Ansel Adams Trust Sues Guy Claiming To Have Found Long Lost Adams' Negatives For Selling Prints
from the copyright-or-trademark? dept
Well, well. A few weeks back, we wrote about the story of a guy who had bought some old glass negatives at a garage sale, and recently had them authenticated as being done by Ansel Adams. What interested us was the question of whether or not the guy, Rick Norsigian, could legally sell prints from the negatives. It seemed quite clear that doing so would almost certainly be copyright infringement. Purchasing negatives does not give you the right to print the works, unless you separately buy the associated copyrights. So, at first, I wondered if Ansel Adams' heirs would even let the guy sell prints. Of course, soon after the news came out, the Ansel Adams trust insisted the whole thing was a fraud -- and given some of the recent stories questioning the validity of certain art authentication practices -- perhaps their argument has merit.Either way, it appears that Norsigian has barged forward with a plan to sell prints from the negatives, and reader Tom sends over the news that the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust is now suing him for it. While I haven't seen the actual lawsuit, the reporting on it notes that it covers: "trademark infringement, false advertising, trademark dilution, unfair competition and other claims." Missing from the list? Copyright. Making a copyright claim would be tantamount to admitting that they believed the images were legit. The Trust does make an argument that could leave it open to a copyright claim down the road, should the negatives be declared from Adams', but it may somewhat undermine their own argument in that:
The lawsuit further says that even if they were Adams' negatives, the prints and posters being created from them aren't the photographer's works, "but are derivative works at best."While derivative works can be infringing, by saying they're "derivative at best," you could make an argument that such prints are fair use transformative works, rather than copies -- though it might not fly.
"Mr. Adams was fond of likening a negative to a composer's score and the prints to its performance -- each performance differs in subtle ways," the lawsuit said. "The photographic prints and posters offered for sale by defendants ... are not an Ansel Adams 'performance.' "
Either way, I can't see any legal way that Norsigian can sell these prints: if they're not Adams', then calling them Adams' opens himself up to all those charges in the case, with false advertising being a big one. If they actually are Adams' negatives, then he has no copyright on them and again should not be able to sell them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ansel adams, copyright, negatives, photographs, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I pray
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why on earth should I not have the copyright on something I legally acquired, nobody claimed copyright on *and* the copyright wasn't exempt from the buying-conditions?
Can somebody explain to me why this ain't another example of the copyright laws being royally broken?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You buy a book, you don't get the copyright on the story. You buy negatives, you don't get the copyright on the photos.
nobody claimed copyright on *and* the copyright wasn't exempt from the buying-conditions?
None of that matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then someone would need to show up with that contract or it's meaningless. But since the photos were never published and there appears to be no registration of copyright on these photos, the law is what the law says: copyright belongs to the Adams' heirs until 2054 -- assuming the negatives really are Adams'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I buy somebody's manuscript of a book (since negatives are like manuscripts, an unfinished product) at a garage-market, there's no legal contract saying I don't buy the copyright... and I still don't have the copyright?
Honestly seems a bit adventurous to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's correct. Buy the manuscript at a garage sale and you still do not own the copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
broken
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: broken
Or strictly told, whoever got a recording/work of yours that's not for publication, that it's not for distribution in an implied and/or explicit way.
Am I assuming wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the prints were never published how could they have a copyright? Think that's a key concept that is missing in your analysis. If Adams never copyrighted them and no one in the family knew about them. How do we know that he didn't take them and then gave them to someone to do as they pleased. How do we know that he didn't give them to someone in payment of a debt? Hundreds of scenario's of why someone might have them. But since Adams has been dead 26 yrs. We will never know. But what we do know... if true is they have never been published or copyrighted and then never printed. The idea that he can't is no longer clear in the murky waters of our legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
Never Published, Never Registered Works:
Life of the author + 70 years
Adams died in 1984. Hence, copyright is his heirs until 2054 according to copyright law.
Yay copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Valued Treasures From The Past
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what's next?
That's exactly what people throw around when you try to do something against copyright/trademark/patent law these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protagoras and Euathlus did it first
But the law is what it is, not what storytellers want it to be. They can sue now for trademark infringement on the claim that Adams didn't make the plates, then sue later for copyright infringement on the claim that he did, and maybe win both cases (or lose both). A lawyer with sufficient b-- *ahem*, brass could conceivably put both in the same suit, except that the family doesn't want to feed the "lost Adams" buzz. And while Adams certainly felt that the making of the master print from the negative was a vital part of the creative process (and he sure took enough pains with it), other artists are much more mechanical about that step; heaven help us if the courts try to tailor the law to the artistic sensibilities of the individual photographer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protagoras and Euathlus did it first
Nope. It's still under *someone's* copyright. It becomes a classic orphan work at that point. Nobody knows who actually 'owns' it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
letting everyone know, they are being destroyed because of the children/estate of adams and the ridiculous length and passing on of rights of things they had nothing to do with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if the Ansel Adams Trust didn't want the glass negatives (and I think they would be foolish not to check them out and buy if they seemed genuine), I am sure that someone would pay a good price for them at an auction.
The finder still then has a great story about finding the negatives, and I would assume a decent sum from the sale, plus no hassles over trying to market the prints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Buy negative plates of questionable origin on the cheap at garage sale.
2. Have negatives "declared" authentic Adams.
3. Hype negatives via new media on interwebs.
4. Sell prints for what they are: photos ~perhaps~ taken by famous dude.
5. Sell the negatives.
6. ???
7. Profit!
8. Hope to God that the real photographer doesn't come forward and sue you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is then up to the market (consumer) to say whether they are this or that, known or unknown.. He might make less money. But he will make a LOT more than $30 he paid for them.
If someone then states. Oh I bought an Adams print.. that's their problem. And it is then a burdon on the Adams Trust to prove they are Adams' or not. If not they then have very weak trademark/dilution since the original seller does not state they are or aren't.
The other way to do this is to photograph the actual negatives.. then sell the negatives of the negatives (Yes people analog film). Up to the buyer to make prints or not then.
Ooops... did I just make a convoluted legal logic bomb? My bad ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WAIT IT OUT
Or pass them to your kids...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless copyright is expressely transfered, it remains with the photographer, regardless of who owns the negatives..its amazing how many folks think that because they have a image they can do what ever they chose with it, including scanning it to make more copies..you can with written permission from the photographer...or in this case from the estate..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But how are these derivative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]