About These Recently Discovered Ansel Adams Negatives

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Read the "Final Report" of the panel of so-called experts. Bunk.<br>

Read and analyze the claims of the so-called "experts" Norsigian is using. Alt is unqualified to authenticate Adams' work. He knows no more than any other experienced user of Large Format who has admired Adams' work.<br>

One of their handwriting experts also declared genuine the signature on the phony documents in the scandal at CBS that cost Dan Rather his job.</p>

<p>Their "Final Report" is a joke.<br>

Ridiculous claims like the 6.5 x8.5 inch format used was "unique to Ansel Adams".<br>

Or a comparison between a known Adams image and one of their negatives which claims to show they are "virtually identical", when they were taken from different camera positions and at different times (look at the shadows), though Alt claims they were taken "within moments" of each other. Furthermore, he used the snow pack on distant mountains to determine that claim. Like snow melts that fast! The "Uncle Earl" picture was much closer to identical.<br>

The negatives were supposedly found in L.A. sometime in the 40's. Adams was in L.A. sometime in the 40's. Really conclusive, that.<br>

And so on. Sheesh.</p>

<p>I like Alt's own work. Clearly his strengths do not lie in forensic analysis.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Could you add to the list: "copyright owner, be licensed by the owner, doing so under an exception...", "Purchased the negatives/plates?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Simply becoming the owner of a physical object doesn't mean they become the owner of the copyright image on it. Someone owning both the physical object and the copyrighted imagery on it could, however, transfer both the object and also independently transfer the copyright with it. If copyright ownership were specifically transferred to the buyer, then the buyer becomes the copyright owner. Copyright owners are already on the list.</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 you also transferred your ownership of the copyright as well so copies could be made, then the school could later transfer its ownership of the negatives and also its ownership of the copyright if it so desires.</p>

 

[leicaglow]

<p>In John Sexton's email this morning, he has some excellent points. First, there was not a photo historian on the "expert" list. He also believes (and his relatives agree) the images were shot buy "Uncle Earl", a photographer who lived in Fresno and shot on similar plates in the Yosemite valley, and whose images are nearly identical to those in question. Sexton also suggested that someone should have checked the edge markings from the plates and negatives to see if there was a match between those in question, and others from the AA collection--or against the holders themselves, which probably still exist.</p>

<p>Here is what the relatives of Uncle Earl say: http://www.ktvu.com/news/24432262/detail.html.</p>

<p>And this story is also excellent: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1299227/Has-Ansel-Adams-mystery-garage-sale-negatives-solved.html</p>

<p>... ouch! Maybe he should just tuck them away under his pool table again.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>the images were shot buy "Uncle Earl", a photographer who lived in Fresno and shot on similar plates in the Yosemite valley</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wedding photographers have to deal with Uncle Bobs. Top level outdoor photographers have to deal with Uncle Earls.</p>