Old Photos 2
May 25, 2021 10:04:36 #
rmcgarry331 wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice. I'm just someone who works with old photos. One often forgotten provision of the pre 1978 copyright law, was that the "Originator" of a work held the copyright, rather than the artist. In the case of a studio photo, a person booking an appointment and paying a sitting fee to have the photographer take the picture, would be the copyright holder, not the photographer, not the studio.
May 25, 2021 10:32:40 #
A touchy issue. From what I have gathered over the years when it comes to matters like this is: copyrights are implied, whether stated or not, the copyright is good for 75 years, and just because the company is no more, the copyright still is in effect and can be there for the original artist, or family member of that artist/photographer. And, just because you, or your family bought the original image, it doesn't mean you bought the copyrights to the image, and to be able to do whatever you want with the image, so some statements above I believe are wrong, (if I sell one of my images to a company or individual, they would also have to buy the rights to reproduce, or rework the original image, and there is an $$$$ incremental fee for that, otherwise they are simply buying a piece of paper with my photo on it) Again, only my opinion, and only arrived at by what I've read and learned about this over the years. Bottom line though...who will really know if you did this, it's for the family. Surely, you will not have the copyright Gestapo knocking on your door and taking you away in the middle of the night :)
May 25, 2021 10:52:12 #
CameraDad
Loc: Michigan
Several years ago I restored several old studio-taken photos probably from the 20's or 30's. I wanted prints made and the company I took them to stated they were professional photos and they could not print them without a copyright release. I stated the studio was long out of business and there was no way to get a copyright release. It didn't matter to them. I ended up printing the restored photos and they turned out fine.
May 25, 2021 11:21:17 #
M1911
Loc: DFW Metromess
In the 1960's to be copyrighted it had to have copyright xyz plus the year. iIn addition, a copyright notice had to be filed with the copyright office along with a copy of the image. Multiple images could be copyrighted by using a contact sheet. Just havinng the studio name, address and phone does not equal copyright back then.
May 25, 2021 11:33:13 #
According to the lawyers our art gallery consulted on many occasions concerning just such issues, it is NOT legal to take a picture of a picture and call it a new image. Just as it is NOT legal for painters to paint your photograph, photographers may not copy someone else's work - legally. And this means by any method - from using a camera to making a photocopy. Your question is who owns the copyright. That is a matter that the original parties concerned would know. Depending on the agreement between the actual photographer and the company he was working for, it might be the original person who clicked the shutter, and it might be the studio. And, of course, there is the matter of "working for hire," where the copyright belongs to the person who hired it done. All of that is a matter of contracts. The lawyers did (mostly) agree that if the originators were all "dead," then the work could probably be reproduced for private use without fear of restitution. But they did recommend that one be able to prove efforts to locate the originators.
May 25, 2021 12:14:19 #
AzPicLady wrote:
According to the lawyers our art gallery consulted... (show quote)
What I have read is, a copyright does not go away with the death of the holder. It remains in affect. also "working for hire", (you hire a photographer to take photos of you, say) the copyright probably belongs to the photographer unless given away in the contract. Basic rule is, 'the copyright belongs to the person the took the photo".
OK spot
https://thelawtog.com/copyright-laws-for-photographers/
copyright.gov site which can be searched for "photo"
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
These laws an take an atty to understand, which I am not. I could be wrong in my above statement (probably am) since your atty says differently. Just goes to show how different people can interpret something.
Not meant to argue with you AZ (I would never do that), just adding info. This comes up all the time, and even I get more and more confused.
May 25, 2021 12:48:25 #
frankraney wrote:
What I have read is, a copyright does not go away ... (show quote)
You are correct that current law allows copyright to post exist death of its holder, I believe by 75 years. The previous law differed.
The "work for hire" to which I referred was other than someone having a portrait done. Generally, it refers to either of two scenarios. One is when an individual is employed by a studio or company. The copyright may be determined by the employment contract. The second is if a photographer is hired by a company to make a very specific image, say for an advertisement, for example, where the company mandates all of the parameters.
May 25, 2021 13:55:21 #
fetzler
Loc: North West PA
Well, at least your photos are not very old. I have a few photographs from the 1860's and 70's
May 25, 2021 16:17:08 #
TMcL wrote:
I have some old photos of great sentimental value that I wish to share with family. The photos were taken circa 1960, and have the name of the studio stamped on the back. Having checked, I discovered that the studio went out of business in the 1980s. Can I legally/ethically have these photos scanned and reproduced? Thanks.
From your post, I assume that the studio was the creator of the images. Normally the studio would not seek to copyright the images of its customers. If there is no proof of copyright (on the photos) and the studio business has been out of business for 25+ years, the chances of your liability for copyright infringement are close to zero.
Copyright law specifies that any copyright is in force for the life of the original creator plus fifty years. If there is no evidence of copyright, you are free to scan and distribute as you see fit.
May 25, 2021 16:29:28 #
RodeoMan
Loc: St Joseph, Missouri
Geneaology websites are replete with examples of images that have been scanned and posted both from studios that are no longer in business and from ones that still are. Here is another question about unauthorized use. What about the craftsperson who takes a copyrighted image and puts it into a different form, perhaps as part of some sort of montage or some other "crafty" object?
May 25, 2021 16:34:12 #
You might consider scanning them in as a first step.
Then if you really understand Elements Expert Mode tools (or Photoshop or Lightroom), you can restore them yourself. If you don't know that much about Elements Expert Mode, you can run them through Elements Camera Raw. Yes, people on this website will say that Elements Camera Raw is only for pictures shot in RAW, and I personally have never used Camera Raw on a JPEG shot with a digital camera. But it also works quite well on scanned-in old film photos saved as JPEGs or PNGs. Scott Kelby's books each have an excellent chapter on how to use Camera Raw.
I have over 425 pictures scanned in from the 60's - 90's that I fixed with Camera Raw. Picture 1 was taken on July 10, 1966, scanned in around 2005 and restored with Camera Raw. There are two instances where Elements Camera Raw will not work. The first is where the image ink has deteriorated to a point that restoration even with Elements Expert Mode isn't possible. The other is when you have ageing discoloration as in Picture 2. Elements expert Mode can fix ageing discoloration but you must have Masking/Blending Layer skills and knowledge of at least how to use the Hue/Saturation Adjustment and Levels You might consider scanning them in as a first step. Then if you really understand Elements Expert Mode tools, you can restore them yourself. If you don't know that much about Elements Expert Mode, You can run them through Elements Camera Raw. Yes, people on this website will say that Elements Camera Raw is only for pictures shot in RAW, and I have never used Camera Raw on a JPEG. But it also works quite well on scanned-in old film photos. Scott Kelby's books each have an excellent chapter on how to use Camera Raw.
I have over 350 pictures scanned in from the 60's and 70's That I used Camera Raw on to fix. The attached image was taken on July 10, 1966 and restored with Camera Raw. There are two instances where Elements Camera Raw will not work. The first is where the image ink has deteriorated to a point that restoration even with Elements Expert Mode isn't possible. The other is when you have ageing redness. Elements expert Mode can fix ageing redness but you must have Masking/Blending Layer skills and knowledge of at least how to use the Hue/Saturation and Levels Layers. Picture 2 shows ageing discoloration. Picture 3 shows it repaired with Elements Expert Mode.
Then if you really understand Elements Expert Mode tools (or Photoshop or Lightroom), you can restore them yourself. If you don't know that much about Elements Expert Mode, you can run them through Elements Camera Raw. Yes, people on this website will say that Elements Camera Raw is only for pictures shot in RAW, and I personally have never used Camera Raw on a JPEG shot with a digital camera. But it also works quite well on scanned-in old film photos saved as JPEGs or PNGs. Scott Kelby's books each have an excellent chapter on how to use Camera Raw.
I have over 425 pictures scanned in from the 60's - 90's that I fixed with Camera Raw. Picture 1 was taken on July 10, 1966, scanned in around 2005 and restored with Camera Raw. There are two instances where Elements Camera Raw will not work. The first is where the image ink has deteriorated to a point that restoration even with Elements Expert Mode isn't possible. The other is when you have ageing discoloration as in Picture 2. Elements expert Mode can fix ageing discoloration but you must have Masking/Blending Layer skills and knowledge of at least how to use the Hue/Saturation Adjustment and Levels You might consider scanning them in as a first step. Then if you really understand Elements Expert Mode tools, you can restore them yourself. If you don't know that much about Elements Expert Mode, You can run them through Elements Camera Raw. Yes, people on this website will say that Elements Camera Raw is only for pictures shot in RAW, and I have never used Camera Raw on a JPEG. But it also works quite well on scanned-in old film photos. Scott Kelby's books each have an excellent chapter on how to use Camera Raw.
I have over 350 pictures scanned in from the 60's and 70's That I used Camera Raw on to fix. The attached image was taken on July 10, 1966 and restored with Camera Raw. There are two instances where Elements Camera Raw will not work. The first is where the image ink has deteriorated to a point that restoration even with Elements Expert Mode isn't possible. The other is when you have ageing redness. Elements expert Mode can fix ageing redness but you must have Masking/Blending Layer skills and knowledge of at least how to use the Hue/Saturation and Levels Layers. Picture 2 shows ageing discoloration. Picture 3 shows it repaired with Elements Expert Mode.
May 25, 2021 17:05:58 #
TMcL wrote:
I have some old photos of great sentimental value that I wish to share with family. The photos were taken circa 1960, and have the name of the studio stamped on the back. Having checked, I discovered that the studio went out of business in the 1980s. Can I legally/ethically have these photos scanned and reproduced? Thanks.
For personal use yes.
May 25, 2021 17:19:42 #
If the "crafty" person does not have usage permission from the copyright holder, it's a violation of copyright law. Putting the copyrighted image into a different "frame" does not constitute permission for usage. For example, the author of a copyrighted hard-copy book retains the copyright to the same material published as a paperback or e-book.
May 25, 2021 18:47:16 #
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair use
Fair use definition is - a legal doctrine that portions of copyrighted materials may be used without permission of the copyright owner provided the use is fair and reasonable, does not substantially impair the value of the materials, and does not curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner.
Of course Merriam-Webster is not a legal firm but fair use that does not impair the value of the copyrighted work appears to be permitted.
Fair use definition is - a legal doctrine that portions of copyrighted materials may be used without permission of the copyright owner provided the use is fair and reasonable, does not substantially impair the value of the materials, and does not curtail the profits reasonably expected by the owner.
Of course Merriam-Webster is not a legal firm but fair use that does not impair the value of the copyrighted work appears to be permitted.
May 25, 2021 19:07:50 #
RodeoMan wrote:
Geneaology websites are replete with examples of images that have been scanned and posted both from studios that are no longer in business and from ones that still are. Here is another question about unauthorized use. What about the craftsperson who takes a copyrighted image and puts it into a different form, perhaps as part of some sort of montage or some other "crafty" object?
According to the lawyers, if it is used without expressed permission, it is in violation.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.