From: otter on
On Jul 28, 7:21 pm, otter <bighorn_b...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:58 pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/07/28/ansel.ada...
>
> > "I have sent people to prison for the rest of their lives for far less
> > evidence than I have seen in this case," said evidence and burden of
> > proof expert Manny Medrano, who was hired by Norsigian to help
> > authenticate the plates. "In my view, those photographs were done by
> > Ansel Adams."
>
> What do you think is provocative about this?  He is saying the plates
> are genuine.

I'd seen that quote in previous stories, but didn't follow this link.
Yeah, I guess things are heating up...
From: MC on
HocusPocus wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:13:53 -0700, Gary Edstrom
> <GEdstrom(a)PacBell.Net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:58:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA
> > <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/07/28/ansel.adams.negative.dispute/index.html?iref=NS1
> > >
> > > "I have sent people to prison for the rest of their lives for far
> > > less evidence than I have seen in this case," said evidence and
> > > burden of proof expert Manny Medrano, who was hired by Norsigian
> > > to help authenticate the plates. "In my view, those photographs
> > > were done by Ansel Adams."
> >
> > What do you want to bet that if they are indeed genuine, the Ansel
> > Adams heirs will sue to get them back as stolen property?
>
> Gary, in that clip his grandson says they're not genuine. The
> handwriting is not his grandmother's and the spelling mistakes don't
> fit with her spending lots of time at Yosemite. I must be missing
> something. How will they be confirmed as genuine? It IS fascinating
> stuff! :)

The whole thing stinks of jealousy. The Adams clan don't like the fact
that this "stranger" has become very rich on the back of their famous
relative.

MC
From: Douglas Johnson on
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:


>The true value of these negatives, if proven to be genuine, lies in
>what they are, and who created them, not any pseudo "Adams" prints
>which might be produced from them.

It is not clear to me that the owner of those negatives has the right to sell
prints from them. Ownership of the negatives is not necessarily the ownership
of the copyright. -- Doug
From: Doug McDonald on
On 7/29/2010 4:42 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The true value of these negatives, if proven to be genuine, lies in
>> what they are, and who created them, not any pseudo "Adams" prints
>> which might be produced from them.
>
> It is not clear to me that the owner of those negatives has the right to sell
> prints from them. Ownership of the negatives is not necessarily the ownership
> of the copyright. -- Doug

But to enfore copyright, the real owner has to come forward.

The Adams estate has already said they are not Adams' negatives.
So THEY can't prevent sale by copyright. They might try to prevent them
as being labeled as "from Ansel Adams's negatives". But it would
be hard to stop "attributed to" Adams.

Doug McDonald



From: Savageduck on
On 2010-07-29 14:42:26 -0700, Douglas Johnson <post(a)classtech.com> said:

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The true value of these negatives, if proven to be genuine, lies in
>> what they are, and who created them, not any pseudo "Adams" prints
>> which might be produced from them.
>
> It is not clear to me that the owner of those negatives has the right to sell
> prints from them. Ownership of the negatives is not necessarily the ownership
> of the copyright. -- Doug

This is somewhat like finding working sketches of "The Nightwatch" or
Da Vinci's "Adoration of The Magi".

--
Regards,

Savageduck