Interesting WWII & Vietnam photos at an auction

[goaly]

Some interesting photos at this auction in Cincinnati, Ohio. If you want to scroll through them.

https://www.auctionzip.com/auction-lot/lot_4574F9A873

https://www.auctionzip.com/auction-lot/world-war-ii-photograph_F0143E7BE8?catalogReferredQueryParam=%253FpageNum%253D3

Most of the photos are on page 3 of the auction..
https://www.auctionzip.com/auction-catalog/key-date-coins-currency-photos_10KI6GJXG2?pageNum=3

[junkman9096]

A lot of photos from the 363rd TRG in late 1944-early 1945.

[Noha307]

Man, crap like this pisses me off. Specifically, the fact that they are selling the pages from the album individually. The items that belonged to one individual need to stay as a collection. Parceling them out means they lose any relationship to each other as well as their provenance. On top of that, even if someone wanted to try to prevent what the auction house is doing and keep them together, the way they are priced means that it would take an inordinate amount of money to do so.

I get that personal collections go up for sale from time to time and, as much as I wish they would get donated to a museum, that is understandable. Sometimes, if we're lucky, it even results in a better outcome where they go to someone who really cares for them. However, in this case, it's just particularly egregious the way they are doing it.

Maybe I'm just overly sensitive to it since a significant amount of my time at the museum is spent recording the details of each donation so this kind of situation doesn't happen, but it's frustrating that so much important detail can be destroyed so easily just because someone doesn't understand what they are doing.

[bdk]

On top of that, even if someone wanted to try to prevent what the auction house is doing and keep them together, the way they are priced means that it would take an inordinate amount of money to do so.

The duty of the auctioneer is to maximize the sale price for the owner. If the owner really cared they would forego the money and donate the collection to a museum where they might (or might not) get published for you to see. The owner is probably liquidating an estate that includes more than old airplane photos and may have multiple beneficiaries. I've liquidated an estate before and I'm still dealing with old photos. Many are of no interest to me but may be of interest to others, but who? I don't have unlimited time to find a good home for every photo. And once I pass I'm sure my offspring will have even less interest in the subject. Anyone want a photo of my dad sitting on a camel in Egypt?

[Noha307]

The duty of the auctioneer is to maximize the sale price for the owner.

True and I understand the need to do that, but I guess sometimes I hope that there are considerations other than just profit. For example, the group behind the Neil Armstrong auction "preserv[ed] and document[ed] the collection's authenticity and provenance ... so that, if needed, they can be referenced later for research", which shows a bit more of a compromise position.[1] (See the paper "The Trouble with Space Auctions" by Eleanor S. Armstrong and Jordan Bimm for more on this subject.) While I would still have some reservations about it, I would be much more understanding if they sold the album as one complete item.

I've liquidated an estate before and I'm still dealing with old photos.

I've been called to a number of houses in the past where an individual's parent has passed away and they're left to deal with everything they had kept over the years. The task can be overwhelming and I'm sympathetic to their situation. It often involves sorting through boxes and stacks of paper to determine what is relevant to the museum's mission (e.g. service records) and what is not (e.g. old financial statements or medical records). Also, although it hasn't really come up in the situations I've dealt with, it can be made even more difficult by the emotional connection individuals have to the person who has just died. (The flipside of this, by the way, is having to tell someone that the item they have a significant sentimental attachment to is not all that historically valuable.)

Many are of no interest to me but may be of interest to others, but who? And once I pass I'm sure my offspring will have even less interest in the subject.

I know exactly what you're talking about. There are many people who offer things to the museum because their children just don't have an interest in them any more. (That being said, I always make a point of telling them that I'm not there to take things they want to keep.)

As a matter of fact, the lack of interest by succeeding generations gives rise to an inverse situation with the large collections of aviation photographs that have built up online. Specifically, the problem is that many of them remain in copyright even after the original photographer has died and their descendants are no longer interested. This renders them essentially unusable, as it is nearly impossible to get in contact with the right person to license them. Take, for example, RuthAS/R. A. Schoefield. Her collection of photographs has been incredibly useful for illustrating various Wikipedia articles. However, if she is still alive, she would be 85 years old this year and the window to ask her permission for each one is rapidly closing, if it hasn't already. (As a matter of fact, a large number of her photographs were almost deleted because of skepticism of her age.) (My suggestion to address this, for what it's worth, would be to give photographers an option to release their photographs into the public domain after a set number of years when they upload them to ABPic/Airliners.net/etc.) Some of them, such as those of Peter R. Keating/John Stroud and Chaz Bowyer/Chris Ellis/Philip Moyes do make to a place to be licensed and others like the A. J. Jackson Collection end up in museums, but many of them don't.

It would be a different case if it was just an assortment of photographs that the someone collected over the years. As a matter of fact, the coin collection in the auction is an excellent example of that. Unlike the photo album, from all appearances they have no particular connection to the owner or each other aside from the fact they possessed them. That is not to say certain collections without a personal connection cannot have value. The fact that they are comprehensive or have been arranged in systematic manner can also render them valuable as a reference collection. For example, the "Not Plane Jane" collection of propellers is an excellent example of this that has even been recognized by NASM for its importance. On the other hand, just because an item came directly from the owners doesn't make it historically valuable. For example, the awards that every civic group a veteran speaks to bestows upon them (think "key to the city" type stuff) are really not all that important.

[bdk]

As a matter of fact, the lack of interest by succeeding generations gives rise to an inverse situation with the large collections of aviation photographs that have built up online. Specifically, the problem is that many of them remain in copyright even after the original photographer has died and their descendants are no longer interested. This renders them essentially unusable, as it is nearly impossible to get in contact with the right person to license them.

Great discussion! Would it be possible to label the photos, "Copyright <NAME>, expires <DATE>"?

[Noha307]

Great discussion! Would it be possible to label the photos, "Copyright <NAME>, expires <DATE>"?

That's a good question. I've never explored how to actually implement it, so I don't really know for sure. The closest concept I am aware of are Creative Commons licenses. However, those go into effect immediately upon use. You could probably design a delayed version, but I don't know whether that exists or how exactly it would work.

Essentially what you'd be doing is reverting to an earlier version of copyright law in the United States. The first copyright law in 1790 allowed for a maximum protection of 28 years with renewal.[1] Today, works do not enter the public domain until 95 years after publication. (Caution: I've simplified the situation a bit here for the sake of explanation. For example, this does not cover unpublished works or works outside the United States. For a bit more detail, see a post in the Digital Aircraft Manual Sources thread.)

Ideally, the actual selection of the license, whatever it may be, would occur during the uploading process - similar to how it is handled by the Internet Archive and Wikimedia Commons.

Creative Commons can actually already solve a number of the problems because it satisfies the conditions a creator is seeking without being as restrictive as regular copyright. For example, some photographers copyright their work, when all they really want is to be credited whenever their pictures are used. A CC BY license would ensure this occurs, while also enabling their work to be shared without them having to be contacted each time to ask for permission. However, I imagine there might be others who would prefer full copyright, but of a less than standard duration, so a shortened license would still be useful in those cases.

Attachments

Internet Archive License Selection.png (17.96 KiB) Viewed 3467 times

[bdk]

Great discussion! Would it be possible to label the photos, "Copyright <NAME>, expires <DATE>"?

That's a good question. I've never explored how to actually implement it, so I don't really know for sure. The closest concept I am aware of are Creative Commons licenses. However, those go into effect immediately upon use. You could probably design a delayed version, but I don't know whether that exists or how exactly it would work.

Would you consider making a separate thread of this? I'm thinking that if someone wants to know about copyrights it will be lost under the subject of WWII & Vietnam photos.