Thursday, July 31, 2008

ooohhh yeah...


i bought it, just now... I've already pimped it, (second link provided in case you bypassed the first!) but to me it seemed worth adding to my collection... i wonder at what point i start removing lesser favorites from my collection... i have some earlier prints that i purchased years ago that no longer hold luster for me... several i could never look at again and not miss them. what is the protocol for that i wonder... do lame images have an impact on my collection? i mean its not like i have them in a gallery on display, then some ill showcased images might devalue my collection but mine are all plastic jacketed in a fire resistant case.

archived....


properly.....


for all of time....



(except perhaps some of the digital images... time will tell if their "archival paper" is really just that!)


anyway, i was thinking i should have a bloggallery showing of my favorite images that I've purchased... here's my question for some of you in the proverbial know... do i have to get permission from the artists to display their work? or since i now own a copy/original of it can i post it freely!?


so many what ifs and how to's make it not worth the while i think... meh...


other news? the brown Chevy blew a head gasket on the way to a concrete pour. called cheeses dad to come in on Monday and see what he can see... ugh.... i built that engine back in 2001 and don't want to do it again!



I'll be back kiddos. they are hollering for me in the yard...

19 comments:

Suzanne said...

Copy write is copy write. You may own the print, but you don't own the copy write. You need permission to reproduce it in any form, unless you're a bootlegger and a cheat. Go to the back of the line young man.

September 11. Wow, that's a wacky birthday day. But absolutely unforgettable. Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday to you...see you there!

Iksodas said...

sure.. you can show any of mine.

technically.. IF you use it, you should ask/get permission.

BUT..
Most of us know that when you put an image on the internet, it does not always work that wahy.

if you link to the actual image onthe artist's site(instead of posting the image to yours), AND provide a link back to the artist, most people don't mind.

thanks

Queen Goob said...

The comment above "it" reads:

All pictures ©Marino Mannarini, no unathorized reproduction whatsoever allowed.

Suz has a good idea but then again, she's Suz.

*shit - another fuckin' early birthday*

Suzanne said...

I'm gonna kick Goob's ass. Damn. What the hell does that mean? She's Suz? Is that an insult? DAMN. I need a smoothie. Hops on PPT and navigates neighborhood.

just bob said...

I'm no where close to being an artist, but I think you should provide a credit or backlink to any work that you post online.

I would believe that as long as you weren't profiting from the rebroadcast and let people know where to find more from that artist that they would be pleased. Of course, a quick request would be proper and probably appreciated.

stonelifter said...

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

these guys are the dudes whom do all the the research on papers and inks and the like

MJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BEAST said...

Thanks for that image Miss MJ . I am sure Mr Voices doesnt want a big old flappy cheesey foreskin hanging off his blog

MJ said...

Beast, I am sure I have no idea what you are talking about.

You seem to be obsessed with male genitalia.

bt said...

I don't think you would be in any hotwater by just "posting" images as long as credit is given and copyright conveyed to the artist.

Like you..I have more art than space to exhibit it in our gallery room or home. Like museums...I am considering rotating said work (with the exception of my more valuable and beloved photographs). I have not yet tired of any photographs/art that I have purchased to the point of Turing it..I was tempted with my Carla Bruni by Newton....but I have not been offered the $$ it would take to let it go.

I wouldn't fret the "archival paper" for Digital images too much. I don't know much about the high end inkjet prints (so a bit ignorant in that realm..but see below about Bert Stern..), but the Kodak and Fuji modern papers (they are suitable for both optical (traditional enlarger) and digital printing), are chemically processed and digitally exposed via visible LED or Visible Laser Light (this is what I print on), and by their (Kodak and Fuji) own accounts should last well beyond papers of the past (100+ years in Museum Display Environment, 200+ years in Dark Storage). Additionally, LED and Laser light exposure offers a crisper, sharper and clearer image than the traditional enlarger, albeit on the same paper (it takes no rocket scientist to understand this). For what its worth, MANY PHD educated Museum Curators have accepted the above methods (even the high end Giclee' prints) as being the new standard and on par with the past for significant modern archival prints across the board. Always noting that there are exceptions to everything however. I have photographs printed on Kodak Metallic paper in at least 6 museums, and countless private collections (as well as current Gallery Displays, 1 upcoming museum gallery exposition in Europe and a traveling Erotic Show in the US)....never once have I had any complaint or concerning question about the paper..AND to the contrary...the positive remarks from said curators and countless collectors have strengthened my trust and confidence in this modern printing process and papers as being the standard medium to present my photographic art. I wouldn't change for anything.

On the collecting front, I have 3 different signed/limited edition large photographs of Marilyn Monroe by Bert Stern in my collection. Bert is considered to be one of the greatest living photographers (goggle him). Bert is now "reworking" many of the negatives from his Last Sitting of Marilyn Monroe..and much of the new Limited Editions prints from this session are printed on an Epson Giclee' (ink jet) printer. Seems kinda odd to ME, that someone with his name, reputation and historical significance would even THINK of risking any of this on a printing method that may tarnish ANY reputation or photographic posterity.

After all, should not photography be about the "image" and not the "process"? Unless I guess one collects processes. Me...??..its about the final photographic image..that's all that counts. I try not to change minds with regard to process's (for those hung up on them), simply offer food for thought along these lines. I am not an elitist..it simply has worked FANTASTIC for my photography.

Ahh..but what the hell do I know...I just take the photographs.

bt

catscratch said...

I'd ask before using.

I only say, because when one takes photos to Wal-Mart to reprint. You must get written permission to reprint if it's a professional photo.

Good luck!

Robyn said...

INteresting post IV...
Hugs,
ROybn

Robyn said...

INteresting post IV...
Hugs,
ROybn

FirstNations said...

you can have my permission if you tell everyone that they're ALL OF ME.

CyberPete said...

I absolutely adore the shoes.

Fabulous photo though, but I can't seem to get me eyes off the shoes.

INNER VOICES said...

hey kids!!! thanks for the input..

INNER VOICES said...

I'LL BE BACK!!!!!!! SORRY!!!!1

INNER VOICES said...

SUZ... yes yes... i do understand... and when its art is when i wont cross the line. most of the photos i put on here dont belong to me... i dont give a shit about the funny pics i find on line... but when its an image that is for sale or is from a photog... thanks for the comment!

iksodas... thanks man and will be pimping more of your stuff soon. i still owe you a "picture of one of your pictures on the wall" picture...

goob... she is always full of wacky ideas... and since that guy is italian, who knows how he'd react!

bob, yeah that was pretty much my plan... now here is a question that "stonelifter" pondered... is a picture of someone elses art stealing?

stoned!!! thanks again. i do follow your links and wish i had more time to shoot the shit online about the various loves and hates about photographers... as always thanks for the comment!

beast/mj... the only flappy things going on here will be mine... unless...

bt! thank you... i am always hemming and hawing about digital... yet here i am buying it anyway... i have a few specials in my collection as well even if only to me... your comment is very apriciated, thank you!

catscratch... walmart? shame on you... hahahahahaa....

robyn! thank you kiddo

robyn! thank you kiddo

firsty, be careful what you wish for!!!

cyber, youve come back!! those are some shoes eh?

Mandáš said...

Hi to all of you!
if i said i am the photographer who owns the copy right to the picture that was posted, and if i said that it would be fine for me to have it posted here, as far as i am credited for it, would INNER VOIcES post it again?