Discuss an Andreas Gursky photo

[gr82bart]

Here's his latest photo that sold for a near record $2.48 million just a few days ago. I wanted to post this on APUG but the images was digitally maipulated before being printed on the Lambda or Chomira.

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswir..._id=1003466018

Regards, Art.

[mhv]

The first time I saw this picture was on the cover of Harper's Magazine a few years ago and I couldn't get my head across how so much detail could be captured. It's as if I didn't believe the fact that the printing press of the magazine itself could handle that much detail.

By the way, I'm curious about what the buyers buy when they buy a photo. Do they acquire the copyright, or are they simply buying the material object? If the former, I can understand the high price; if the latter, I would say that's a tad excessive.

[Baxter Bradford]

I saw the left hand one of these in Tate Britain this summer and was very impressed indeed. The impact it has in terms of vast size and quality so you can get up very close and see minute detail and then standing back being drawn into the scene was quite unlike a photo I have seen before.

The other images by different photographers were very mediocre (to my taste anyway) which further heightened the quality of his picture.

I was taken by the original viewpoint and idea behind the image.

Thanks for bringing this up Art.

[jd callow]

The first time I saw this picture was on the cover of Harper's Magazine a few years ago and I couldn't get my head across how so much detail could be captured. It's as if I didn't believe the fact that the printing press of the magazine itself could handle that much detail.

By the way, I'm curious about what the buyers buy when they buy a photo. Do they acquire the copyright, or are they simply buying the material object? If the former, I can understand the high price; if the latter, I would say that's a tad excessive.

Its the latter in that the artist keeps the rights to the image. Depending upon what the print is made on it may only be good for a generation to boot.

[mhv]

Its the latter in that the artist keeps the rights to the image. Depending upon what the print is made on it may only be good for a generation to boot.

That's seriously bad: for that price you should be able to control who gets to use the picture. Is it the same with painting, i.e. that the estate or the artist retains copyright while the buyer only owns the pretty canvas?

Granted, it may not be always desirable or even possible to give away copyright. A vintage print is a nice collectible in a way, but it's not the work itself.

[jd callow]

I think with paintings and photo's there is a limit to the copyright (maybe 90years from the artist death -- we'd need a lawyer) and with old paintings the owner can own the copyright to the reproduction. As the museum controls whether or not an article can be photogrpahed and therefore would have copyright the image via the photographic copyright.

Some guessing going on here maybe someone who actually knows what they are talking about will chime in.

[mhv]

The thing I know about copyright is that in the late 90s the laws were changed retroactively, so that works who had just fallen into the public domain like Ulysses were suddenly not anymore, and that brought a whole academic/publishing industry to a halt because Joyce's grandson wasn't feeling like playing nice.

[livemoa]

I know that in my (old) part of the world the artist retains copyright on the work. You buy it but not the copyright. The only change to this is if the work is comisioned, then the copyright (generaly) goes to the comisioner of the work.

[Baxter Bradford]

Suggest renaming the thread "Let's talk about copyright and how dear this picture is"

Shame, because the images are really strong and deserve comment. Should any of us manage to gain success; the very same copyright rules will apply to ourselves. What's the big deal?

[mhv]

I didn't say that the copyright laws were unfair, I simply said that the deal is a rotten one if you buy a print from a major living artist at that price, given that you own nothing more than the artefact.

A vintage print like the Steichen one is something different because it is rarer, the negative may have been lost, it may be impossible to reproduce, it has acquired all sorts of different values over time, and functions therefore in a different situation of offer and demand than a modern print. The same thing goes for a painting.

I don't think artists should sell their copyright, but buying a 2-million$ print is for me akin to buying a 2-million$ CD. The publishing rights to a good hundred Beatles songs acquired by Jacko cost him only 47 millions in comparison. He does not own the copyright, but he sure got more than a recording of them, and he gets quarters each time they are played commercially or covered.

I just got sidetracked from the aesthetics discussion by the price, but let's come back to the real stuff now...