Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Rare Photographs: The Beatles by Peter Laurie

You can't imagine how happy I was when I stumbled upon this stunning photo of the Beatles in a Vogue book at an antique store. Now, I was aware that the Beatles have been featured in Vogue before, but I have never even heard of the photographer Peter Laurie, let alone seen this beautiful picture taken in January 1, 1964. And so, I scanned it and posted it on LiveJournal and Tumblr and other people take it and claim credit. I know they posted an edited version of my scan over at the Beatles Photo Blog, but this is the unedited version, the way it appears in the book. On another note, I have also become aware that someone has discovered my blog and is posting the pictures that I have so carefully collected and organized over at tumblr. It would be so very nice of you if you at least linked back to my blog, becasuse I do spend endless hours on these posts, so it's the least you could do. Sorry this turned into a bit of a rant, on to the picture! And if I see it posted anywhere else without at least a link back to my blog....

EDIT: SINCE I'VE SEEN MY SCAN POSTED ON TUMBLR WITHOUT CREDIT  SO MANY TIMES I HAVE BEEN FORCED TO RESIZE THE IMAGE ON HERE AND ADD A WATERMARK. But I'm not a total bitch, if you would like the original picture just let me know and I'll send it to you of course!


  1. Wow, so you think you are the only person who has access to this photo? I mean, I have a much better copy of from another source. No rip in mine. I also have the article that goes with the picture in the Vogue magazine. Oh, and you didn't take the picture, did you? So, try not to have a shit fit when I don't give you credit on my blog post.

  2. Of course I don't think I'm the only one with access to this photo. Did you not read what I said? First of all, that's not a rip, it's the way the pic appears in the book, not magazine, it's probably a special effect by the photographer. And second, you should calm the fuck down because I more than likely wasn't referring to you anyway. No, I did not take the picture, but I bought the book and scanned it because I had never seen this photo before. If you have a different version of the same picture, why don't you just post it instead of taking mine?

  3. Such a lovely picture. Is this British Vogue or American Vogue?

  4. Um, I'm not sure since it's from a book, but my guess would be British Vogue.

  5. To clear up some confusion, this was never published in British Vogue.

    I understand why you might want people to link back to your blog post but there is no reason why anyone should have to credit you, you hold no copyright for this image, in fact by scanning it from the book and reproducing it you are violating the Condé Nast Publications copyright.

    The image is not yours to distribute, the original is held at Condé Nast Archive and it is for them and the Editorial Permissions department of the company to dictate how, where and by whom this image is used. And FYI - the rip is not an 'effect' by the photographer.

  6. Well if you want to get technical about it... I said I got the image from a book, about Vogue, so it was probably unpublished. Second, I know I don't own the image, but everyone else who scans rare images feels the same way about linking back to their blog etc.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...