copyright on found photographs

[Mr-Beama]

hello :)

i was wondering if anyone knew what the copyright laws are on found photographs or photographs bought from secondhand shops or boot fairs/garage sales?

many thanks

[Jon, The Elder]

Darned good question. In this country, copyrights have a given time period. I know that patents eventually revert back to 'public domain'. Just what the details are, and I'm sure there are plenty, would be of interest to many.

[Box Brownie]

Hmmm!!! certainly an interesting question especially in the light of the opening comment that you can buy such items at boot fairs and the like e.g. Carte de Visite cards i.e. being sold at such places could be said to be infringing the copyright of the originating photographer

AFAIK copyright for authors (does this include photography?) is now 70 years from the date of their death. I think it used to be 50 years but was lifted to 70 only recently.

Unless this had already been discussed legally elsewhere I wonder what the status of such images really is?

:)

[gjl711]

If your purchasing the photos for use such as framing and display, then copyright does not apply. It is no different than buying a book and selling it. If however you want to buy the photo, then use it commercially, copyright does apply. That is no different than finding a magazine, liking a pic and using it in your publication.

[vwpilot]

AFAIK copyright for authors (does this include photography?) is now 70 years from the date of their death. I think it used to be 50 years but was lifted to 70 only recently.



:)

Its the same for photos, 70 years after the original copyright holder's death.

However, there are laws regarding "orphaned works." Look up orphaned works on the copyright website and you should find out what you need. www.copyright.gov

[rhys]

I cannot imagine a photo by Frex X taken in 1972 and sold in a car boot sale would merit much interest from the descendents of Fred X even if Fred X was relatively well-known. His photos might not be that recognisable unless they are of specific people.

Here's an interesting issue. If one of your digital images was used without your consent, how could you identify it? Would you buy every magazine published and trawl through it looking for crops of your photos when you have maybe 100,000 in your photo library?

[vwpilot]

I cannot imagine a photo by Frex X taken in 1972 and sold in a car boot sale would merit much interest from the descendents of Fred X even if Fred X was relatively well-known. His photos might not be that recognisable unless they are of specific people.

That is why the govt has a provision for orphaned works. Its to give more liberal use of images that are not actively protected or cared about any longer. They consider the work an orphan and it moves into a fair use environment.

Do some searching on it, its been up for revisions lately making it MUCH more easy for people to steal our images and claim they were orphaned and not be held liable. Its something of interest to all of us, but this is an example of the real reason for it.

[mjordan]

Here in the US, just because the author can't be found does not mean that the image is not copyrighted. Even if you can't find the author, it's still protected up until it goes past the copyright expiration. And if you use something commercially and someone shows up and says that is their image and unless you pay them they are going to sue and you can't prove it's your image, they might not win if they can't give a reasonable showing that it's their's, but it's still going to cost you a lot of money going through court. That's why most commercial companies don't use images that they can't find the author of... because if they spend a lot of money using the image and the real author shows up, it's going to cost them a lot more than if they had hired their own photographer or gone through a stock agency or found an image that they could buy.

England probably has some of the same laws there, but I don't know what they are.

VWPilot, there are some very specific guidelines on the Orphand law that has been talked about. The company or person that wants to use it has to show that they did a good search to try and find the author... and if the author does show up, they are still on the hook for it's use to the author.

Mike

[vwpilot]

VWPilot, there are some very specific guidelines on the Orphand law that has been talked about. The company or person that wants to use it has to show that they did a good search to try and find the author... and if the author does show up, they are still on the hook for it's use to the author.

Mike

They could be on the hook to the author and even if they are, its far far less than if you infringed a normal work. As long as you do what is required to consider a work orphaned, then at most you are only responsible for what would normally be reasonable usage charges, and that is only if you have made a significant profit off the infringement.

These are the exceptions to a reasonable compensation


(B) EXCEPTIONS- (i) An order requiring the infringer to pay reasonable compensation for the use of the infringed work may not be made under subparagraph (A) if--

(I) the infringement is performed without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and primarily for a charitable, religious, scholarly, or educational purpose, and

(II) the infringer ceases the infringement expeditiously after receiving notice of the claim for infringement,

It states very clearly that if its either of these points and there is no significant income related, that no claim can be made.

I wasnt saying that this is an answer to this persons issue, but I am saying that there is this exemption out there for situations where works are seemingly "orphaned" and it might be worth their looking into if interested.

[mjordan]

Jim, I just read that the Orphand Law has been tabled this summer. I don't know if there isn't enough votes to pass it through Congress or if they are going to do some rewriting or what the story is. But I just read it on a legal forum. So until it gets passed and the courts get some cases judged and on the books, we really won't know how it will affect images that people try to use saying they couldn't find the author and the author shows up. In my opinion, any law, weither it's a good one or bad, people always find a way to abuse it and twist it for their own good. I'm sure this one will be no exception if it ever does become law. Copyright is something that is only going to get worse for us photographers unless there comes a way to electronicly tag an image so it's use can be tracked. But then someone will find a way to "un-tag" them quick enough. At least I'm making money off of copyright infringements. I'm on my 4th one right now.

Mike

[vwpilot]

Well, that is good to hear, I hadnt followed up that far with it. I knew it was out there, found it on the site and found the basic info about it. Thats why I wasnt giving any specific advice, just that the OP might want to look into it if they were serious.

I know they were trying to make it easier for works to be classified as orphaned and easier for them to be used by others...so its a good thing its been tabled, at least for now.

[mgvh]

I've searched the threads and can't find my situation addressed, so instead of starting a new thread, I thought I would add to this one.

I wanted to make a picture collage for my wife. I wasn't thinking when I scanned in some old pictures, but when I brought it to Staples to print (it was to be a poster), they properly said they could not since some of the pics were copyrighted.

Those copyrighted pics include old family and school pictures from 40+ years ago and a wedding picture done by a part-time photographer acquaintance from 20 years ago. The school pics have no indication of a studio I could contact, and I have googled and checked white/yellow pages of the wedding photographer and cannot locate the person.

Does this mean the photos are "orphaned"?
How would I be able to convince a place like Staples to print the collage if indeed they are orphaned?

It seems a little sad that the pictures are largely unusable otherwise.
Thanks for any help.