Anyone that has worked with AA says that he was able to work magic on even the worst negative through his printing skills. They may be his plates but the prints that are obtained from them now surely cannot be and are therefor worthless. -Andy On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:12 PM, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, July 28, 2010 11:22, Karl Shah-Jenner wrote: >> gosh! >> >> http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/picture-this-45-garage-sale-purchase-worth-200-million/story-e6frfmd9-1225897918042 > > > I'm hearing it asserted online that the family (um, I mean Adams' family) > is denying that these are his work; but I can't find any reference to that > more authoritative than random people in mailing lists. There's certainly > no mention of it on the major Adams web sites, or in articles Google News > finds me. > > Unfortunately, both claims and denials may have more to do with jockeying > over money than with trying to determine if the pictures are really by > Adams. > > If the pictures are in fact by Adams, and haven't been published before, > it seems like they're still in copyright, and the copyright would be owned > by his heirs (or somewhere the copyrights were formally transferred to; > copyrights cannot be transferred "informally"), which would seem to > interfere with publication by others. However, if the family is actually > denying these are Adams' work, then presumably they can't claim copyright > ownership.... > -- > David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ > Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ > Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ > Dragaera: http://dragaera.info >
