Anyone know what happened to this site?

Home Forums General Art Discussion Anyone know what happened to this site?

This topic contains 29 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  gbl 9 years, 11 months ago. This post has been viewed 1920 times

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #6075

    brunswick girl
    Participant

    Why has this site been taken down??? Is the mention of tabloid journalism likely to be in response to the shoddy article recently published?http://www.intrepid1.demon.co.uk/

    #8091

    John
    Participant

    no ideas what happened to the site….. but look on the bright side at least we have a new ┬┤marvelous┬┤new website from alice lenkiewicz full of romantic bollocks , (i do seem to remember lenkiewicz saying he was terribly depressed during his marriage to mouse…..)

    #8092

    Anthony Eden
    Participant

    Dispicable comment about Alice's website. She was very close to her father and loved him dearly.People have no right to make comments like these that they have no factual information about.Everything on this site is true and if you have chosen to disbelive it then that is a shame because you have then lost valuable information. Is this some kind of 18th century witchhunt going on regarding Alice? Two negative if not derogatory comments I have seen so far. I am sure she would be shocked if I told her about these but probably more amused.What a shame family members are up for discussion in this way. ROL would be most shocked about this. He was very fond of Alice.

    #8093

    luke white
    Participant

    Dispicable comment about Alice's website.

    You are responding to a post that brunswick gilr posted over 4years ago? anyway why all the sudden Alice Lenkiewicz posts? No coincidence that alice has a new poetry book out (available from all good bookshops and ebay).Joe Stoneman also likes to use the lenkiewicz connection.http://www.robertlenkiewicz.com/gallery_page.html

    #8094

    luke white
    Participant
    #8095

    gbl
    Participant

    http://www.robertlenkiewicz.com/gallery_page.htmlLooks like he/they are using the old 'portraits' copyright law in order to put images on it. Canny idea, maybe we'll see some unseen Lenkiewicz's!

    #8096

    Anthony Eden
    Participant

    sorry, wrong link:http://www.robertlenkiewicz.com/ex_students_page.html

    Is Joe Stoneman ROL's son or daughter? I doubt it. Alice, and Wolfe and Reuben are his daughters and sons NOT connections.YOU sir/madam are the CONNECTION. I think you need to put this in its rightful place.

    #8097

    luke white
    Participant

    I think you need to put this in its rightful place.

    what are you talking about ???

    http://www.robertlenkiewicz.com/gallery_page.htmlLooks like he/they are using the old 'portraits' copyright law in order to put images on it.

    don't the Lenkiewicz foundation own the copyright to all of his work (when they inherit it that is)?

    #8098

    gbl
    Participant

    don't the Lenkiewicz foundation own the copyright to all of his work (when they inherit it that is)?

    No, they don't. The copyright of portraits that Robert did for poeple who paid him to do their portrait is automatically owned by those people (and they can have either paid in 'money' or 'goods'). I expect there will have been a few women who paid him in, er...'goods' for a portrait!See: http://www.dacs.org.uk/index.php?m=5&s=5&c=17

    #8099

    Francis
    Participant

    don't the Lenkiewicz foundation own the copyright to all of his work (when they inherit it that is)?

    No, they don't. The copyright of portraits that Robert did for poeple who paid him to do their portrait is automatically owned by those people

    Yes, they do. Unless there is a written and signed agreement saying otherwise.

    #8100

    Francis
    Participant

    don't the Lenkiewicz foundation own the copyright to all of his work (when they inherit it that is)?

    No, they don't.

    Yes, they do. Unless there is a written and signed agreement saying otherwise, including commissioned portraits.

    #8101

    gbl
    Participant

    Re; Commissioned portraits done before 1989, here is what the Intellectual Property Office say: Prior to 1 August 1989 though, the copyright in photographs, portraits and engravings (and only those types of work) which were created as a result of a commission were owned by the commissioner and NOT the creator.

    #8102

    Francis
    Participant

    The principle of copyright is that copyright always resides with the creator in an artistic work. Modelling for a painting is not commissioning one. Before 1989, if you can prove that you essentially paid someone to do a specific job (usually through a contract), you have the copyright. What you can do with it, even in this case, is another matter, as the moral and intellectual rights in a work of art are still the creator's.

    #8103

    old friend
    Participant

    Interesting Francis, can you advise on this senario.. Robert gave me a portrait of myself at the Birmingham show calling it 1960`s

    #8104

    gbl
    Participant

    Before 1989, if you can prove that you essentially paid someone to do a specific job (usually through a contract), you have the copyright.

    Any portrait commissions (where someone 'paid' an artist to have their portrait done) before 1989, the copyright is 'automatically' owned by the person who paid the art artist - that is standard UK law! Therefore, if someone has a painting or drawing done before 1989 that they paid for, they will today be the copyright holder of that painting.Not to be confused with current (post-1989) law whereby all copyright automatically lies with the creator/artist unless an agreement states otherwise.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.