BLOOMFIELD vs LAWSONS AUCTIONEERS & VALUERS

or DAVID vs GOLIATH

This is a long story so unless you have a cup of tea, coffee, Red Bull or a martini in your hand, you probably won't get to the end of it. It involves myself (Jane), my sister (Bec), my brother (David), our mother (Lin), Odana Bloomfield (est. 1973) and Lawsons Auctioneers & Valuers (est. 1884).

I wanted to put it on social media but Bec advised against it. On reflection, Bec was right as on social media it would be lost when other posts pushed it down the page. This way, it is there, always, for anyone who has some time to kill and wants to read what happens when the little guys go in to bat against the big guys.

It began when one of our clients contacted us regarding two works offered for sale in The Weekly Art Sale at Lawsons ending on 4 October 2023. The works in question were Lot 8125 listed as Norman Lindsay, Unknown Seas 1922 posthumous etching and Lot 8127 listed as Norman Lindsay (Courters) posthumous etching. These were two original etchings of Unknown Seas and The Graces (incorrectly titled in the auction catalogue) printed posthumously and obviously in breach of copyright. Lin owned the copyright at the time and Odana Bloomfield had not been contacted for permission to print them, let alone sell them.

The information came too late for me to contact Lawsons as at that time, Lin was very ill and Bec, David and myself were very much involved in her care. Mum died less than ten days after the auction on 17 October 2023.

However, on 8 October I sent an email to the general email address at Lawsons (info@lawsons.com.au) and advising at the top of my email that This email is for the manager of the Art Department and The Weekly Art Sale with a High Importance exclamation mark attached to it.

It was answered by Mr Adam Thwaites, Chief Operating Officer and Head of Art at Lawsons on 13 December 2023.

Mr Thwaites' reply advised me that on checking his records, the work in question was actually the plate of Unknown Seas which originally sold at the Harry McPhee auction held by Lawsons in 2004 and it came with a certificate of authenticity signed by Helen Glad. No mention of The Graces.

I replied on 17 December directly to Mr Thwaites starting with:

Dear Adam –

We are talking about two different items. You have sent me an image of the etching plate with Helen’s COA which are not what was sold in the auction. I understand this plate was sold in the 2004 auction.

I am referring to two printed etchings printed posthumously as per your catalogue entry for Unknown Seas (Lot 8125) and The Graces (Lot 8127 incorrectly titled Courters) which appeared in The Weekly Art Sale number 9830.

The email continued and I advised that Norman Lindsay's copyright extended to 31 December 2039 and these two etchings were in breach of copyright.

Any works which are in breach of copyright belong to the copyright holders. Consequently, I asked for the return of the works, but had not been advised if they had been sold, returned to the vendor or were being held for another auction.

I also requested that Lawsons request persmission from us to publish any images of Norman Lindsay's etchings (original and Facsimile, not pages out of books which they now sell) so that this issue doesn't arise again.

Mr Thwaites didn't bother to reply.

In February of this year, we had to put the matter in the hands Chamberlains Law Firm as we had had no contact from Lawsons and the matter had to be resolved. We needed to retrieve the two etchings as it was essential to not have them turning up somewhere else. We also wanted to hopefully stop whoever was printing and distributing them. We still had not heard if they had been sold, returned to the vendor or were waiting for a future auction.

Months passed and correspondence went to Lawsons with no reply. We again requested the name of the vendor, the return of the works as well as a stipulation that Lawsons always request approval from Odana Bloomfield (myself or Bec) to reproduce Norman Lindsay's etchings in all original and Facsimile etching listings. Also requested was an apology from Adam Thwaites. Chamberlains requested a public apology but I thought a written apology would suffice, thinking that Mr Thwaites would step up to the plate. I should have left it as a public apology.

In September of this year, Chamberlains sent a letter to Lawsons advising that we were filing a Summons to go to Court in Sydney to have this matter resolved. The Court date was set for 10 October at 9:30am.

Martin Farrah, Managing Director of Lawsons, emailed me on 13 September advising that it was the first he had heard of the matter when the Melbourne head office advised him of the Summons and court date.

Further correspondence with Martin occured and we were able to obtain the two etchings and find out the name of the vendor.

After asking Martin repeatedly for Mr Thwaites' apology letter, I finally received it, as such. Mr Thwaites has only ever contacted me once regarding this matter - his first email of 13 December 2023.

THE GREAT APOLOGY LETTER FROM LAWSONS - NOT

On 22 November I received an email from Martin with Mr Thwaites' "apology letter" attached. It was on Lawsons' letterhead but was undated and had no inside address (Odana Bloomfield's) but just started with the salutation "Dear Jane".

As Mr Thwaites' letter is under copyright, I am not reproducing it but here is the gist.

He apologised for the confusion, frustration, misunderstanding and communication issues that occured. He advised that he understands the importance of the works and copyright concerns.

He then advised that he would ensure that all examples of Norman Lindsay's work are sent to us for approval prior to sale.

Mr Thwaites just doesn't get it.

The great apology letter from Lawsons that was not.

My reply to Martin sent 27 November 2024 is below and yes, I was angry, frustrated and appalled however not confused and in no way did I misunderstand anything.

Dear Martin -

Many thanks for the non-apology letter. Is there an apology in it? Did you read it?

Talk about pathetic.

Lawsons has certainly gone down in my esteem, I'm sad to say.

Just to be clear, there was no confusion on my part - none at all. Mr Thwaites is apologising for my confusion but he is the one confused as he either doesn't understand or didn't bother to find out about copyright on Norman Lindsay works. Yes, I was frustrated but he doesn't need to apologise for my frustration. The apology should be for his ignorance, disrespect of me, length it took to reply to my first email, the fact that he didn't even bother to reply to my second email and his poor handing of the matter.

There was no misunderstanding of the items. I knew what they were - he didn't. He advised that the work was the plate and sent me a certificate signed by Helen Glad claiming such. He didn't even know that it was a print, not a plate. How insulting! The apology should be regarding his ignorance, not my misunderstanding, of which there was none. Again, no confusion on my part - only on his.

If he understands copyright concerns, why on earth does he say that all examples by Norman Lindsay are sent to me for approval? We have copyright on the etchings, not all works by Norman Lindsay. The Lindsay family have copyright on all other media. He still doesn't get it.

Mr Thwaites clearly has no concept of the length of time, number of emails and letters sent, number of meetings with lawyers and costs involved that it has taken to get this issue resolved which could have been resolved in a couple of weeks. You think I am angry, you bet I am and then to receive this pathetic "apology" letter, which it is not, was insulting in the extreme.

Mr Thwaites is compelled to write an apology letter for this issue to be finalised and this is what he came up with. His attempt at an apology clearly demonstrates that he has no concept or understanding of what he has done and no idea what an apology is. There are too many people in this world now who do not accept and own up to their own mistakes. Mr Thwaites is one of them.

I am putting this saga on our website as our clients like to know that we don't idly sit by as companies and individuals breach Norman Lindsay's copyright. Naturally, I am not putting Mr Thwaites "apology" letter on there as it would be in breach of copyright. However, the only way to date Mr Thwaites letter is to put it up and say when it was received. There is no date on Mr Thwaites' letter. Who writes a letter to another company that is not dated and has no inside address stating the addressee and company at the top, only starting the letter with the salutation "Dear Jane"? Absolutely appalling.

I am glad Mr Thwaites is not my Chief Operating Officer.

My COO is so far ahead of yours in knowledge, courtesy, ethics and professionalism, it beggars belief

Regards -
Jane

CELEBRATING 50 YEARS IN 2023/24
Jane Bloomfield
PO Box 400
Bungendore  NSW  2621

The dispute with Lawsons has now been finalised. We have the two etchings in question but the issue regarding the vendor is still in the hands of Chamberlains.

This matter took a year to resolve with Lawsons. If Henry Badgery was still at Lawsons, it would have taken two weeks, max.

So much for Lawons' slogan - "140 Years Under Our Belt - Trust, Expertise, Results".