Photographer Jürgen Schadeberg has secured an injunction against a picture agency regarding the online publication of more than 200 previously unpublished photographs.What is particularly disturbing about this story is that in 1964, Schadeberg - who had chronicled Apartheid during the 1950s - 'needed to leave the negatives behind in
4 comments:
Hi Hugo - is it disturbing that Jurgen needed to leave the negatives behind or because nobody knows how the agency came into possession of the photographs?
Mainly the latter. I find it especially disturbing when copyright infringement is built on theft or misappropriation of the original work. It's particularly galling that a Jew who managed to evade Nazi Germany and came to fight a noble cause in South Africa through his work should find himself robbed not just once (of the negatives) but twice. As the UK's Holocaust (Stolen) Art Bill is quietly trudging through Parliament, I am mindful that art is sometimes not only stolen but subsequently exploited.
It will be interesting to see if RSA journalists have a problem over similar confiscations in Zimbabwe. You will be interested in this post on Afro-IP concerning the "exploitation" by the British Musuem of alleged stolen art by "colonial looters" http://afro-ip.blogspot.com/search?q=artefacts
It will be interesting to see if RSA journalists have a problem over similar confiscations in Zimbabwe. You will be interested in this post on Afro-IP concerning the "exploitation" by the British Musuem of alleged stolen art by "colonial looters" http://afro-ip.blogspot.com/search?q=artefacts
Post a Comment