NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-01-2018, 07:54 AM
TCMA's Avatar
TCMA TCMA is offline
Andrew Aronstein
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Peekskill, NY
Posts: 1,010
Default Original negative from historic event, or Type 1 photo of same?

Pick any historic event in baseball history... Babe Ruth's called shot, Jackie Robinson's first day in the Major Leagues, Mazeroski's home run, etc. Now, which is more desirable and why: an original negative that shot the event, or a Type 1 photo of the same event. I can think of a few arguments for both. Discuss .

This list may help:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...eague-baseball
__________________
Visit TCMA Ltd. on Facebook!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-01-2018, 10:49 AM
GKreindler's Avatar
GKreindler GKreindler is offline
Graig Kreindler
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 1,417
Default

Cool question, Andrew. I guess my biggest concern would be, is it for display purposes, or moreso owning a piece of such historical significance? If the it's the former, then I think a photo is gonna win out 9 out of 10 times.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-01-2018, 02:49 PM
sphere and ash's Avatar
sphere and ash sphere and ash is offline
P@u1 R31fer$0n
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 248
Default

I've always felt that the greatest image of a historic baseball event doesn't capture the event directly. I'm referring to George Silk's image of the 1960 World Series for LIFE (disclosure: I own it). What photographer would leave the stadium for a shot of the final inning of the World Series? Silk missed Mazeroski's home run, but got something much better. I think it's one of the greatest baseball images ever taken.

As to your question, while the negative was "there" at the event, there are only a handful of negatives that would sell for more than a vintage print--I'm thinking of Nat Fein's negative of 'Three Bows Out' and Conlon's negative of Ty Cobb sliding into Jimmy Austin.

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-01-2018, 02:57 PM
sphere and ash's Avatar
sphere and ash sphere and ash is offline
P@u1 R31fer$0n
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 248
Default

Here is the image
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screen Shot 2018-03-01 at 4.38.52 PM.jpg (17.7 KB, 145 views)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-01-2018, 03:00 PM
JollyElm's Avatar
JollyElm JollyElm is offline
D@rrΣn Hu.ghΣs
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 7,332
Default

I'm neither a photograph nor a negative collector, but I'll take an odd approach and say what immediately jumps out at me. The negative was in the camera and the image it contains was created as the historical event happened. It was there, an actual witness to the event. The photograph itself was printed elsewhere (I assume) and, literally speaking, has no true attachment to the occurrence itself. So, give me the negative.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land

https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm

Looking to trade? Here's my bucket:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706

“I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.”
Casey Stengel

Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s.

Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-01-2018, 03:04 PM
ramram's Avatar
ramram ramram is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,264
Default

I think the negative would be the most historical item as it captured the actual event. The photo would be the best display of that historic event, but once removed from the event.

Rob M.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-01-2018, 03:28 PM
TCMA's Avatar
TCMA TCMA is offline
Andrew Aronstein
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Peekskill, NY
Posts: 1,010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sphere and ash View Post
Here is the image
Always felt this was a phenomenal shot.
__________________
Visit TCMA Ltd. on Facebook!

Last edited by TCMA; 03-01-2018 at 03:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-01-2018, 04:15 PM
mcgwirecom's Avatar
mcgwirecom mcgwirecom is offline
R@nda!! H@hn
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hatboro, Pa
Posts: 1,037
Default

OK heres another angle on the topic. I collected a load of original 35mm slides of Mark McGwire. I was told that since I have the original negative I own the rights. So is that the case with old negatives?
__________________
My life didn't turn out the way I expected...Roy Hobbs

Baseball's hard. You can love it but it doesn't always love you back. It's like dating a German chick...
Billy Bob Thornton-Bad News Bears
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-01-2018, 08:51 PM
Michael B Michael B is offline
Mîçhæ£ ßöw£ß¥
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgwirecom View Post
OK heres another angle on the topic. I collected a load of original 35mm slides of Mark McGwire. I was told that since I have the original negative I own the rights. So is that the case with old negatives?
A strong no. Owning the negatives or transparencies in and of themselves does not give you any copyright. If you took them yourself you would own the rights unless you sold them. If you purchased negatives or transparencies from the person or entity that owned the rights and they signed them over to you you would own the rights. Otherwise they would be retained either by the photographer or the entity that owned the rights. A general rule for copyright is that the copyright is retained for 85 years after the image could have first appeared in a publication. This is not hard and fast, but it gives you an idea what you are working with. The copyright can be renewed, but with many photos it is not done. The estate of an individual or photographer can still control images of that person or photographer. This can be seen with the photographs taken by Ansel Adams, being controlled by one entity. There is also an opposite to this. One of the 500 lb. gorillas, Getty Images, tries to claim copyright over images where they have not acquired rights and sell them as if they do. The 85 years applies within the U.S. The copyright period in Europe is much shorter. I believe it is 65 years. Another consideration is licensing. The major sports leagues retain permanent rights over the logos and uniform styles of all of their teams. Even if you purchased the rights from the photographer you would still need a license to commercially sell photos that display the logos or distinct uniform styles of any team. The next time you see a pro athlete in an ad on t.v. pay attention to the uniforms. You will see a lot of commercials with generic uniforms with similar colors to the pro uniform, but no real logos. I will not even go into orphan images, of which I own more than a few.
__________________
'Integrity is what you do when no one is looking'

"The man who can keep a secret may be wise, but he is not half as wise as the man with no secrets to keep”
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-01-2018, 08:54 PM
Michael B Michael B is offline
Mîçhæ£ ßöw£ß¥
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,828
Default

I personally would prefer the negative. I could still make a print for my own personal use in the size that I would like to have for display.
__________________
'Integrity is what you do when no one is looking'

"The man who can keep a secret may be wise, but he is not half as wise as the man with no secrets to keep”
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-01-2018, 09:03 PM
Jobu's Avatar
Jobu Jobu is offline
Bry@n
member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: WI
Posts: 3,722
Default

Great question Andrew.

I only have a handful of negatives (the 1904 Pirates Opening Day flag raising and game http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...highlight=1904) and am still pretty new to photos. I have to say that I definitely prefer the Type 1 photos. I don't really know what to do with the negatives that I have but I really enjoy looking at my photos. Sure, the Type 1 wasn't actually at the game, but it is still a part of history as it brought that historic moment to the millions of people who listened to, watched, or read about the game that just took place. I have never developed a photo, but I believe there is also some skill involved in that part of the process, which makes Type 1s the fullest expression of the photographer's intentions (assuming the photographers developed their own photos) and therefore a small step beyond the composition of the shot and the camera operation involved in recording the image on the negative.

Last edited by Jobu; 03-02-2018 at 01:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-01-2018, 09:54 PM
TCMA's Avatar
TCMA TCMA is offline
Andrew Aronstein
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Peekskill, NY
Posts: 1,010
Default Original negative from historic event, or Type 1 photo of same?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael B View Post
Another consideration is licensing. The major sports leagues retain permanent rights over the logos and uniform styles of all of their teams. Even if you purchased the rights from the photographer you would still need a license to commercially sell photos that display the logos or distinct uniform styles of any team.

Not to mention you would ALSO need some form of agreement with any players depicted in said image, or their estates, before selling prints in quantity. Everybody has to get their cut or you’re opening yourself up to trouble.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Visit TCMA Ltd. on Facebook!

Last edited by TCMA; 03-01-2018 at 09:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-02-2018, 11:57 AM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,087
Default

Now that's a difficult choice.

I'm pretty much agreed with almost everyone else. I'd like the negative as a piece of history. And I could always make a print or two for personal use. (Not sure just what I'd do if I got a really important image, that might be worth trying to get rights to. )

But yes, a negative is really hard to display, so if that's what I wanted, I'd have to go with the photo.


Steve B
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-02-2018, 01:19 PM
Snapolit1's Avatar
Snapolit1 Snapolit1 is offline
Ste.ve Na.polit.ano
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 5,761
Default

Would you rather have the Mona Lisa or the paintbrush?

The photo.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-02-2018, 03:31 PM
Michael B Michael B is offline
Mîçhæ£ ßöw£ß¥
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,828
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapolit1 View Post
Would you rather have the Mona Lisa or the paintbrush?

The photo.
I think this is a poor analogy. You are talking about the tool versus the final product which is not the same for photography. The camera is the tool. Using your parameters, try one of these:

Would you rather have Conlon's, Bain's, Eisenstadt's or Adams' camera or an original print they created in the darkroom?

Would you rather have the artist sketch for a painting or the painting or perhaps would you rather have Rodin's original plasters for 'The Thinker' or one of the 5 original bronzes where he oversaw the casting?
__________________
'Integrity is what you do when no one is looking'

"The man who can keep a secret may be wise, but he is not half as wise as the man with no secrets to keep”

Last edited by Michael B; 03-02-2018 at 03:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-03-2018, 07:44 PM
Gary Dunaier's Avatar
Gary Dunaier Gary Dunaier is offline
"Thumbs Down Guy"
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapolit1 View Post
Would you rather have the Mona Lisa or the paintbrush?
Is the paintbrush authenticated?
__________________
The GIF of me making the gesture seen 'round the world has been viewed over 375 million times!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photo Help Type 1 original or Type 3 wire koufax1fan Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 10 02-26-2017 01:04 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:02 AM.


ebay GSB