How can I determine if I can copy/print a Professional Photo

[G5_Gal]

I have been coming here for quite sometime to get some wonderful advice on all things Canon and this will be my first question.

I have a Wedding Album that belongs to a family member for whom we are planning a surprise 50th Wedding Anniversary party. We were hoping to scan and print these photos to be part of a large picture collage at the party.

The problem is getting permission from the original photographer. We do not know who he/she is. There was nothing in the photo album, no card, no advertisement, no name or address and anyone that is still around does not recall the name of the photographer. These are, however, 50 year old photographs. I do understand that there are cases where the estate of the photographer can still hold the ownership/copyright to these pictures. I am not using these photographs for monetary gain, only to enhance the party atmosphere with memories from these photographs for the benefit of the people at this celebration.

Can anyone provide any guidance on this subject matter?

Thanks,
G5_Gal

[CyberDyneSystems]

I am curious to see what some of our real pros think on this subject.

I see two points of view;

1: The prints you have are the result of a pro having been hired to do the wedding,. they were paid for, and belong to the people who paid for them,.. and thus they can do whatever they want with them now, PROVIDED they do not try to profit from them (ie they can't sell any new prints they make)

This would reflect my own opinion. Untill you are trying to profit from the images,. they are yours to do with as you see fit.

The flipside could be;

2: All that was purchased was the prints. The negatives and images themselves still belong to the photgrapher,. and thus any further copies need to be paid for.

Again,. I am interested to see what others think,. in fact my own take on this is totally irrelevent as I have no understanding of the copyright laws in this regard.

However I will say this,. for the latter to be true legally,. I would have to assume that the purchasers would have had to agree to a contract to bind them to such limitations.

[Vegas Poboy]

I'm not a Pro but I just recently seen this on TV one of those court TV shows & if it's not for the purpose of resale or remakes to give family members it should be ok to scan. I've slowly have been restoring my own family albums and would like to now what's what in this part of the legal field.

[SoCal69]

OK, here's my thoughts...

1 - It is not clear who holds the copyright
2 - you have tried to locate the photographer and obtain permission
3 - the photos were taken 50+ years ago

Go ahead and use them. What is the worst thing that can happen? This is a one time use from what I understand, and it is not being used for resale or other commercial purposes. Assuming there is an infringement (which I seriously doubt... like sharing a copy of a song with a friend), the worst that happens is he demands you stop using it (ummm, ok) and seeks to recover the amount of potential profits he lost from your creation (umm, none except for maybe his profits on the prints he could have sold you to create the collage). Because these are wedding photos, and not something useable or desireable by the general public, because they were taken so long ago and because you have tried to locate the photographer, you should be in the clear. Besides, if he shows up, you simply point out his own negligence in failing to identify himself anywhere!
:shock:

[scotgasch]

I have worked for a Professional Photographer for 5 years and this subject has come up more times than I can count. His view is that if you have made a "reasonable" search for the photographer then it is ok, especially 50 year old pictures. No problem, go ahead!!!

[John_T]

If you consider it is not for profit, it is for a closed society and not public use, and actually only for the benefit of the original owners for fifty years, I can't see how any claim by the photographer would be supported. Besides, what can he really claim? Twenty bucks for prints?

[IndyJeff]

1.You have made a viable attempt to locate the photographer, probably the best place to find him would be a cemetary but thats a different story.

2.The photos would still fall under the timelimits of copyright.

3.You are not using them to gain profit or circumvent the copyright holder of any profit.

4.The use of the photos are being used to as a copy to protect the original from irreplaceable damage.

5.The copies will most likely remain with the original party which purchased the original photos.

6. Now this is a stretch but, you are using multiple copyrighted images to create a seperate art entity which will tell a story, of sorts.

All in all, you would be 99% safe to copy the originals and if someone representing the photographer wanted to sue for CR violation I doubt that any judge would allow the case to progress past the first hearing. YOu could always run an ad in the local classifieds looking for the photographer. This would document your proof of search.

On a personal note, if I were the photographer or family member of the deceased photographer I would have no objections to you copying and making your collage. I mean can you imagine trying to find the wedding negs that you shot 50 years ago? And if I could do it within a week, I would deserve a bonus!!!!

[G5_Gal]

I want to thank everyone for their replies. I will go ahead and print the pictures.

The Canon Forums is a wonderful place.

Thanks,
G5_Gal

[deezeljuice]

Funny thing about copyrighted wedding pictures. The photographer does indeed hold the copyright, but he/she cannot sell the photos to anyone but the party who contracted for them, unless said party agrees and is compensated for such. In essence, it's as though both the photographer and the wedding party bold hold rights to the photos. I do not know specifically about copyrights, but patents expire adfter 17 years. I believe in your case making a reasonable search for the photographer, and after 50 years, you are OK to reproduce the photos for your own use.

[stopbath]

OK, here's my thoughts...

...Assuming there is an infringement (which I seriously doubt... like sharing a copy of a song with a friend)...

You do mean unlike since sharing a copy of a song with a friend is most definately an infringment of copyright law? (Particulaly since each record is sold with copyright information right there on the label.)