The Christopher Kelly enquiry (2)

Home Forums Lenkiewicz – general discussion of the man and his work The Christopher Kelly enquiry (2)

This topic contains 5 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  marlowe 9 years, 12 months ago. This post has been viewed 675 times

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #6399

    Francis
    Participant

    Since Chris K. has now hijacked yet another thread with his long-standing grudge, I thought we should start up one of his own, as (in case we forget) this site is supposed to be about the work of Robert Lenkiewicz. Readers of the forum must be puzzled about what has led him to such a sense of injustice (now as Chris K. but as various other previous aliases on this forum), so it’s time to try to explain. When White Lane Press published the monograph R.O.Lenkieiwcz for the 1997 Plymouth Museum retrospective, the book was put together from scratch in under eight weeks. The interviews were done in early June and the book published in the first week of August, arriving from the printer on the same day as the exhibition opened. The book was only made possible by the generosity of the printer, Colorscan, who underwrote it. Initially we were responsible for the text only but, during the process, Robert asked us, working along with him, to take over the design and the selection of images. As well as the interview and the reproduction of his paintings, the book included some archive photos (from Hotel Shemtov in 1959 through to 1997) in the margins. These were all supplied by Robert from his hundreds of photographs in his possession amassed over the years from many sources. We asked Robert to identify the source of the images we selected so that we could credit them. Some he knew (the obvious ones being Phil Stokes) but most he didn’t: you will notice the vast majority are without attribution. This was largely corrected in the recent book of Self-Portraits.When the first book was published, Chris Kelly (who I don’t think I’ve ever met) contacted us to complain that a couple of these margin images were his photographs. Obviously it was too late to change anything then, but we replied to explain the reason why they were unattributed, apologized and said we would obviously be happy to credit him in any future reprint if he was agreeable. For whatever reason, this didn’t satisfy him, and Chris has apparently felt hard done by ever since. We have the same situation with other photos that Robert couldn’t remember where they came from, but no-one else seems to have a particular hang-up about it. For instance, most of the full page plates of the actual paintings were taken by Derek Harris, whom we fully acknowledged in ‘Paintings and Projects’.With regard to ‘Flog It’, we didn’t supply that particular image to the BBC. We don’t actually have it – all the photos are still locked up in the estate along with everything else. Neither, as far as I am aware, do the BBC have that book. I believe they may have taken it from previous BBC footage on Robert where it was apparently used (supplied no doubt by Robert), presumably with permission, or at least, without complaint. They did run it past us to check if it was by Phil Stokes. We said it wasn’t but didn’t recognize it as being one of Chris’.So, maybe Chris could spell out what it is he would actually like? Payment? Recognition? Acknowledgement? Or merely to keep complaining? I understand that he pursued a similar private vindictive campaign against the previous administrator of this site for reasons that are even harder to understand. This is your opportunity, Chris, to voice your grievances. Speak up – this is only my point of view, so maybe you have a different story to tell. Let’s all hear it and get it done with. I’m away for a few days – the floor’s all yours.

    #10412

    marlowe
    Participant

    I understand he pursued a similar vindictive campaign against the previous administrator

    So that's who Dave G. was referring to. Is that true Chris K?

    #10413

    WEB WEAVER
    Participant

    I think a bit of give and take needs to be exercised over the copyright issue. ROL granted access to allow photographs of himself to be taken by Chris. Chris gave some copies of the resulting photographs to ROL. ROL subsequently included them with others provided to White Lane Press for his retrospective book. White Lane Press were unaware of where some of the images had originated from.

    #10414

    art3366
    Participant

    chrisK1. If you were that worried about your photographs ever being used by a "publisher" without copyright approval you should have marked them clearly on the back with your details. Ask your friends in TV production or anywhere else if this standard procedure.2. If you contact the BBC they will send you a cheque for using your photograph (all you have to do is prove you are the originator). Your fee will be about £20 to £50 with repeat fees of 2p per showing. You should be thanking Francis for creating this windfall for you, not berating him. How about donating it to charity?3. Francis can't be held responsible for something that was clearly out of his control.4. What is your gripe anyway? It's a twopennyhalfpenny photograph shown for approximately 4 seconds. Who was hurt, injured, inconvenienced, ridiculed etc? How exactly was your creative reputation damaged by the BBC? Put another way, given creative control, how would you have liked your photograph to have been treated differently within the piece? I wonder what Robert would have said to you Chris, had this happened while he was still alive? Just one of his big sighs, I would guess?

    #10415

    Francis
    Participant

    Francis, I really don’t know what you hoped to prove by starting this thread but I do look forward to your reply either in public or privately at chriskw1@hotmail.co.uk

    I'm more than happy to debate it in public except I feel it's in danger of boring everyone else to death. The earlier posts have really covered it already but let me repeat yet again: I apologize unreservedly for the use without attribution of your three images in the first book. I hold no-one responsible other than myself. I merely explained how it had happened. Feel free to let me know how you would like me to make amends.On the BBC however, since you seem to hold the publisher (broadcaster in this case) entirely responsible, you'll agree it really wasn't up to me as a simple contributor to enforce your copyright, though, had I recognised it off-hand, I would have pointed it out. The point of the thread is to focus the forum on Robert's life, work and ideas, and keep individuals' grievances where others can choose to read them or not.

    #10416

    marlowe
    Participant

    The point of the thread is to focus the forum on Robert's life, work and ideas, and keep individuals' grievances where others can choose to read them or not.

    Amen!

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.