Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 28 Feb 2013 (Thursday) 16:07
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Famous photographer's vintage negative: Can I make money with it?

 
u_loco_local
Member
121 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Mar 01, 2013 12:02 |  #31

I think the person in the photograph is Jean Cocteau.


http://photocamel.com/​forum/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
FotoDog
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
21 posts
Joined Feb 2013
     
Mar 01, 2013 12:06 |  #32

u_loco_local wrote in post #15665031 (external link)
If the OP does not own the photograph and questions copyright ownership, then why is he selling prints of the photo on eBay?

Because the negative when sold to me was by "photographer unknown." It was not until a few months later that a sharp-eyed individual who had seen the similar photo informed me of what I had. I have NOT updated my eBay listing to reflect this new info. Maybe I'll have to remove it until I sort this out, e.i., contact whoever has the photographer's archives or whatever.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
u_loco_local
Member
121 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Mar 01, 2013 12:09 |  #33

FotoDog wrote in post #15665069 (external link)
Because the negative when sold to me was by "photographer unknown." It was not until a few months later that a sharp-eyed individual who had seen the similar photo informed me of what I had. I have NOT updated my eBay listing to reflect this new info. Maybe I'll have to remove it until I sort this out, e.i., contact whoever has the photographer's archives or whatever.

I was just curious.


http://photocamel.com/​forum/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
u_loco_local
Member
121 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Mar 01, 2013 12:12 |  #34

I believe the photograph below was taken by Cecil Beaton.

FotoDog wrote in post #15664998 (external link)
Interesting question. Here, for your reference, is the similar image that I found online. But I have not yet been able to trace it back to its first published source.

QUOTED IMAGE


http://photocamel.com/​forum/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kronie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,183 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
     
Mar 01, 2013 12:14 |  #35

Its still photographer unknown until an expert studies it and proves otherwise. I agree looking at the two that its probably from the same photographer. Just different comps....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Robert ­ Dunlop
Junior Member
27 posts
Joined Jan 2013
     
Mar 01, 2013 12:54 |  #36

Who really cares who owns the copyright? It was taken so long ago that nobody will be interested.
Just reword your ebay listings to reflect the newly-found, potentially lucrative information and cash in.
Those pillows are way over exposed anyway.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FotoDog
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
21 posts
Joined Feb 2013
     
Mar 01, 2013 13:42 |  #37

u_loco_local wrote in post #15665056 (external link)
I think the person in the photograph is Jean Cocteau.
. . .
I believe the photograph was taken by Cecil Beaton.

Good Google skills there. It pays to be curious.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnB57
Goldmember
1,507 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Holmfirth, Yorkshire, England
     
Mar 01, 2013 14:30 |  #38

The following caption appears under the picture on this website (external link): -

Circa 1930s– Cecil Beaton posed Jean Cocteau in this photograph smoking an opium pipe. Why you ask? The author Raymond Radiguet, with whom he had an intense personal relationship, died of typhoid in 1923, at the age of 20. The effect on Cocteau was seismic. Within weeks he had fallen into opium addiction. In his book, Jean Cocteau and his Films of Orphic Identity, Arthur B. Evans suggests that this addiction came to play a central role in his poetry– “It could be reasonably argued that Cocteau’s entire poetic philosophy, his life-style, and his very approach to his art were radically and permanently altered during his years of opium addiction from 1924 to 1929. It was during this time, and that immediately following, that the author came to find his personalized mythology of mirrors, angels, truthful lies, invisibility, and inevitably, his preoccupation with the literal and figurative aspects of death."




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FotoDog
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
21 posts
Joined Feb 2013
     
Mar 01, 2013 14:38 |  #39

JohnB57 wrote in post #15665594 (external link)
The following caption appears under the picture on this website (external link): -

Circa 1930s– Cecil Beaton posed Jean Cocteau in this photograph smoking an opium pipe. . . . "


And here we see that the copyright for that photo belongs to the "Cecil Beaton Studio Archive, Sotheby's London," and was "Accepted in lieu of tax by H.M. Government and allocated to the Gallery, 1991."
http://www.npg.org.uk …ID=mp65924&role​=sit&rNo=0 (external link)

`




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,984 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 528
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 01, 2013 15:17 |  #40

So, in my thoughts: You do own the negative, and it's probably certain that this is another of Beaton's negatives. From what I see in Wikipedia, Sotheby's might be willing to buy it from you. You own the negative, but it appears they own the copyright. Maybe. Depends on exactly how Beaton transferred it to them. Lawyer time.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FotoDog
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
21 posts
Joined Feb 2013
     
Mar 01, 2013 15:39 |  #41

RDKirk wrote in post #15665765 (external link)
So, in my thoughts: You do own the negative, and it's probably certain that this is another of Beaton's negatives. From what I see in Wikipedia, Sotheby's might be willing to buy it from you. You own the negative, but it appears they own the copyright. Maybe. Depends on exactly how Beaton transferred it to them. Lawyer time.

That's what I was thinking as well, including the "maybe" part. I'm already mentally composing a letter to Sotheby's.

If I do not have a clear right to make and sell or license prints, I may as well sell the negative to someone who can. (Hey, I wonder if I could sell the negative - with royalties on prints as part of the price?) I may have to take their word on the legal stuff, because I can't afford lawyers for this, unless there was big money involved. I have no idea whatsoever what such a negative might be worth.

It would sure be interesting to follow this negative back in time to see just how it got loose.

Btw, thanks to all for the helpful, insightful, intelligent responses so far. I came to the right place.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
professorman
Goldmember
Avatar
1,661 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2009
Location: VA
     
Mar 01, 2013 16:03 |  #42

Wow! This is awesome! Let us know how it turns out for you!


MyGear | Feedback | facebook (external link)|My Site (external link)|Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,267 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1551
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Mar 01, 2013 21:31 |  #43

Robert Dunlop wrote in post #15665245 (external link)
Who really cares who owns the copyright? It was taken so long ago that nobody will be interested.
Just reword your ebay listings to reflect the newly-found, potentially lucrative information and cash in.

The people who actually own the copyright almost certainly care, especially as attributing the photo to Beaton would indeed make it more valuable. Adding that information to an ebay listing would also make it a lot more likely that they would find out. Companies like that are constantly on the look out for interesting items like that and doubtless have searches running all the time.

FotoDog wrote in post #15665865 (external link)
If I do not have a clear right to make and sell or license prints, I may as well sell the negative to someone who can. (Hey, I wonder if I could sell the negative - with royalties on prints as part of the price?) I may have to take their word on the legal stuff, because I can't afford lawyers for this, unless there was big money involved. I have no idea whatsoever what such a negative might be worth.

If they won't agree on royalties there isn't any reason to necessarily sell it to them. You may not own the copyright but you do own that physical copy and can sell it to anyone. A private collector may well pay more for it.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Mar 02, 2013 07:26 |  #44

Robert Dunlop wrote in post #15665245 (external link)
Who really cares who owns the copyright? It was taken so long ago that nobody will be interested.

The copyright holder will care. Sotheby's acquired the copyright to Beaton's archive for a reason, it has a value and they make money from his work being published. This is no different to the photographers in this forum making money from their work being published. The original photographer may no longer be the copyright holder, but that doesn't make the copyright any less valid.

Yes, it was taken a long time ago, but his work still gets published and payments, or agreements, need to be made for that.

The members on this site generally take copyright infringement very seriously, as many of us have our copyright infringed by people publishing and using our work without permission, or indeed payment. This infringement costs members real money in lost revenues.

The attitude of "who really cares who owns the copyright, use it anyway" is one that hurts a lot of members on here.

It is still unclear whether Sotheby's do hold the copyright to this particular image, or if it is in the public domain. The OP is doing the right thing by checking that out before making any more prints. Your advice to "use it anyway" could potentially land them in court and cost them a lot of money.

I take it that your attitude toward copyright means that you are happy for us to copy your work and sell it for our personal gain, is that correct?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,984 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 528
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 02, 2013 10:43 |  #45

Dan Marchant wrote in post #15666990 (external link)
If they won't agree on royalties there isn't any reason to necessarily sell it to them. You may not own the copyright but you do own that physical copy and can sell it to anyone. A private collector may well pay more for it.

Sotheby's might be willing to put it on auction for the OP...it's what they do, after all. Their certification of its authenticity and their wide audience might draw a lot more money even after they take their cut.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,771 views & 0 likes for this thread
Famous photographer's vintage negative: Can I make money with it?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is MycalKay
2044 guests, 364 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.