> PLEASE, LET'S SPEAK ABOUT THOSE TOPICS WE KNOW WELL ! Actually I do know a few things about this, having published a book written by my father, and having worked "in the industry". > > It is a real shame that Albert Reyerman had to explain with full details > how much work it means publishing (= making public) something, in this > case lute manuscripts. It is a shame because he had to, out of the > feeling that his work was being neglected. > Besides, it is for me totally clear that Albert Reyerman is doing it not > for the financial profit, -which is negligible, or even inexistent if he > counts his own time- but because of other compensations. The right of uncle Albert to bublish "his" Bach facsimile has never been questioned. The interesting thing is Albert has no rights to control what happens to these images after he publishes them, because they are common property, like Goethe or Shakespeare.
> > I also would like to ask you for a favor, dear Michael Thames: please > stop using that sentence in which photography is considered only a > matter of pressing a button. Manolo, I felt your pain, but both of us know that there is photography, and there is Photography, just like there are painting and Painting, and we know which category yours belongs to (Those who don't know should at least try to find out). RT ______________ Roman M. Turovsky http://turovsky.org http://polyhymnion.org
