Not For Reproduction in the Middle of Coonley Photographs

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:10 pm

I have the highest respect for Dean Eastman and what he has so generously done on the Coonley House. I find the huge lettering "Not For Reproduction" stamped in the middle of the photographs on this web site totally out of character with his high standards. This lettering adversely impacts the viewing experience.

Reidy · Post by **Reidy** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:37 pm

This is nobody's first choice, but with the amount of piracy that goes on at this site (e.g. A boost for a Wright house ( Lamp House ), we can expect owners of intellectual property to protect themselves.

Peter

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:43 pm

Reidy wrote:This is nobody's first choice, but with the amount of piracy that goes on at this site (e.g. A boost for a Wright house ( Lamp House ), we can expect owners of intellectual property to protect themselves.

Peter

One can protect one's intellectual property and still post an image that is legible. What good is an image with text plastered in the middle of it that obscures a substantial part of the image? The two are not mutually exclusive.

us024077 · Post by **us024077** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:05 pm

can you post a website link? I'd like to see them even if the text is distracting. thanks...

guestnow · Post by **guestnow** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:57 pm

"Piracy" would appear to be an inappropriate term for the posting here of the Lamp article (which was done complete with proper byline and a recommended link to the source).

Wes Barwick · Post by **Wes Barwick** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:22 am

http://www.savewright.org/house_informa ... ation.html

I think this is what Mr. Harding is referring to. It seems rather odd to paste that statement on the photos as they are really not worth reproducing. I guess someone has a high opinion of their photography.

What I do find odd is the photo of the Coonleys, anyone with a book on Wright would surely have that photo and would not need to reproduce it. It is nice however to see the house getting the restoration it so desperately needed.

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:03 am

Wes Barwick wrote:.... It seems rather odd to paste that statement on the photos as they are really not worth reproducing. I guess someone has a high opinion of their photography. ....

I do not believe that the "Not for Reproduction" is on the photos for that reason. It may be that the owner of the current house does not want his intellectual property misused. On the Davenport House, a local misguided violin teacher in drag as a self-appointed preservationist was given a tour because of my generosity. He proceeded to take photographs that my son mistakenly allowed. He used the photographs in an article that basically trashed our restoration work and made goofy, false, grossly inaccurate statements. "No good deed goes unpunished" in the world of historic preservation.

One way for someone to be clear that posted photographs are not to be copied or misused is to put copyright 2006 Name in the corner of the image.

rgrant · Post by **rgrant** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:05 am

I agree with Wes that the most important fact here is that Coonley is being restored. The saddest pictures I ever saw of the house are those taken just after the fire of 1980 was put out, with the firemen standing in the burned out shell of the living room. That it has fallen into the hands of someone with the patience and resources to do such an excellant job of bringing the house back to life is all that matters. Like so many other FLW buildings, Coonley deserves a major monograph of its own. Hopefully it will be done once the estate is as fully restored as feasible, and Dean Eastman will get all the credit coming to him.

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:21 am

Dean Eastman's contribution to Frank Lloyd Wright preservation cannot be overstated. What he has accomplished at the Coonley Mansion is amazing.

Mackintosh · Post by **Mackintosh** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:46 pm

I agree that the words over the photographs disrupts the viewing experience. But I am glad to see the house has been restored.

I couldn't help but laugh when I read the above quote:

[b]"a local misguided violin teacher in drag as a self-appointed preservationist was given a tour because of my generosity. He proceeded to take photographs that my son mistakenly allowed. He used the photographs in an article that basically trashed our restoration work and made goofy, false, grossly inaccurate statements."[/b]

You were just being nice to someone who was interested in your restoration work and that is what you get in return? I don't think that guy will be happy with anything. He should be glad that people like you are returning historic properties to their original character instead of demolishing them. I can't believe he has made statements that the Frank Lloyd Wright Home and Studio is propaganda and a bad restoration. How is that the case when so many people from all over the world have enjoyed visiting the place. Who does he think he is?

Wright Chat

Not For Reproduction in the Middle of Coonley Photographs

Not For Reproduction in the Middle of Coonley Photographs

Link

Re: Link