Re: what a find

[Karl Shah-Jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 

----- Original Message -----

From: David Dyer-Bennet

To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students

Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:12 AM

Subject: Re: what a find

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

 

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....

 

 

I wouldn't imagine the new owner of these negatives would event attempt to claim copyright .. simply owning them would be enough (if they are indeed Adams negatives)..

 

As you say though, the right to produce images from these negatives could prove interesting.  He owns the negs clearly - but he has no idea who owns the image rights and can only speculate.  This leaves me wondering if he could ever produce images from these plates