If purported Ansel Adams photos earn big money, their discoverer may not get to keep it [Updated]

Here's a little plot-thickener in the strange case of the disputed photo negatives of Yosemite and coastal California scenes that may or may not have been taken by Ansel Adams.

Rick Norsigian, a wall-painter for the Fresno school district, bought the old-fashioned glass-plate negatives 10  years ago at a garage sale and has begun selling prints made from them on his website as authentic Adams images, priced at $7,500 for hand-developed prints, $1,500 for digital copies and $45 for posters.

But according to a brief lesson in copyright law that Culture Monster got Wednesday from L.A. attorney Lawrence Iser, a go-to figure in the music business, if Norsigian makes a mint -- and an appraisal he released Tuesday put the potential value at more than $200 million -- he could face the risk of having to turn over all or part of the loot to Ansel Adams' heirs.

All they'd have to do is agree with Norsigian that the negatives were shot by Adams -- something they've so far disputed, saying the proof he proffered for the first time on Tuesday falls far short.

Iser has represented the Beatles, Michael Jackson, the Doors and Crosby, Stills & Nash, among others; when Jackson Browne wanted to stop John McCain from using "Running on Empty" in a commercial for his 2008 presidential campaign, Iser helped Browne win an apology for violating his copyright. He's now representing composer David Byrne in a similar case over the Talking Heads' song "Road to Nowhere" cropping up without authorization in a campaign commercial for Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who's running for a U.S. Senate seat.

According to Iser, simply owning a reproducible artifact, such as a photographic negative, a recording artist's master tape or the original manuscript of a novel, doesn't give that object's owner any rights to make copies and sell them. The copyright -- and the earnings that flow from it -- belongs to the artist and his or her estate.

For how long? In the case of a previously unpublished work such as the disputed negatives, which Norsigian published a few days ago when he began selling them, Iser says the artist's heirs retain the copyright for 70 years after the artist's death. In the case of Adams, who died in 1984, that would be until 2054.

Norsigian's attorney, Arnold Peter, saw things differently when asked Tuesday about possible copyright issues: "We have looked into that and we don't believe there are any copyright issues. We believe that copyright has either expired or been abandoned. We believe it would have expired at the latest in the year 2000," based on 70 years having passed since the pictures were shot.

"I'm sure Ansel Adams' family is getting some legal advice about how they should best deal with it," Iser said. If the photos are proven to be by Adams, Iser said, Norsigian "would need a license or permission from the estate of Ansel Adams to reproduce the photographs. Ownership of the master does not mean you own copyright."

But in order to make a claim on Norsigian's earnings from the prints, or to stop their sale, Iser said, Adams' estate would have to first agree with Norsigian that the 17 pictures he has published so far, out of a cache of 65, are authentic works by Ansel Adams.

We posed the question to William Turnage, Adams' former business manager who is managing trustee of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust that administers the copyright for the photographer's work.

"It is an interesting conundrum," Turnage wrote in an e-mail Wednesday. "And I seriously doubt we would ever claim these negatives as Ansel's ... since we do not believe they are Ansel's. But we have copyrighted Ansel's name and believe that this precludes others from using it for commercial purposes without permission."

[Update: 10:50 a.m. Thursday. “We are exploring…legal options” on how to stop the sale of the prints, said Matthew Adams, the photographer’s grandson and president of the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite, in an email Thursday. However, Adams said he is reluctant to claim that the sales are a copyright violation, because that would require a legal acknowledgement that they are Ansel Adams images.

“We believe they are not Adams negatives, and don't relish the thought of handing a moral victory to the people who are perpetuating this fantasy," Adams said. "We also think that by doing so we would be making an inaccurate attribution to Ansel Adams' legacy, and that we would also suddenly have hundreds if not thousands of negatives thrust at us claiming Ansel Adams legitimacy.”

Stay tuned to Culture Monster for possible further adventures in these borderlands where artistic vision overlaps with commerce and the law.

-- Mike Boehm

Recent and Related

Did Ansel Adams take these photos? Are they worth $200 million? Depends who you ask

ricknorsigian.com

He is glass-plate positive

Ansel Adams, in sharper focus

Photos: Rick Norsigian at Tuesday's news conference detailing experts' opinions that negatives he owns were by Ansel Adams; Ansel Adams' "Self Portrait, Monument Valley Utah, 1958." Credits: Lawrence K. Ho / Los Angeles Times (top); Ansel Adams / Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust (bottom)

Comments

[Kenneth Bobu]

Whether Norsigian is playing with a full deck aside: The bottom line is that if you own the negatives, you own all reproductive rights thereto. The Adams clan's claim otherwise is preposterous since the field of photography has always controlled the capacity to reproduce and control copyright of such reproductions based upon who owns the negatives, not who shot the photograph.

I know they are desperate, but I see this going nowhere very fast.

[william wray]

I think he can sell them, but can't promote the name to do it. It's a catch 22. If you own a painting of mine, it doesn't mean you can sell prints of it.

[Alejandra]

Just because you own the negative does not mean you own the copyright. You can only profit from selling prints of the negative if you have the permission of the copyright owner. Film archives have to deal with this situation on a daily basis. They preserve and restore films with public funds of many films whose copyright belongs to others who in turn make a profit by distributing the new prints in DVD. Sometimes archives own both the physical item and the copyright and can exploit it for profit.

[Alana Raso]

Forget that, I'd rather buy legitimate Ansel Adams reprints (printed from his negatives by his assistant Alan Ross) for $225. I own three, they are spectacular.

[bruce]

if they're ever authenticated aa, mr. norsigian gets his cut by saying "i'm sure we can reach a mutually agreeable resolution, or i'll drop this box of negatives in the ocean like the woman did in the movie "titanic".

[Michael Frye]

Alana's comment echoes my thoughts. In all this hubbub about authenticity, no one seems to question that $200 million figure. Really? Seriously? Why would anyone pay $7500 for a "hand-developed" print that may or may not be authentic, and even if it is authentic, is not one of Ansel's best images, and was not printed and signed by him. As Alana points out, you can buy a Special Edition Photograph of Moon and Half Dome, one of Ansel's most famous images, undoubtedly authentic, and printed by Alan Ross, Ansel's last assistant, who Ansel trained to print these according to his specifications, for $225. What makes any of Mr. Norsigian's prints any more valuable than that?

By the way, Alana Raso, that's an interesting name, bears a striking resemblance to the aforementioned Alan Ross. Trying to post anonymously perhaps? Nice try!

[Brett]

Copyrights don't just magically attach themselves to something once it's created. One has to apply for a copyright to obtain a copyright so that the copyright can be enforced. If something gets published without a copyright first having been obtained, then it's in the public domain. If Norsigian applied for and obtained copyrights for the negatives and for prints made from them, I don't see where the Adams family has a leg to stand on, in the world of copyright. However, the trademark of the Ansel Adams name might trump Norsigian's right to profit from the sale of the prints.

[Gun control]

Who need more Ansel Adams photos anyway? They are so terribly over-rated.

[Chris Anthony]

@Brett, you have it exactly wrong. Copyrights DO just magically (well, automatically) attach themselves to something once it's created. That's been true since the Berne Convention in 1886; Article 5, Section 2 is the relevant text: http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/5.html . The only thing registration does is provide a paper trail.

[Rob McElroy]

Brett,

Unfortunately, you are misinformed when it comes to the US Copyright law. You stated, "Copyrights don't just magically attach themselves to something once it's created." In fact, that is exactly what they do. The second the shutter release is pressed, the photographer secures copyright to his work. No one else is legally allowed to reproduce his work without his permission.

Kenneth Bobu is also misinformed when he says, "The bottom line is that if you own the negatives, you own all reproductive rights thereto." That statement is 100% inaccurate. Ownership gives you NO reproduction rights whatsoever under US Copyright law. None. It doesn't matter whether you own the original negatives, or a print from the negatives. If you didn't take the original photograph, and you can't verify that the image has passed into the public domain, then you can't legally make and sell prints of the image.

Copyright is very simple. If you are the original creator, you are the ONLY ONE who has the legal right in the US (other countries have different copyright laws) to make and sell copies of your creation. And, your copyright to something can only be transferred to someone else if you did so in writing.

The bottom line is, Norsigian has no legal reproduction rights whatsoever to the negatives just because he owns them, and he can not file his own copyright on them if he was not the original creator.

Now that it looks like the original creator of these negatives was Earl Brooks of Fresno, CA in 1923, and not Ansel Adams, this all becomes a moot point.

Because it's doubtful that Earl Brooks transferred the copyright to his images (in writing) to someone else before he died, Norsigian can probably make and sell all the prints he desires without fear of being sued for copyright infringement, as long as he doesn't claim they are by Ansel Adams.

[Photography Hobbyist]

I know I don't have the skills/knowledge of Ansel, but I know that the negatives themselves are worthless without the darkroom skills of Mr. Adams.

Having the negatives - whether or not they were taken by Adams, is like having a palette full of paint and saying it's a daVinci. The beauty and artistry of Ansel prints come from what he did with the negatives.

To just make prints out of the negatives will NOT give you what you get with a true Ansel print, it will give you a picture of rocks and trees - and I've got tons of those if you want to spend money on that...

[Marny]

I don't know whether this has any bearing on the legal issues, but it's worth noting that Ansel Adams was, of course, famous for his work in the darkroom. It wasn't only his shots and masterful knowledge of the light on the land that were stupendous, but the highly technical way he went about creating the individual prints, which often differed strikingly from the negatives. It seems to me that anyone who would pay for a print made from anyone other than Adams from an alleged Adams negative is twice fooled.

[Milka]

It's all about the almighty buck and name.
If the negatives were by some local hack
it would barely get a yawn .But the vastly
overated Adams and the industry that keeps
the myth going senses $$$$- it will be interesting
to watch the game of greed, and "artistic"integrity spelt $ $$$$ play out. All
this fuss over postcard phtography .

[wendy]

These negatives are overturning the heirs' applecart, for sure. Resting comfortably with their license to print money via Adams's name and body of work, all of a sudden, their power over someone else's work has been disrupted.
It is sad to see their reaction is to deny the prints are by Adams, a position clearly motivated by money and legal manoevering, rather than legitimate interest in the artist's work.
They should welcome the possibility of unknown photos, an event which should add interest to Adams's history and body of work.
Looks to me like there is a case to be made that the negatives were made by Adams.
In Canada at least, copyright is owned by the person who takes the picture, not the owner, unless it has been agreed otherwise. The comparison of a painting is correct--simply because you own a work, does not give you the right to reproduce it. That is a separate negotiation.
The copyrighting (or perhaps they meant trademarking?) of the name Ansel Adams doesn't give any additional right to the work itself. That is a separate issue. It is simply a name.
When copyright expires--on a photo that usually happens 50 yrs after it was made, it can be renewed, or it goes into the public domain.
After that, I don't know what the rules are. From the various positions taken in this article, it seems like eveyone just makes up their own version and says it is so. So bring on the lawyers and start filling their pockets with money till someone is declared a winner. Looks like that's what's going to take place.
Of course, one voice is missing in all this--Ansel Adams. If these are indeed his pictures, what would he want done with them?

[Dennis Hill]

Wouldn't the copyright law in effect at the time the photographs were made be the prevailing law and not the current law? In the early part of the last century, copyright extended only 7 years and then had to be registered again, otherwise they would go into the public domain. It gets a bit tricky and legally complicated but you'd have to follow all of the changes in the law over time to determine if they indeed are in the public domain. Today's law makes the copyright almost automatic but back when these photographs were made, it was not.

[Mike]

The copyright is indeed separate from the ownership of the negatives. And before the whole Disney/Sono Bono stuff with the copyright act, the images would have been clearly in the public domain. Now? Who knows.

But the negatives belong to Norsigian.

The estate is worried about this, because there have been no Adams negatives in the wild until now. They have been selling only prints (not made by Adams at this point, obviously, but by one of his assistants). So owning an actual glass negative has not been possible. Forget the prints. Norsigian could sell the negatives for a mint, and he, not the estate, owns those. He has a lot of leverage here. If the estate doesn't acknowledge their authenticity, he can sell prints. If they do, he can say he'll start to sell negatives unless he reaches a good deal with the estate.

The estate says that the value of an Adams photo is in the darkroom manipulation. Not completely true. Adams used his zone system to expose the negative, and pushed and pulled the development to get a wide tonal range in the negative. This is much of the value of Adams photos, and it's baked into the negatives. Then he printed them by dodging and burning to get more detail. This is also part of the value. So half the value is in the negatives. The other half in in the development, but Adams is dead now, so Norsigian could hire a talented darkroom guy and the prints would be just as good as the ones produced by the guy doing prints for the estate.

[Lee Gainer]

There are two different things going on here.

Negatives (the objects) and the images on them. Norsigian owns the negatives and that's all. He does not own the image on them and thus does not have the right to make copies of them. It's quite simple. If Norsigian had bought a dvd of Avatar at the yard sale, he could not legally make copies of the film and sell them.

Frankly, if I had fell upon these plates/negs as he did, I'd be selling them to the highest bidder, grinning ear to ear over my financial luck, and living a good life without all this whoha.