David
I am appalled by your 'explanations' and feel ashamed on how you place your personal financial interests (you call it enterprise) before any respect to veterans !
dethell wrote:
Certainly there will always be potential issues with the images in the collection and that's why we always want to err on the side of the photographer.
That's classy ! Because you know exactly that a bigger number of the original photographers no longer are among us, you prefer to err on the side of the deceased to justify your greedy attitude.
And don't lecture me on copyright issues - I am too old for this poo poo.
dethell wrote:
As for other authors using them, we do have many authors using them who pay the fees. I know my father was very generous in allowing others to use pictures as well, but that he also had intention to use the collection as his income generator for the remainder of his life so he balanced the idea of preserving the history with also making a living from using that history effectively.
How convenient, eh ? - There sure are historians, authors, etc. who have the money to pay for some photographs to finish a project. Why not. Sometimes it sure is easier to spend a wad of greenbacks in acquisition of a photograph offered by 'your enterprise' instead of travelling hundreds or thousands of miles to the respective archives to retrieve a copy of that particular photograph. But we are only talking about those photographs held in official archives accessible to the public.
BTW: There are other 'enterprises' who also sell copies of official photographs through various channels - you have strong contenders there.
I am talking about those other photographs now, those from private sources:dethell wrote:
In our position, we want to preserve that spirit, but we are not a non-profit museum and are using the collection to generate revenue. We work as well as we can with various authors to make the collection accessible while still having it stay a viable enterprise for us.
I just wish Jeff would be able to contradict you right here and now ! From my correspondence with Jeff, I have a totally different picture of that man, for whom I have great respect.
dethell wrote:
We are not selling the images, we are selling access to our copies of the images to save others the time it would take for them to find and duplicate them. That's not meant to be a small symantical difference, but is a crucial idea. We are charging for the time and effort to keep the photos maintained and organized.
I can only second Jack's comment - that's double talk and also sounds rather arrogant. Who the heck you think you're talking to - some first grade students or what ? Think again !
You had a dad who had the foresight to collect as many photographs as possible during a time where the original photographers were still around. Jeff collected the photographs in order to preserve them and make them available to the interested public in form of various projects like books, articles, etc.
These photographs were tools in his trade - tools to work with, to build something, to illustrate history, to tell a story.
Jeff had the knowledge - he knew the people behind these photographs, he knew the sacrifices connected to these photos, he knew the stories of lost friends, of frostbitten crewmembers crippled for life, of homesickness, of broken relationships - and also the stories of heroism, of sense of duty, of doing a job during war and peace.
I have know Jeff as a man of honour, full of honour of all those that have
lent him photographs and have told him those related stories. He was some sort of a speaker for them - he brought their stories to public knowledge by publishing books, which luckily also created some income for himself and his family over time.
And you only want to have a 'viable enterprise'. - I don't buy your smokescreen of "make the collection accessible" - That is not preserving Jeff's spirit, definitely not !
I am angry, very angry - with you !
Martin Kyburz / Swiss Mustangs
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
