Printing records....
hi phil et. al.,
many of you were concerned when phil posted clear and incontrovertible evidence that bg-103 had been reprinted but did not include with his post any reliable means of telling the reprint from the original. it was apparent from the scans with the post that the reprint was a darker green than the original, but as jim northrup has pointed out, posters fade over time, inks get lighter and darker during press runs, and human eyes see color differently. in order to be able to answer the challenge given us by jacaeber kastor, that we find some mark or characteristic which will enable a person with only one item to figure out what he has, we have to use some other description than ,"the original is lighter than the reprint."
this afternoon (10/24/07) i spent several hours with grant of wolfgangsvault (thanks for your help, grant and bill.) going through the vault inventory of, among other things, bg-103. we found there were two distinctly different groups of bg-103 in their inventory. one was the lighter green, the other the darker. there were no gradual transition copies between them. we then looked for a mark on one which was not on the other, and we found one. on the reprint if you go to the letter "t" in "litho" along the right edge and measure 2 3/4" perpendicular to the edge at that point, you will find a 1/16" faint white circle which looks like a transitory printing hickey, but this white circle appears on all copies of the darker green group, and it appears on none of the ones in the lighter green group. we know that the lighter green is the original because phil stated in his first post in this string that the folded, darker copy came from the envelope which said it was the reprint.
since this small white circle is very hard to make out in most light, i tried shining a black light on it, and i found that in that way it was much more sharply defined as a gray circle. for this reason i suggest that collectors wanting to distinguish these two printings shine black light on this area. the circle, if it is there, will be very distinct.
for those of you who are trying to maintain a complete set of all printings, wolfgangsvault has copies of this reprint available for sale (i bought one.), and if you ask grant for this specific version, he will pull the reprint for you.
therose7
many of you were concerned when phil posted clear and incontrovertible evidence that bg-103 had been reprinted but did not include with his post any reliable means of telling the reprint from the original. it was apparent from the scans with the post that the reprint was a darker green than the original, but as jim northrup has pointed out, posters fade over time, inks get lighter and darker during press runs, and human eyes see color differently. in order to be able to answer the challenge given us by jacaeber kastor, that we find some mark or characteristic which will enable a person with only one item to figure out what he has, we have to use some other description than ,"the original is lighter than the reprint."
this afternoon (10/24/07) i spent several hours with grant of wolfgangsvault (thanks for your help, grant and bill.) going through the vault inventory of, among other things, bg-103. we found there were two distinctly different groups of bg-103 in their inventory. one was the lighter green, the other the darker. there were no gradual transition copies between them. we then looked for a mark on one which was not on the other, and we found one. on the reprint if you go to the letter "t" in "litho" along the right edge and measure 2 3/4" perpendicular to the edge at that point, you will find a 1/16" faint white circle which looks like a transitory printing hickey, but this white circle appears on all copies of the darker green group, and it appears on none of the ones in the lighter green group. we know that the lighter green is the original because phil stated in his first post in this string that the folded, darker copy came from the envelope which said it was the reprint.
since this small white circle is very hard to make out in most light, i tried shining a black light on it, and i found that in that way it was much more sharply defined as a gray circle. for this reason i suggest that collectors wanting to distinguish these two printings shine black light on this area. the circle, if it is there, will be very distinct.
for those of you who are trying to maintain a complete set of all printings, wolfgangsvault has copies of this reprint available for sale (i bought one.), and if you ask grant for this specific version, he will pull the reprint for you.
therose7
- wandering-gypsy
- Art Connoisseur
- Posts: 909
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:00 am
- Location: tunnels reef
Nicely done, gents.
Thanks!
Thanks!
- billthebassist
- Art Expert
- Posts: 1645
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 12:00 am
- Location: 5 strings below
Unless WGV stops the lawsuits I suggest you tell Grant to stop displaying posters on his site to which he owns no copyright
if they want to be assholes then expect to be treated in the very same way right? If they want to stop people doing something they should not do those things themselves
if they want to be assholes then expect to be treated in the very same way right? If they want to stop people doing something they should not do those things themselves
Well, I would suggest that you tell him, as I am not an expert on who owns any particular copyright.piemel wrote:Unless WGV stops the lawsuits I suggest you tell Grant to stop displaying posters on his site to which he owns no copyright
if they want to be assholes then expect to be treated in the very same way right? If they want to stop people doing something they should not do those things themselves
Well apparently WGV are experts on copyrights... telling people left and right to take down pictures of fillmore related material and threatening to sue.... so no doubt they also know wether or not they own the copyrights to the kozik posters on their site that are for sale.norbyjake wrote:Well, I would suggest that you tell him, as I am not an expert on who owns any particular copyright.piemel wrote:Unless WGV stops the lawsuits I suggest you tell Grant to stop displaying posters on his site to which he owns no copyright
if they want to be assholes then expect to be treated in the very same way right? If they want to stop people doing something they should not do those things themselves
They don't claim to own the copyright to the Kozik posters. They put a watermark on the posters so that the high-res image cannot be taken from their site and reproduced. I have no problem with that, but I think they should ask the copyright holder's permission before they slap their own watermark on it.
Just because it has their watermark on it does not in any way mean that they are claiming copyright.
Just because it has their watermark on it does not in any way mean that they are claiming copyright.
i know that one of the great pains in life is people who think everything is about themselves, and i doubt piemel's comments about copyrights are about anything to do with my guide, but it may not be clear to everyone reading this string that i have licensed every image which appears in my guide. i strongly respect victor moscoso's control of the neon rose images and am licensed by him to use them in my guide. he believes that my guide serves a useful purpose in this field. chet felt the same way and agreed to let me use his copyrighted images. people in the bill graham organization agreed to allow me to use his images, and russ gibb was kind enough to license me to use his images. both gary grimshaw and carl lundgren support my work. i have tried to support the artists of the san francisco scene and the detroit scene by assisting them without charge whenever my scholarly knowledge might be useful to them, and i have given all of them copies of my guide without charging them. i regularly advise clients that i believe it is a good idea, a good investment, to support the artists by having their posters signed by the artists.
none of my agreements with the copyright holders involved lengthy contracts drawn up by lawyers. we just talked, wrote down a page of what we had said, made two copies and signed them. people have asked me why i don't make the images larger or in color. the reason is that when i went to the copyright holders in 1995, i told them i never would use the guide to compete with any potential art books they might want to do. i only wanted the rights to reproduce the images small and in black and white or gray tones for scholarly identification purposes only, so that people reading the guide would be sure which image i was talking about when they were reading an item. i never have tried to get around or expand on this agreement. that's why the images are postage stamp sized and only in black and white or shades of gray. i have no other legal knowledge of copyrights other than that i respect the rights of copyright holders, especially when, like victor, they are artists.
none of my agreements with the copyright holders involved lengthy contracts drawn up by lawyers. we just talked, wrote down a page of what we had said, made two copies and signed them. people have asked me why i don't make the images larger or in color. the reason is that when i went to the copyright holders in 1995, i told them i never would use the guide to compete with any potential art books they might want to do. i only wanted the rights to reproduce the images small and in black and white or gray tones for scholarly identification purposes only, so that people reading the guide would be sure which image i was talking about when they were reading an item. i never have tried to get around or expand on this agreement. that's why the images are postage stamp sized and only in black and white or shades of gray. i have no other legal knowledge of copyrights other than that i respect the rights of copyright holders, especially when, like victor, they are artists.
You don't have to be an expert on anything to threaten a lawsuit. In fact, you don't even have to think you could WIN a lawsuit in order to threaten with one. . .piemel wrote:Well apparently WGV are experts on copyrights... telling people left and right to take down pictures of fillmore related material and threatening to sue.... so no doubt they also know wether or not they own the copyrights to the kozik posters on their site that are for sale.norbyjake wrote:Well, I would suggest that you tell him, as I am not an expert on who owns any particular copyright.piemel wrote:Unless WGV stops the lawsuits I suggest you tell Grant to stop displaying posters on his site to which he owns no copyright
if they want to be assholes then expect to be treated in the very same way right? If they want to stop people doing something they should not do those things themselves
Not to completely stir up a can of worms, but THIS site has no obligation to seek permission from each copyright holder in order to watermark and post images, should WGV be held to a different standard?norbyjake wrote:They don't claim to own the copyright to the Kozik posters. They put a watermark on the posters so that the high-res image cannot be taken from their site and reproduced. I have no problem with that, but I think they should ask the copyright holder's permission before they slap their own watermark on it.
Just because it has their watermark on it does not in any way mean that they are claiming copyright.
(edited to add that I posted at about the same time as Eric did, and it never occurred to me that he had permission to publish the images in his guide, but of course it makes sense now that I read that. Though the guide is intended for scholarly use, it is a commercial product, unlike this website, which, like his guide, is for educational use, but unlike his guide, is accessible at no cost. And I might add that, of course, I have a great deal of respect for Eric for his work!!!)
hi morst,
thank you for your kind words about my commercial product. you are right it costs people money, but if you added up all my hours and the profit i have made on my guide over the twenty-eight years i have worked on it, you probably would find i have made less than $3.00 an hour for my labor. it really is a bargain. what this proves is that i am a lousy business man who loves this stuff. it's a really good thing that i had a day job.
actually i really have no idea if it is $4.00 an hour or fifty cents an hour. i just know that it is not a lot and that no one sends me a check when i spend six hours writing a careful response to one of the questions addressed to me on this site, or one of the numerous scholarly queries i get every week through my own website and which i answer without charge. also i sell less than a hundred copies of the guide a year despite putting hundreds and hundreds of hours a year into it. this is time which i am happy to spend thusly employed. it keeps me off the street corner and out of the pool room -- the places i hung out in my misspent teens and which my parents thought would lead to a life of bad things. at my age it now keeps me from having to spend my afternoons playing checkers at the senior center while discussing prostate problems. i am making no extra profit now that phil has pointed out numerous problems with my guide, and i am working many hours trying to remedy these shortcomings he has pointed out. make no mistake about it, i am grateful to phil for making me aware of these problems which i did not suspect, even if i wish he would let me see his reprinting samples. his goal and mine are the same, that collectors of this material have the best possible information, the most thorough and complete information, available to them.
best regards,
therose7
thank you for your kind words about my commercial product. you are right it costs people money, but if you added up all my hours and the profit i have made on my guide over the twenty-eight years i have worked on it, you probably would find i have made less than $3.00 an hour for my labor. it really is a bargain. what this proves is that i am a lousy business man who loves this stuff. it's a really good thing that i had a day job.
actually i really have no idea if it is $4.00 an hour or fifty cents an hour. i just know that it is not a lot and that no one sends me a check when i spend six hours writing a careful response to one of the questions addressed to me on this site, or one of the numerous scholarly queries i get every week through my own website and which i answer without charge. also i sell less than a hundred copies of the guide a year despite putting hundreds and hundreds of hours a year into it. this is time which i am happy to spend thusly employed. it keeps me off the street corner and out of the pool room -- the places i hung out in my misspent teens and which my parents thought would lead to a life of bad things. at my age it now keeps me from having to spend my afternoons playing checkers at the senior center while discussing prostate problems. i am making no extra profit now that phil has pointed out numerous problems with my guide, and i am working many hours trying to remedy these shortcomings he has pointed out. make no mistake about it, i am grateful to phil for making me aware of these problems which i did not suspect, even if i wish he would let me see his reprinting samples. his goal and mine are the same, that collectors of this material have the best possible information, the most thorough and complete information, available to them.
best regards,
therose7
-
- Art Connoisseur
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:00 am
- Location: San Francisco, CA
- Contact:
Oh, and we did find several different markings---but the easiest, and I cannot be certain until I look at some more of these, is that the first printing is wider and has a white border---not the 'full-bleed' type sizes of the other.....
Phil
Phil