strong><strong><strong>

<p>

<p>Works in existence but not published or copyrighted on January 1, 1978

 

: Works that had been created before the current law came into effect but had neither been published nor registered for copyright before January 1, 1978, automatically are given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for new works: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. However, all works in this category are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection. The law specifies that in no case will copyright in a work of this sort expire before December 31, 2002, and if the work is published before that date the term will extend another 45 years, through the end of 2047.</p>

</p>

</strong></strong></strong></p>

</p>

<p>Disputes their authenticity. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/07/28/ansel.adams.negative.dispute/index.html?hpt=C2">http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/07/28/ansel.adams.negative.dispute/index.html?hpt=C2</a></p>

<p>http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/<br /> http://www.copyright.gov/pr/pdomain.html</p>

<p>Thanks to, get this, Sonny Bono (entertainer <em>and </em>congressman), the protection may revert to Ansel Adams' estate if they were his photos. For example, since Adams died after 1933, and the works were presumably unpublished and unregistered (I'm guessing the guy got the cast off negatives), then it wouldn't matter that someone else found them recently. It would be as though Adams had just made them. The copyright would be his. By extension, this would probably go to his estate as part of some other caretaking contracts and agreements.</p>

<p>It'd take someone who knows about copyright law to duke it out with whomever; but, just because the artist is dead: well, that's not good enough. He has to be <strong>dead for more than 70 years </strong>in order for this "found" and <strong>unpublished, unregistered work to enter in to the public domain.</strong> <br /> http://www.copyright.gov/pr/pdomain.html</p>

<p>At least that's how I read what the Library of Congress has to say about it; link above.</p>

<p>Some leading questions would be:</p>

<ul>

<li>Did you make it?</li>

<li>Did you take it? If you took it, did you get permission, in advance, to collect money off of it?</li>

<li>Did you quote it? If you did, as fair use, is it for criticism, commentary, newsworthy collection or academic use (<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html">http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html</a>)?</li>

</ul>

<p>Pretty much, you want to be able to end those questions with "yes"es in the right places.<br /> If you end with "ahh, uh-oh," that's not too good. Otherwise, drive on and make more photos. <br /> Making them yourself is the best protection.</p>

<p>I was skeptical when I noticed the <em>Corning Gorilla</em>® <em>Glass </em>logo on the corners of the negatives.</p>

<p>You may notice, for instance, as you're looking over those copyright laws that, of course, there's no "finder's keepers" style of idea. Well, of course not. If there were, then anybody who had a copy could claim to have the copyright, which is kind of against the point of the whole thing. </p>

<p>So, the laws seem to be aiming for two groups: either the artist (or his people, his estate) has the copyright (as they normally would, excepting any other agreements) or the work is in the public domain. </p>

<p>There's nothing in there that I've ever seen which says that some third party can swoop down and claim that someone else's work is theirs, excepting some voluntary, advance agreement. So, even though the guy may have a big box of Ansel Adams stuff, it looks to me like it wouldn't be commercially viable. The estate would probably have the exclusive right to control who makes money off of Ansel Adams' work.</p>

<p>That's not to say that they couldn't drum up some compromise; but, a big one would be unlikely, given the tenacity with which the estate has safeguarded his image all these years. My guess is the most the guy would get out of it might be some fees for getting it transported back to them, and so on. Some money for his trouble to date; that'd probably be reasonable. </p>

<p>This idea that he's found, and by implication ready to collect, thousands upon thousands of dollars because of the high estimated value of the material; well, that's just not going to match with those other ideas. </p>

<p>People sure do love information sharing. I'm looking forward to the day that we also freely exchange those services that artists and their households need; it'd be a utopia, at the rate people help themselves to info. I'm sure Adams wouldn't have minded sharing his images if he had gotten dental care, food, free lodging, free clothes for his kids, car repairs, cars, clothes . . . everything and anything a man needs. </p>

<p>Nope. Looks like somebody's probably got to send the box back, if he really has what counts.</p>

<p>Although outtakes from that early in his career may have historical or educational value, even AA's own exhibition enlargements of definitive works can vary greatly in worth depending on when they were made. Someone else's enlargements of random landscapes with questionable provenance may get this guy a Toyota but I'd throw the Ferrari catalogs away. He has already spent a decade trying to convince folks this dog can hunt.</p>

<p>fyi there are worlds of difference between "family," "estate," and "trust." A trust is a binding legal document that's prepared by an attorney, it's not a company or bunch of people. It has a life of its own, much like "corporation." If the plates are identified by the trust as belonging to the trust (ie specified individually in the trust), then the trust may have some authority (depends on a judge's ruling). But the family probably doesn't have any control, nor does the estate, if there is still an AA estate. I think that's how this works anyway, copyright issues aside.<br>

As for Sonny Bono, well...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>anybody who had a copy could claim to have the copyright... ...looking over those copyright laws that, of course, there's no "finder's keepers" style of idea.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are confusing the law of chattel with intellectual property law which is what the Copyright Act concerns Ironically, you didn't address the one area where the two different concepts actually ARE specifically linked. Under the first sale doctrine the subsequent owner of a physical object bearing copyrighted intellectual property can sell, transfer, gift or dispose of the same physical object without violating the associated copyright. Every day countless people lawfully obtain ownership in a DVD, a painting, prints, posters, Viewmaster reels, negs and so on and then transfer the physical medium without violating the copyright of the intellectual property. The issue then is whether the seller and buyer legally obtained ownership of the physical object(s) involved. To answer that we would need to determine how they were obtained. Were they originally stolen, mislaid, abandoned, sold or thrown away ect. Unless you know the answer, then you cannot know who owns the plates.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>However, copyright is relevant to the issue of who has the right to make prints from the negatives and sell them commercially -- which Norsigian is doing, albeit at rather outrageous prices: $1500 for a digital print, or $7500 for a darkroom print. I wonder how many he's managed to sell? Not many, I should think.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>copyright is relevant to the issue of who has the right to make prints from the negatives</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correct.</p>

<p><em>"..copyright is relevant to the issue of who has the right to make prints from the negatives and sell them commercially -- which Norsigian is doing."</em></p>

<p>That's not so clearly the situation here: nobody other than Norsigian seems to have stepped up and claimed ownership.</p>

<p>If the Ansel Adams Trust had a legally certain record of image ownership (alternate plate, contact print of same scene at same time etc) or if someone in the family had that sort of record, lawyers would have something to prey on. Without such records, or even assertions, Norsigian would appear to be free from threat. </p>

<p>AA wasn''t a great printer in his early career, btw...obvious in his early prints. Norsigian's inkjets could easily be a lot better by AA's later more famous standards...</p>

<p>As well, $1500 isn't a big price for something as probably-interesting to a certain tier of collectors. The NY Times historic inkjets aren't much less expensive and they reportedly sell a lot of them.</p>

<p>I think this is a fun controversy. Salvador Dali's games come to mind...he signed hundreds of sheets of paper before he died, prints made in mass production long after. They were framed and sold for big dollars in tourist galleries. When appraised later the frames were often worth more than the "original, hand-signed Salvador Dali prints." </p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's not so clearly the situation here: nobody other than Norsigian seems to have stepped up and claimed ownership.</p>

<p>If the Ansel Adams Trust had a legally certain record of image ownership (alternate plate, contact print of same scene at same time etc) or if someone in the family had that sort of record, lawyers would have something to prey on. Without such records, or even assertions, Norsigian would appear to be free from threat.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But Norsigian claims these are Adams' work. If so, and if applicable copyright law says that he and his heirs still own the copyrights (which I'm not sure about, about since the negatives were shot in an era when the USA considered copyright to exist only upon registration), then Norsigian's claim that the negatives are Adams' work undermines his own right to make prints from them for sale.</p>

<p>If the negatives are not Adams' work, then Norsigian is making fraudulent claims about their authorship. If they are Adams' work, then who owns the copyrights, or are the images in the public domain? Right now the Trust is arguing that the images are not Adams', but anytime they like, they could change their tune and start arguing that they own the copyrights.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"..copyright is relevant to the issue of who has the right to make prints from the negatives and sell them commercially -- which Norsigian is doing."</em><br>

That's not so clearly the situation here: nobody other than Norsigian seems to have stepped up and claimed ownership.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is very clearly so. Copyright analysis not only relevant to answering that question, it's REQUIRED. For someone to have a legal right to make prints from negatives/plates, the person must be the copyright owner, be licensed by the owner, doing so under an exception recognized under the Copyright Act or allowed to do so because the copyright is expired. Also, failure for someone to make claims is not the be all and end all to copyright claims absent missed deadlines. Finally, the statement does not adequately distinguish between ownership of the physical medium and ownership of the copyrighted intellectual property.</p>

<p>John, Could you add to the list: "copyright owner, be licensed by the owner, doing so under an exception...", "Purchased the negatives/plates?" If I sold someone the negative, or even gave it to a school to use as they please (teaching, etc.), and it ended up being purchased by someone like Norsigian, wouldn't they also own the copyright under those circumstances?</p>

<p>And what if the trust trademarked Ansel Adam's name?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unless you know the answer, then you cannot know who owns the plates.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, this is partially correct: key scrutiny there would rest with ownership or copyright of the plates. So it is with all copyrights.</p>

<p>Keep in mind, as I think some people recognize but maybe not everybody, there are multiple questions at hand:</p>

<ul>

<li>Who owns the item?</li>

<li>Who has the copyright on those items?</li>

</ul>

<p>The answers to those two questions do not have to be the same. Two different sets of answers to those questions can coexist. As a practical matter, most of time, and the easiest way, is for those two characteristics to be united under one and the same, but more than one person or entity can own one or some of those characteristics, without owning the whole thing outright.</p>

<p>Who owns the plates and who has a right to use them commercially may be two different entities. Copyright law is not about possession of an item. It's about the right to use the item for commercial gain within an area. Thus, "infringement."</p>

<p>"Infringement," as a word, is related to "trespassing." When an artist files for copyright protection, the argument is being made in advance that they are declaring that area (US) as their sales territory for those artworks of their own making. By registering for copyright protection, or otherwise gaining a copyright (like from direct creation), the copyright holder is staking out his sales territory. By default, works created in the US are sell-able primarily by the initial creator.</p>

<p>Infringement protection, like copyright registration, is not theft protection or assurance of object ownership. It's protection against having the wrong person or entity sell the item. Any number of people can posses the item or a copy of it. They almost have to, with most forms of media, but not necessarily with every type of artwork. The genius of copyright protection is that it bypasses structure of an item and links ideas to sales. With other goods, possession alone can hold and show the value.</p>

<p>That is, while Adams' estate probably has a clear line on the use of the plates for commerce, it doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be the sole possessors of the items. On a practical level, the guy who has them won't gain much from possessing them; except maybe the liability of holding them.</p>

<p>Besides, there's only so much hypothetical spitballing is going to accomplish. It'll get down to them and their deals. The glass negatives don't belong to the public at large, so far, that's for sure.</p>

<p>Trademarks can be binding at the state, national or international levels; and, they're usually by coordinated consent. The limits of what's what with a trademark would lie within the bounds of its registration. Really, the only interesting thing about artworks and trademarks is that in the case of fine arts, an artists signature has been a recognized trademark in the US since a lawsuit that came up around 1947. A painter sued and won; the painter's party successfully argued that the signature on the painting was a trade-mark. </p>

<p>Okay, now, if you recognize the difference between hanging on to the artwork, and having the right to sell it, then there comes up another interesting idea: earlier, someone posted that the family was denying that the plates were authentic.</p>

<p>Well. As you can see, this is not about possession. This is about the right to copy and sell (copy-right, copyright). </p>

<p>So, they have a motive to deny authenticity. If the items are authentic, how does that affect the rarity or other aspects of the images which were used to determine previous prices? For example, hey, if there's so much of this floating around that just anybody can pick up a box of them at a garage sale; well, that'd be more supply lower demand, lower prices. I exaggerate; but, I think it doesn't take a great deal of sophistication to see that suddenly finding a box of these glass plates would not be a financial boon to the finder; it wouldn't be a financial gain to the Adams' Trust; it'd probably be a source of price decreases, if it affected any pricing at all.</p>

<p>Unless the markets are irrational; in which case, maybe someone could try to sell a modest new one; but, that, too, might kick off a change in pricing and valuing the older, other works already sold and re-sold in the market. </p>

<p>It's in the Trust's most likely interest to have things kept the way they were. Unfortunately, somebody may have just found a big box of the stuff. We'll see. Even if they didn't; the perception that they did might alone be damaging to a pricing scheme. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sometimes rumors are such that they can put you out of business. <br>

--Alan "Ace" Greenberg, Bear Stearns</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>This idea that the "keeper of the plates" might own the stuff, but won't be able to use it commercially is my driving idea for the suggestion that he consider returning the box. Trying to use them for anything would end up being a real big burden and a fight. Might want to weigh that set of ideas before moving on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I sold someone the negative, or even gave it to a school to use as they please (teaching, etc.), and it ended up being purchased by someone like Norsigian, wouldn't they also own the copyright under those circumstances?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I buy the original manuscript to a novel, do I automatically own the copyright to it? No, of course not. You're confusing possession of a physical object with ownership of a legal right. They're not the same thing at all and they don't automatically go together.</p>