Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I bet the guy that sold them just read this and had a heart attack!!! What a find!

It is joke that they just multiply everything on the previous sales price of each. I doubt if even 10% is reachable.

Daniel

nice find, but i also think $200M is bonkers. If you find a stash of something, it's rarity becomes diluted and the value goes down. However, i'm sure he can retire off what gets anyway.

Sell in in small batches, like 2 at a time every couple years or so.

Regardless, I agree, he's sitting pretty!

this "find" has had a variety of threads about it in the Large Format Photography Forum

this thread started in April 2007

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ ... nsel+adams

the reality is that obviously the owner of these negatives wants them to be from Ansel Adams but the balance of the evidence (there is no real "proof" possible in this situation) from a variety of experts the owner has consulted over the years say that these negatives are NOT from Ansel Adams. The evidence is all circumstantial.

Since he couldn't prove they are AA's now he is trying to "milk" his find by selling prints....

Antiques are not from the same person/maker. Although they also get value from being somewhat rare since you cant manufacture an antique, per se. Also, you can go into a store and buy some antiques for relatively cheap. Now, let's say that all antiques were destroyed by some fanatical emperor and there were only 10 antique chairs left in the entire world. I can assure you that their value would skyrocket. This same logic follows through why limited edition prints are more valuable than unlimited edition prints.

Da Vinci paintings have a much larger market and name-recognition and would sell for sure, but if his volume of work was, say, doubled, for example, the prices would still probably be affected. Why would person A go to an auction and try to outbid another guy at $150M, when there are three of them for sale in the same lot, for example? rarity + value for collectors.

Of course, I dont profess to be an art appraiser and maybe it does have a value of $200M, so long as the rarity factor was considered, which sometimes isnt always the case when people just throw numbers around on finding hidden "treasures" because the big numbers make the news.

The current story says that they have in fact been confirmed as Adams' work now.

this is the quote from the story

"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 them. "In my view, those photographs were done by Ansel Adams."

notice he says "burden of proof", getting a number of experts to say they are authentic, especially when the payout is millions of dollars, does not make it authentic

based on what I have read, I maintain the opinion that no definitive confirmation is possible in this situation. There are too many other experts including his own son and his photographic assistants who are just as resolute in their opinion that these are not from Ansel Adams.

Another interesting question here is whether they can be marketed as AA's prints? What about the issue of copyright. Here is a comment on this question from LFF. It will be interesting to see if the copyright holder's of the Ansel Adams name launch a legal suit.

If you are interested in seeing how they are being marketed here is the link

http://ricknorsigian.com/norsigian_purchase.html

Buyer beware.....


"" ....if the A.A. trust were to acknowledge the negs. were A.A.s, who would own the rights to the images, which would be different, i think, then who owns the negatives. ? ""


If they were created before the Copyright Law of 1978 went into force (which they were), then their protection by copyright would depend on being so marked. Then, that copyright protection would have lasted for a term of 28 years, which could be renewed once. Registration would have been required to get protection during the renewal period.

So, if the photos were made before 1950, and the copyright never marked or registered, they are in the public domain and nobody owns the copyright.

If they were created before that time and copyrighted by AA and subsequently renewed, then they would have been under copyright protection when the new law went into effect, and would be protected until 90 years after his death (2074).

But, of course, had they been registered, there would be no argument about whether he made the photos in the first place. The presence of that argument indicates to me that they were not registered. If they fell into public hands without an attached copyright notice, it could be argued that they fell into the public domain. That seems to me the most likely possibility.

Thus, it is likely that nobody owns the copyright to these images. And if that's the case, then the owner of the negatives themselves must control how they provide access to the negatives. If they allow someone to make prints, it will either be considered work for hire, allowing the negative owner to claim copyright in the resulting print, or at least the fine-printing techniques applied to that print, or the copyright on the print with those techniques would be owned by the printer.

Without documented copyright registration, I don't believe AA's descendants or the trust can claim ownership of the copyright unless they can show that the work was treated as copyrighted material, which is clearly not the case (else how would they have gotten in someone's garage?). Also, one cannot claim copyright ownership to something whose provenance they have discredited.

I suspect that Ansel Adams's name has been registered as a trademark, however. That would restrict the ability of the negative owners to use that trademark without being able to prove the provenance. And it may not be trademark but some other protection owing to a person's name.

Rick "doubting the value of prints made from the negatives even if they are authentic" Denney

ok I should leave this topic, but I still find it infuriating that they are taking the position that they can definitely confirm these are by AA. Someone has worked very hard (and spent alot of money) trying to turn $75 into $20M

just look at their evidence, and here is a quote from their press release:

""...In order to finally authenticate the negatives, Norsigian hired two experts--one in hand writing analysis and the other in climate and meteorology. The husband of Adams

wow, what a mess.

I guess when you shoot landscape, it tough to identify it as a unique concept.

and what the heck is a 'burden of proof' expert? That's what juries and judges are for. isn't it someone who simply says, based on his opinion, the evidence weighs in favour of X over Y? Doesn't sound very definitive to me. Too bad for the people sent to jail over it.

I guess with digital, it's easier to track down the origin of an electronic file.

What's also interesting is that, you dont have the experts saying "these photographs are breathtaking and worth X millions of dollars, regardless of who took them". It's all about the name of the photographer, not the quality of the picture.

Who's Ansel Adams?

The only way to authenticate this is to find that missing picture of AA with these pictures surronding him and AA holding up a newspaper showing the date and headlines from that time!

Now, how much would that be worth?

'tater, i rarely appreciate yer EEU arrogance (too close to home, i guess) but this time i'm with ya

I call that arrogance sarcasm

oh well, would be a crazy world if things suddenly started to change beacuse of the names we give them

things are crazy already if people make such a big deal out of somebody's name

saw this on Fark this morning, too good not to share:

"How can you prove a negative?"

proof by contradiction

I think all tmpgers have got emails from the CEO of Nigerian National Bank about picking up some money

Daniel

Ansel Adams was a master printer first and a photographer second. He made hundreds if not thousands of negatives of Yosemite (and presumably the ones that were found were probably not among his 'best' - ie. AA probably kept the ones he wanted to print from). Millions of others have done the same over the years made their own prints. The negatives only have a historical value and belong in an archive or a museum. The only thing of true value is an AA vintage print - produced by the now dead (and therefore of truly limited edition) master himself.

The harsh reality is that no matter what $$$ the owner puts on it, no one will buy it for anyone near those prices. The owners intention (as articulated in an interview I heard on CBC Radio 1 yesterday) is to sell prints made from those negatives - only way to create a revenue stream - and the valuation and controversy behind it are an inexpensive way to obtain worldwide media exposure and 'free' marketing.

This story underlines the importance of crafting the highest quality prints possible because the negative (or RAW file) is nothing more than a historical record (one that in this day and age is in abundance and in and of itself, of little value - beyond personal/emotional value attributed by the photographer).

Things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. Period.

so the negatives were likely taken by Uncle Earl not by Ansel Adams
the "burden of proof" appears stronger...

http://www.ktvu.com/news/24432262/detail.html

Does Ansel Adams have a photo of a double rainbow? A double rainbow all the way 'cross the sky.

Oh man, "Uncle Earl" is a master!! Now they will be worth $400M!! LOL

Actually, it shows you how much just the name means. Same pictures and same quality but add a famous name = $200M, Uncle Earl took the same photos = $10 bux.

Maybe i should change my last name to Picasso or something...