Amsterdam Russ

And another selection for you… https://www.haunted-britain.com/haunted-scotland.htm

5/8 - Oops, must try harder! Although I did think a few of the questions to be rather obscure unless you were a Stax aficionado. Just my excuse, though.

To the original poster - you should especially try Kenichi images (Flickr) and Richard Oughton (Instagram). Links here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kenichi_images_glasgow/ https://www.instagram.com/richard_oughton/ One thing that bugs me in all of this, and I admit to taking a negative perspective early on, is the lack of desire to pay artists/creators for their work. Hello, this is Soul Source! How many times have we collectively bemoaned the ripping off of singers, groups and music creators by label owners big and small? Given the decades-long and publicly acknowledged scandal of soul artists (and indeed artists across all genres and across so many decades) not receiving due payment and financial recognition ("Damn, I was forced to accept a contract that paid me two bucks for a recording" - or- "I've never received any royalties at all") for their work, I find the support of "I want permission to use other people's creative works to create my own creative works - but I don't want to pay for it" extremely hypocritical. Do the work - be superbly creative - but pay your dues.

If people were pulled up for using images on flyers that they don't have permission to use then they would find they had fallen foul of copyright laws. And a sculpture of the subject in a photo - in this instance a dancer - would be a derivative work and the creator would also fall foul of copyright laws - if permissions had not been sought. As for pulling people up, late last year it was pointed out to me that someone was offering t-shirts and hoodies on an online selling platform (and posting links to them on Facebook) that featured a design I'd created for a Northern Soul Amsterdam website logo/record box sticker a few years back. I served a copyright infringement notice on the US-based company that owned the platform and the merchandising was swiftly removed from sale and the page replaced with a legal notice stating that the items did indeed infringe copyright.

You take a photo or photos of people dancing in a public space. I make a sculpture or sculptures based on the subject matter in the photo(s). I don't seek permission from you to make the sculpture based directly or derivatively on your photos. I make the sculpture(s) public and get acclaim for my work. I don't have any legal contract or licensing agreement with you. You're not bothered and doubt there would be any copyright or intellectual property infringements. I sell my sculptures and further derivative works commercially. You still think the same. Based on what - fair use? Uh-oh - there may be trouble ahead. https://archive.nytimes.com/lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/obama-image-copyright-case-is-settled/

Yes, best you do your homework regarding copyrights and usage. Don't want to pay? Shame on you.

Historically? Contemporary? What style of dancing? And what copyright protections and fees for photographers?

Relative to that, and quoting from JM's auction text... Who was "Brad" and how could he have requested a reissue of a 45 that even today has only...

I did enjoy The Banshees of Inisherin - a most unexpected film and the movie highlight of the year without a doubt. Glass Onion - southern fried ham served with endless cheesey cheese. Mrs Harris goes to Paris was enjoyable although entirely predictable. The Colour Room (the Clarice Cliff biopic) was also memorable, albeit that it came out in 2021 but I only watched it in 2022. Can't recall other films from 2022, so am looking at a couple of lists of best films of 2022. Triangle of Sadness - terribly overrated. Aftersun - jeez, what was the point of that? Onoda: 10,000 Nights in the Jungle - enjoyed, but I didn't really get a true sense of just how long he'd spent in the jungle, nor what he actually did with his time. All Quiet on the Western Front - quite gripping, but lacked something I can't quite put my finger on. The Northman - Vikings-style copycat that just didn't cut the proverbial mustard. Prey - oh, please. Franchise hits the end of the line.

Blimey. I had no idea! It just goes to show the popularity of the topics and the huge level of participation by so many people over the years. Long may that continue!

Very useful, Mike. Nice to go back and be reminded of pics Soul Sourcers posted in the past.

The end of another great year-long thread. Thanks everyone. The new photo thread can be found here:

Happy New Year to one and all. The start of a new year means the start of a new photo thread. This is the 11th photo thread, which is rather remarkable and a testament to its continued popularity. Thanks to everyone who contributed pics last year, and thanks too to the many who participated by liking or commenting on images. Here's a pic I took from our balcony a few days ago. The house opposite is being renovated and the builders put together some lights on the side of the house. It says "Prettige Feestdagen" in Dutch, which translates as "Happy holidays", or at this time of the year, "Merry Christmas". Here's to lots of great photos in 2023!

Thank you for that, Timmy. Now, which one is me?

Not sure if it's the same group as the one in the ad, but also came across quite a lot of info on Felipe 'la voz' Rodriguez and "Los Romanceros" (the Romanceers). Wikipedia page for him here, but in no way connected to the Pickwick Romanceers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felipe_Rodríguez_(singer)

I found the following in a 2005 thread on soulstrut.com that was about low budget record labels... The poster's name was "pickwick33" and early in the thread I've linked to they state: Reading through that thread, pickwick33 does appear to be an informed source.

Another sad loss. RIP Thom.

Yuletide cheer to Mike, the team, and to everyone else here on Soul Source. May your days be merry and bright...

If I remember correctly, Jo took the pics.

Clearly you didn't read my opening post.

Not how I read it, but each to their own.

Eh? The poster posits that a collector would likely pay more for a poorer-sounding original copy of something in favour of a better-sounding copy of the tune on a non-original vinyl release or a digital form of that original tune. There was no exclusion of digital files as a collectable format.

No, that's an OCD collector. Oh, wait. It's you who posted that.

Wasn't Jorg at SoulShack responsible for the 'Cindy Fields acetate' debacle a few years back? Regardless, I've bought from his website in the past and had no problems.

As a follow-on to the interesting thread started by @Fish Fingers, which asks the question "Are not many people on here record collectors", I was struck by how many people have said that although they buy music, tey do not consider themselves to be collectors. Thread here: As examples: @Daved says "I don't consider myself a collector. I've got quite a lot of records but only buy what I really like at a low price." @Shinehead says "Never been a collector of records just amassed records by buying them over the years still got a large amount but now just buy CDs..." @Mickey Finn says "I collect the music that I like, although I can get sidetracked by special series or issues or reissues. Not sure that makes me a "collector", but there seems to be enough music cluttering the house." @Thinksmart says "I collect only via CDs & legal downloads not vinyl anymore... I have over 80000 songs in the [cloud-based] Soul library..." The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'collector' as: "kəˈlɛktə | noun | 1) a person who collects things of a specified type, professionally or as a hobby: an art collector." That definition would seem to apply to all of the perspectives above, with "things of a specified type" including genre(s) and formats, yet everyone with the exception of Thinksmart doesn't see themselves as someone who collects things. That begs the question: how do you define a record collector? What's your take on it?