Let's take a look at Carla Rossi's claim that she didn't take the colour image of a miniature of St Mark from Peter Kidd's @mssprovenance blog. Kidd had pointed out (mssprovenance.blogspot.com/2022/12/nobody…) that the only possible source of the colour image was from his site. [cont] #Receptiogate
@mssprovenance Rossi responded on Academia.edu that she "obtained a bw image" from the German dealer Hartung and "colourise[d] the black and white pictures using the "Colorize picture" application, as you can see on page 253 of my edition." [cont] #Receptiogate
@mssprovenance Even so, Rossi removed the colour image from her book, replacing it with the black-and-white image that she *claimed* had been supplied by Hartung. [cont] #Receptiogate
@mssprovenance Rossi stated that the use of a "Colorize picture" application meant "the colours of the Mark miniature were too unrealistic and garish, so we reverted to the version sent to us by Hartung". See Rossi's screenshot on Academia.edu below. [cont] #Receptiogate
@mssprovenance If we extract the images from Rossi's book (e.g. using tools.pdf24.org/en/extract-ima…), it turns out that the width of the image used by Rossi is 431 pixels. That's the same 431 pixels as that from Kidd's site. Suspicious, non? (The Hartung image is 650 pixels wide) [cont] #Receptiogate
@mssprovenance If you look closely at Image B below -- that Rossi claims is the "version sent to us by Hartung" -- then you'll see that there are traces of colour. It looks like Rossi lifted the colour image from Kidd's website and greyscaled it when she got caught. [cont] #Receptiogate
@mssprovenance And if you compare the images, you'll notice the blotches (or artefacts) match for Images B & C (Rossi's book & Kidd's site) and the image supplied by Hartung is different (see below, e.g. 1, 2, 4 and the top margin which is the same for Kidd & Rossi)
[cont] #Receptiogate
@mssprovenance There seems zero doubt that Rossi lifted the image of the miniature of Mark from Kidd's site, denied it, & (ineptly) tried to cover her tracks. The RECEPTIO site says "Regarding the ridiculous accusations of plagiarism, let the readers of this edition judge". Ahem! #Receptiogate
@mssprovenance@donnermaps has very helpfully used a "colorise app" to colour the Hartung image, as Rossi claims to have done:
@mssprovenance@donnermaps Here's @donnermaps colorised image with Rossi's so-called colorised image. To paraphrase Rossi (always good to cite your sources, right?), let the readers be the judge. #Receptiogate
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Carla Rossi's representative seems unfamiliar with copyright: "we have not taken anything from your site, but [...] these are images obtained from dealers, retrieved via WayBack Method from auctions & sales, as well as from paper catalogues" mssprovenance.blogspot.com/2022/12/nobody… #Receptiogate
"Sotheby's owns [...] all right, title and interest in and to the Digital Platforms [...] including: all the content (including without limitation audio, images, photographs, illustrations, text"
(sothebys.com/en/terms-condi…) Rossi's book does not respect copyright. #Receptiogate
Sotheby's continue: "Any commercial distribution, publishing, use or exploitation of the Digital Platforms or any element thereof [...] is strictly prohibited unless you have received the express prior written permission of Sotheby's or the applicable rights holder" #Receptiogate
@mssprovenance "Andrew Pritchard" published a piece in the journal *Theory & Criticism of Literature and Arts* 5 (2021), edited by *Prof.* Carla Rossi. The article praises the "philological expertise of Professor Carla Rossi"; claims that "only an expert philologist like Professor Rossi" [cont]
@mssprovenance and states that "Professor Rossi informed Consuelo Lollobrigida of the correct reading of the document, receiving a haughty reply." (Tellingly, only Carla Rossi is given the title "Professor".) [cont]
@mssprovenance The article is an attack on Lollobrigida, going on to pronounce: "This is a clear example of how sometimes the hybris [sic] should be put aside for the sake of scientific truth". The article continues: "Lollobrigida's arguments are completely unfounded" [cont]