Original negatives- underrated? Show yours

[mikejanesphotography]

Originally Posted by TCMA

Problem is, Getty is selling the digital image files for $500+ and they are intended for editorial use only. If someone were to sell prints of the images (legally) they would not only need rights to the images but also rights to the team logos. That's how they get ya.

Legally a stand alone print is editorial, it's been challenged and courts have been very clear that selling a print is not commercial. If it wasn't imagine all the lawsuits against photographers and newspapers. There's photographers who sell their work today (Walter Iooss, meager starting price of $2,000 for an 11x14). Leagues of course look at it as a commercial product and require licensing, and if you don't want to cooperate they have the power to shut you down....though literally thousands, if not millions, of photos are for sale on eBay, most stolen.

Topps got sued by Buzz Aldrin and a lower court ruled it was a historic event so they did not need permission from him, it fell under editorial because of its significance. It unfortunately got settled before the appeal happened, as many wanted to see if higher courts would also rule the same.

[mikejanesphotography]

...other question is now that the Conlon Collection was sold, does Getty still have the rights to sell them? They're still listed under the Rogers Photo Archive, if someone else owns the rights now does Getty still have the right to sell them?

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by mikejanesphotography

Legally a stand alone print is editorial, it's been challenged and courts have been very clear that selling a print is not commercial.

Please provide a source for this info. Even if that is the case, anyone selling prints online wouldn't be selling standalone prints. They'd be producing many multiples and offering them as made-to-order items. If it got big enough the leagues could take action for copyright and trademark infringement.

Trust me, I'd love to see it happen but I think there are many legal hurdles that need to be considered.

Originally Posted by mikejanesphotography

Leagues of course look at it as a commercial product and require licensing, and if you don't want to cooperate they have the power to shut you down....though literally thousands, if not millions, of photos are for sale on eBay, most stolen.

Correct. Which is why everyone involved in this lawsuit is royally screwed. Several eBay stores were obtaining images through this guy:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/f...te-fb-forums)/

http://press.gettyimages.com/stateme...r-a-kowalczuk/








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikejanesphotography]

I will say it probably could be challenged and would be a very interesting case to follow because a lot of legal definitions that have stood for awhile could get redefined. However, since it's a first amendment issue and always viewed pretty liberally and wide reaching, I honestly do not think a league would ever go far with the case because it could not work out in their favor, and that could open up Pandoras Box so to speak (of course it already exists kind of). I know of two photographers who challenged two different leagues, no suit, just banned.

Anyways, the case remember most you can look at is probably IPA (Illinois Press Association) vs. IHSA (Illinois High School Association). It got "settled" by the IPA getting everything they wanted, the court said the IHSA could not stop them from selling prints because it's constitutionally protected and they also could not limit access (this of course we know is different in major sporting events, they can deny anyone they want, which is a good thing!).

The leagues do not care about copyright issues, that's the photographers and agencies responsibility to worry about (unless the photo is league owned). Players Association worries about likeness, leagues worry about trademark. There's literally thousands of sellers illegally selling stolen photos on eBay, the leagues do not care one bit because it's copyright infringement, not trademark.

Alan could get a good amount of jail time, there's more on that list as well as he wasn't the only one doing it, just seems to be the stupidest one who posted it everywhere and didn't do a good job being sly about it. Two print labs that were doing most the printing of stolen pics had to turn over their order history to the feds. I hope they stick it to him and the others hard, some of the boards he was using deleted the photo sections thus destroying evidence, could get interesting.

Doesn't have much to do with negatives though, if you own the rights to an old negative and selling prints nobody is going to sue over it. If you don't own the rights then whoever does might and could come after you, and if it's an orphaned work it's illegal to even scan it. Fun world we live in.

[GKreindler]

Andrew, those definitely look like Conlons to me! What's interesting is that you don't see a whole lot of shots of his from Ebbets Field - the majority are from Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds (And Hilltop Park in the earlier days). Even the ones from Washington Park are few and far between, with the exception of those batting practice photos when Pittsburgh was in town.

Also, your dad had some excellent taste - there's a lot of iconic images in there. I remember getting one image of Mickey Mantle from 1957, but I think that was it. Chuck was super nice to grant access to the place, and the project we did together was fun, though I wish more came from it - I can't believe how long ago it was!!

[horzverti]

The Wheat is definitely a Conlon. No doubt. A beauty! Thanks for sharing.

I would say that the Landis is most likely not a Conlon. From what I have seen, Charlie was fairly consistent with his player/team identification and other markings on the top edge of his negatives. Much like you see on the Wheat. Then again, there is a chance that he just didn't mark the Landis neg.

Is the Landis the same size as the Wheat? The Wheat should be 4 x 5.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by horzverti

The Wheat is definitely a Conlon. No doubt. A beauty! Thanks for sharing.



I would say that the Landis is most likely not a Conlon. From what I have seen, Charlie was fairly consistent with his player/team identification and other markings on the top edge of his negatives. Much like you see on the Wheat. Then again, there is a chance that he just didn't mark the Landis neg.



Is the Landis the same size as the Wheat? The Wheat should be 4 x 5.

I believe they are both 4x5. Very possible Landis is not a Conlon but I'll have to look more closely sometime this week. Would definitely like to confirm either way.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by horzverti

The Wheat is definitely a Conlon. No doubt. A beauty! Thanks for sharing.

I would say that the Landis is most likely not a Conlon. From what I have seen, Charlie was fairly consistent with his player/team identification and other markings on the top edge of his negatives. Much like you see on the Wheat. Then again, there is a chance that he just didn't mark the Landis neg.

Is the Landis the same size as the Wheat? The Wheat should be 4 x 5.

Check this out. I just found the Landis image attributed to Conlon in this auction listing. Doesn't confirm it 100% for me but it's something:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...ph-collection/

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by TCMA

Check this out. I just found the Landis image attributed to Conlon in this auction listing. Doesn't confirm it 100% for me but it's something:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...ph-collection/

Andrew,
The auction description read that all of the photos included in the lot show either Conlon writing or stamps on their backs. I would say that is a slam dunk. I was wrong in my previous post. It looks like it is a Conlon. I believe the REA auction pre-dated the Rogers shenanigans. So that makes the accurate Conlon designation even more concrete.
Nice detective work.
Your archive looks great. Please post more great images when you can.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

lWhat's interesting is that you don't see a whole lot of shots of his from Ebbets Field - the majority are from Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds (And Hilltop Park in the earlier days).

Interesting. I do know we've got two other Dodgers that he shot: Paul Richards and Max Carey but those are from the 30's. Will have to do some more digging when I'm back in the office this week.

Also, your dad had some excellent taste - there's a lot of iconic images in there.

Thanks, Graig and I absolutely agree - great stuff. If you take a look online at the old TCMA cards (and they produced a LOT of different sets back in the day), many of those images are still in the archive either as original photos or negatives. Some are offered on Photo Files website, others are tucked away forever most likely.

Still, I'm always coming across images I never knew existed and my jaw hits the floor.

In my mind, the MOST iconic image is this Lou Gehrig that is part of our glass plate negative collection originating from The New York Sun. My father bought this collection containing hundreds of glass plate negs from an antique shop in CT in 1969:








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Keith_Loving]

Originally Posted by TCMA

Interesting. I do know we've got two other Dodgers that he shot: Paul Richards and Max Carey but those are from the 30's. Will have to do some more digging when I'm back in the office this week.






Thanks, Graig and I absolutely agree - great stuff. If you take a look online at the old TCMA cards (and they produced a LOT of different sets back in the day), many of those images are still in the archive either as original photos or negatives. Some are offered on Photo Files website, others are tucked away forever most likely.

Still, I'm always coming across images I never knew existed and my jaw hits the floor.

In my mind, the MOST iconic image is this Lou Gehrig that is part of our glass plate negative collection originating from The New York Sun. My father bought this collection containing hundreds of glass plate negs from an antique shop in CT in 1969:








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could you PM me the link to the Photo Files website? I am curious to check it out.

Thank you

[Exhibitman]

I have the glass plate neg of this Stan Ketchel image. Probably from the Dana Studio in SF.

I have no idea why I bought it or what to do with it. So it sits in a drawer.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I have no idea why I bought it or what to do with it. So it sits in a drawer.

This could describe half of what I own