Perhaps what IP was talking about was that the processes there have a
"grandfather clause". My father was a production manager at a 100 years
old can making plant (paint cans, and the square kind that thinners come
in). They had a 60-80 year old litho setup that they couldn't touch.
He told me that it didn't meet new environmental standards and they
couldn't change/modify anything. If they made changes or modifications,
they'd have to scrap the whole process and build an entirely new system
that met current EPA standards. They could fix stuff that broke, but
that was it. And there was no incentive for the company to tear out the
old process and put a new one in. The old and new machines produced a
similar end product, and the only "improvement" in the new system was
that it was a little more energy efficient. I would imagine the old
system was spewing out dangerous amounts of VOCs and carbon monoxide
> Without knowing exactly what this material comprises of, it is difficult to
> give a full opinion on what "too valuable" means. However, there are a few
> things to consider here.
> There are many instances were original artwork for album cover art can fetch
> very high prices. I'm sure that you can instantly think of a few. For me,
> Peter Blake's "Sgt Pepper" by The Beatles and George Hardie's "Dark Side Of
> The Moon" by Pink Floyd cover art springs to mind out of many others that
> one could mention. Even original, printed 78 sleeves (never mind the
> original artwork) produced for the likes of Paramount, Gennett, Black Patti
> and others bring a reasonable amount.
> Original artwork, finished art, colour separations and proofs all come under
> the heading of intellectual property in the same way that original tapes,
> from demos to masters, metal masters and test pressing etc are.
> What is interesting in this case is that International Paper should have
> this material. Presumably they acted as a packaging company and took care of
> the printing, die cutting and finishing of such products for the record
> companies. Nevertheless, these items would have been paid for and ultimately
> owned by the record companies as intellectual property.
> Having spent my early career in the printing industry and the latter in the
> record industry, I do know that where such items are kept, on behalf of the
> client, can conveniently confuse matters. It is usually the printer that
> persuades the customer that it is a good idea to keep it at the printing
> plant for convenience sake when additional print runs for the same job are
> done in the future, as and when but there is another motive working here.
> The printer knows that he has the keys to the job and if the customer
> decides to move to another printer perhaps to cut costs or because of some
> fall out and asks for the artwork etc back then printers will often do
> whatever possible to not let it go. The usual argument brought up by the
> printer is that original costings did not include origination work or only
> accounted for it at cost and that it is the printer that owns them.
> Ultimately a compromise is made and the customer feels that he has to stay
> with the original printer. This, of course is nonsense.
> Whatever the case, it may well be that I.P. is sitting on some valuable
> material, certainly as far as the early origination, such as artwork,
> finished art and proofs are concerned. The question is, is it really
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Bondurant
> Sent: 09 July 2007 13:51
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] LP album cover printing
> This weekend my cousin's wife, who works for International Paper, told
> me that she understood that IP "invented the printed cardboard record
> sleeve" and produced these at their plant in Indianapolis. While on a
> recent trip there she was shown an area in this vast facility (it
> apparently was added onto over and over during the years) where they
> still have material relating to this production, including album art
> color separations for offset printing. They don't use this stuff
> anymore, but she was told they can't get rid of it "because it is too
> Has anyone ever heard about this before, or is this some bit of IP lore?
> John H. Bondurant
> Sound Preservation Archivist
> Hutchins Library, Special Collections & Archives
> Berea College
> CPO LIB
> Berea, KY 40404
> [log in to unmask]
> Office: 859-985-3389
> Fax: 859-985-3912
> __________ NOD32 2385 (20070709) Information __________
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.