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

FotoDog wrote in post #15712434
The same thought occurred to me, although I believe the 2.25" x 2.25" format was quite common then. There are no numbers or other identifiers on my negative, but it is cut from a roll, and as you suggest could under ideal circumstances be compared to others from the same roll, if they exist.

Beaton, as many photographers in his era, most likely used a Rolleiflex. But like a bullet from a rifle, small irregularities of the frame edges, positioning of the frame with the negative reference numbers, even characteristics of the lens, can identify sister negatives from the same roll.

And that is also possible. I just can't see the reason for their lack of interest.

But someone else out there might have a greater interest.

One of the links you posted indicated that the image was set up for Beaton. Considering Beaton's standing, I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt there were any other photographers present.

Having his contact sheet would be a telling factor. It's always fascinating to see the contact sheets of those silver-age photographers, seeing how they worked up to their images.

RDKirk wrote in post #15712667
... I just can't see the reason for their lack of interest.

But someone else out there might have a greater interest.

I'm thinking that Cocteau people may have a lot more interest in this than Beaton people. I'm starting to contact some of them.

RDKirk wrote in post #15712667
Considering Beaton's standing, I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt there were any other photographers present.

Agreed.

Thanks for the comments.

FotoDog wrote in post #15712049
Here is Sotheby's reply in its entirety, with my comments below:
_______________
I will refer to it as a "presumed Cecil Beaton photograph, recently discovered."

If there's anything I'm overlooking here, please comment.

Btw, the 8x10 prints I had made for eBay sales, I had done in cyan blue, because it looks cool that way. It also looks good in sepia. But for historical accuracy, at a certain point I suppose I'll have them printed in b&w.

`

be careful with this phrase selling prints as you are implying a person with knowledge has looked and believes it may be pending further examination. The word possible or non authenticated might be better as it implies only the possibility without authenticity but even this could get you into trouble.

FotoDog wrote in post #15712049
I know, of course, that I will never own the copyright (either someone else owns it, or it's in the public domain), but until someone tells me otherwise, I will consider it my image to use however I like, and sell prints to anyone who wants them (while keeping the negative and large image files for myself). I will refer to it as a "presumed Cecil Beaton photograph, recently discovered."

If there's anything I'm overlooking here, please comment.

Btw, the 8x10 prints I had made for eBay sales, I had done in cyan blue, because it looks cool that way. It also looks good in sepia. But for historical accuracy, at a certain point I suppose I'll have them printed in b&w.

`

It's incomprehensible to me that this is going unquestioned here. You clearly don't own the copyright and you admit it. Yet you say you'll use the image any way you like. Do you not understand copyright? Making those prints is indeed infringing upon the rights of whoever the actual copyright holder is. We know for sure it's not you.

vfotog wrote in post #15723693
It's incomprehensible to me that this is going unquestioned here. You clearly don't own the copyright and you admit it. Yet you say you'll use the image any way you like. Do you not understand copyright? Making those prints is indeed infringing upon the rights of whoever the actual copyright holder is. We know for sure it's not you.

Adding "presumed Beaton" to the listings will also increase the possibility of the copyright owner from finding out.

vfotog wrote in post #15723693
It's incomprehensible to me that this is going unquestioned here. You clearly don't own the copyright and you admit it. Yet you say you'll use the image any way you like. Do you not understand copyright? Making those prints is indeed infringing upon the rights of whoever the actual copyright holder is. We know for sure it's not you.

If it's in the public domain, then selling the prints should be fine, no?

Personally, and from a practical point, I'd keep selling away unless or until someone stepped forward to claim ownership of the copyright, at which time I'd press the stop button on the printer and start a conversation

Just curious, I couldn't tell from the previous posts, is there much of a market for these?

Foodguy wrote in post #15724252
Personally, and from a practical point, I'd keep selling away unless or until someone stepped forward to claim ownership of the copyright, at which time I'd press the stop button on the printer and start a conversation

Just curious, I couldn't tell from the previous posts, is there much of a market for these?

Your point of view is the one I'm going with for now, and I'll explain why:

I've been doing everything I can think of, and will continue to do so, to find out whether there is a copyright holder for this image. If, by adding Beaton's name to my description when selling prints, I finally attract someone who claims to be the copyright holder, so be it, I can deal with that then, and reimburse that person for any money I have made, or whatever. (And for the record, so far I have sold a grand total of two (2) prints on eBay, at $15.50 a pop, so it's not like we're talking real money here.)

Also, in this case, due to the circumstance of Beaton's life and death, and the bulk of his work having gone to Sotheby's - who have already informed me that they do not hold the copyright - I seriously doubt that anyone will ever step forward.

Also, I strongly doubt that anyone will find that this image has ever appeared anywhere before my prints of it were made. I say that because of the defects on the negative, the long stringy artifacts that I removed digitally before making prints but that would have been impossible to remove back in the day, and thus dissuaded anyone from printing it then. (True, that does not affect the copyright matter, but it does affect my desire to share what I think is a great image with others who may appreciate it.)

As far as market demand goes, outside of Beaton and Cocteau fans, it is probably a limited market.

Btw, at this point I should probably acknowledge the person who first drew my attention to the likely fact that this is a Beaton photograph of Jean Cocteau. That would be Steven Martin, who is said to be the world‘s foremost expert on Chinese-style opium smoking and paraphernalia: http://www.opiummuseum​.com/

Steven has an image bank of “over 10,000 opium-related images“ and considers my Beaton/Cocteau negative to be “very historically important.“ He was already familiar with the “other“ Beaton/Cocteau photo and consequently recognized what I had when he saw it. (Steven has donated his 1,000 piece collection of opium pipes and artifacts to the University of Idaho.)


That‘s it for now.

^ Good for you , and thanks for answering my question.
I think your approach is a realistic and practical one. You've done your due diligence, now it's time to make some money!

Best of luck-