|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
Any Photo Historians or Trivia Buffs ???
Let's please lock this thread. This was only to be a fact finder & the facts are found out. Image is deleted. Thanks to all who responded... Paul Jan 07 06 03:28 pm Link Paul Brecht wrote: I`d say Lucille Ball (post: I Love Lucy days) about 1962 ish when she was doing "The Lucy Show" More than likely a Rolleiflex or Mamiyaflex photo Jan 07 06 03:33 pm Link Cool - thanks, that helps... Jan 07 06 03:51 pm Link Actualy this is where that photo is from http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= … D%26sa%3DN If thats an original transparency, you should find out more about who owned the house. Find out what else is in the house ect. and what else you might be able to get. Bet it was Lee Tannen or someone who did his photo work for him. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= … D%26sa%3DN Jan 07 06 04:17 pm Link Yes, very cool... He said that there's boxes of photo stuff & he's going to go back this week & get it for me to look through... Thanks... Paul Jan 07 06 04:31 pm Link Ok, w/ what I've been armed w/... I found the photographer to be John Engstead: http://www.mptv.net/main/main_elements/engsteadbio.html Here's the series that the image was from: http://i.walmart.com/i/p/09/78/04/25/17 … 00X500.jpg Thanks Peter... Paul Jan 07 06 06:11 pm Link Why did you put your copyright and name on an image that is just a copy? By copying it does that mean you own it? Jan 07 06 06:19 pm Link YW Glad it helped Jan 07 06 06:28 pm Link Jack D Trute wrote: Because I shot this of the slide & I want it to be known that it's from my camera, if some unsavory character lifts it & uses it... Jan 07 06 06:48 pm Link Paul Brecht wrote: you might want to understand "derivative works"....only the creator of the original work owns copyright.... Jan 07 06 08:04 pm Link Ok, my only reason for even posting up this picture was to find information. It is not to stake claim on someone els'e rights. The original author is indeed 6 feet under somewhere & I found that out thanks to being able to put an image up temporarily on the web... I apologise for asking about it, or sharing this piece of history. I don't know how my brother can be attacked for "finding" something like this, that is considered to be trash disposed of, maybe I am wrong for putting a stamp on it, but like I said, it is simply for the sake of "if I see the image w/ the stamp" I would be able to track it... Thanks to those who helped, I took the image down... Paul Jan 07 06 09:33 pm Link Paul - I have had similar issues. The way you were replied to - I guess if you find a negative showing the back side of the grassy knoll when JFK was shot - you should just just go ahead and trash them - since you didn't take it - the photographer is dead - and you will be seen as unsavory for attempting to show them to anybody. I really think your requests should be - taken as a serious issue. There are huge numbers of negatives and slides that get trashed at estate sales and being dumped from storerooms of old photolabs all the time. You have located a possible original image of a historical figure - You now know the original photographer - thanks to those who helped. - who is dead. So what can you do with it? Do historical negatives have any value, or legal ability to do anything with? --- Or should we just light a campfire with them and to hell with saving them? VintageV Jan 07 06 11:36 pm Link Paul Brecht wrote: Don`t apologise....dammm it was just kool as hell to see an old early 1960`s pic of Lucy Jan 07 06 11:46 pm Link Vintagevista wrote: what is wrong with you guys? nobody was saying any of those things, just that he can't claim copyright of copy image. the correct order of things is read > THINK > post.... Jan 08 06 01:54 pm Link The author has the right to copyright of the image 70 years after death. Great to see people taking care of images but the family should be asked if they want the images back. Jan 08 06 04:45 pm Link |
... here's a cyber bone Jack - good doggie... 
