MMDesign wrote:

You're up early!

No, I'm not getting emotional. I'm just trying to get some discourse going on the issue and I appreciate your input. Everybody has their own opinion. I am surprised though that I'm the only one here that feels it's unethical.

No I'm not up early. This is my regualr time that I get up for school and work. Reading your intial post shows that you are getting emotional about it. Also, you continue to miss the point here. The work doesn't belong to her, but public that she sold it to when she signed that contract with the company that she worked for.


Example, I worked for the press during the 9/11. My assignment during the time was to go and shoot at a highschool that had a meeting regarding the Jewish and Arab relationship. This was a big issue because of the long time issues that these two group have battled with over the centuries and they felt that 9/11 may have played a part directly or indirectly in their bad realationship. When I took those images, with 'my' camera, those images belong to the press. Why? That's what they hired me for. To do a job for them. There credentials allowed me access into the area. That's what Dorothea was doing.

Saint John wrote:

You seem to be considering various perspectives, which is laudable, and you've decided that you're not comfortable with the idea of printing another photographer's work (regardless of copyright issues), which is fine.

Btw, if you follow the link that Johnston provides to the Library of Congress "Migrant Mother" page, there's a link there to an interesting New Times article which touches on a variety of issues connected to the image:

http://www.newtimes-slo.com/archives/co … 72002.html

With the notable exception of FSA photographer Russell Lee, whose largely overlooked body of work actually captures the dimensions of "everyday living," Lange and her colleagues focused almost exclusively on human suffering. That is most certainly the reason that people like Florence Owens Thompson–and many others who appeared in FSA images–resented their photographic portrayal.

Anyway, thanks for bring up this discussion.

Thanks for the link to the article. I found it quite enlightening. Of course, it brought up points that would make for interesting threads as well. Shame those types of discourse are so rare on here.

joeyk wrote:
While my first thought is, photog selling someone else's work for a profit, WTF?

It then occurs to me this was a work for hire, Ms Lange "sold" her rights, to us, the people forever. She effectively transferred copyright to the public domain for her "fee"

The print seller in question is excersizing his "license to print" granted him by the government for the license fee, of free! He is not selling the "image", he is selling the "print", small silly legal difference.

Big corps do this everyday, pay the photog the fee, and use/sell the images as they wish. The government paid Ms Lange ( i assume ) and granted everyone "license to print".

Again I'm just guessing, but I'd bet that if "PrintsRUs.com" was selliing whatever, we wouldn't even notice. Why don't you check out the images for sale on line at the various online poster sellers, all famous, all for sale. The fact that it's a photographer doing may make it "feel" different

You're right. He's not doing anything illegal. He has every legal right to be doing what he's doing, It's just a wholly personal opinion on my part that it doesn't seem ethically right.

Legacys 7 wrote:

No I'm not up early. This is my regualr time that I get up for school and work. Reading your intial post shows that you are getting emotional about it. Also, you continue to miss the point here. The work doesn't belong to her, but public that she sold it to when she signed that contract with the company that she worked for.


Example, I worked for the press during the 9/11. My assignment during the time was to go and shoot at a highschool that had a meeting regarding the Jewish and Arab relationship. This was a big issue because of the long time issues that these two group have battled with over the centuries and they felt that 9/11 may have played a part directly or indirectly in their bad realationship. When I took those images, with 'my' camera, those images belong to the press. Why? That's what they hired me for. To do a job for them. There credentials allowed me access into the area. That's what Dorothea was doing.

And so you wouldn't have a problem with him, or anyone else outside of who you did the work for, selling prints of that work and making money off of it?

MMDesign wrote:
You're right. He's not doing anything illegal. He has every legal right to be doing what he's doing, It's just a wholly personal opinion on my part that it doesn't seem ethically right.

That's why I put the part in about the poster resellers and the "feel" of a photographer selling another shooter's image/print.

Do you have a problem with the poster companies, or the press using the images from 9/11 mentioned above?

I'm guessing it's just 'cause it's a photographer.

MMDesign wrote:

And so you wouldn't have a problem with him, or anyone else outside of who you did the work for, selling prints of that work and making money off of it?

No, becuase I am hired to do what I am out there to do. Your point would only be valid if it is my own work outside of that job and someone taking credit. Big difference. and you have to remember, she made that discision already knowing what wascoming out of it.

Sports Illustrator and Playboy do this all of the time. You are shooting for them, they pay you, how they market that image outside of the magazine is their discision because they own the rights to that image. It's just like Marvel Comics, when they had new talent coming over during the 1990's, many of these guys created some new superheros that put Marvel on a different level. But when many of these guys quit, they couldn't take the rights of the creations with them. They are Marvel owned.

QuaeVide wrote:
Some thoughts, rather than conclusions.

According to Mike (and I've no reason to doubt him) there has never been any copyright on this image - it has always been public domain since it was paid for with (US) public money. So who would have the moral right to offer prints for sale? The US Government?

To echo Ansel Adams, is Mike's selling a print any different from an orchestra selling a performance of a Mozart symphony (as tickets to the performance or as a recording)?

Is Mike's selling an individual print any different from some corporate publisher selling a coffee table book of (public domain) iconic American photos?

...agree.

joeyk wrote:

That's why I put the part in about the poster resellers and the "feel" of a photographer selling another shooter's image/print.

Do you have a problem with the poster companies, or the press using the images from 9/11 mentioned above?

I'm guessing it's just 'cause it's a photographer.

I honestly can't say. I'll have to ponder that for a bit.

MMDesign wrote:

I honestly can't say. I'll have to ponder that for a bit.

Fair Enough