Lightly-tinted Mary Pickford 5.75x7 photo, stamped Apeda Studios (which is Art Photography Etchings Drawings and Architecture -- run by Alexander W. Dreyfoos Sr.) on reverse, but was the photo taken by Apeda? It may have actually been taken by White Studio, Gould & Marsden, or some other photographer. Hand-signed in ink. It's clear that Mary's handwriting changed like the wind, but this variant of her signature is seen around 1913/1914. Part of NZ Photo Album.
Apeda was known more as a photograph printer than a photography studio (though it seems they did take photos too.) They partook in the shady business of printing photos taken by other studios, but not before removing the original studio mark and adding their own. In fact, NYC powerhouse White took them to court -- and lost! The June 14, 1913 issue of Abel’s Photographic Weekly explained the court’s decision, “In the Apeda case, the customer goes to them with his or her own picture, whoever it is made by, and orders in writing extra copies of that picture. If that picture is not copyrighted by the original photographer, it is then clearly lawful — even if it is not ethical — for the Apeda Company to copy it and sell as many copies as they have orders for.” The suit further noted that the photographer that took the photo (in this court case, White NY) has no right to reproduce the photograph if it was not copyrighted and not given consent by the sitter.
Apeda was known more as a photograph printer than a photography studio (though it seems they did take photos too.) They partook in the shady business of printing photos taken by other studios, but not before removing the original studio mark and adding their own. In fact, NYC powerhouse White took them to court -- and lost! The June 14, 1913 issue of Abel’s Photographic Weekly explained the court’s decision, “In the Apeda case, the customer goes to them with his or her own picture, whoever it is made by, and orders in writing extra copies of that picture. If that picture is not copyrighted by the original photographer, it is then clearly lawful — even if it is not ethical — for the Apeda Company to copy it and sell as many copies as they have orders for.” The suit further noted that the photographer that took the photo (in this court case, White NY) has no right to reproduce the photograph if it was not copyrighted and not given consent by the sitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment