Who owns your old photos?

[scooter]

Hi David,

Yes, that appears to be true. The following by Henry Lydiate from www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/copyright/oldphoto.htm may also be of use:

"There is no copyright in photographs made before 31 December 1945. Copyright in photographs made on or after January 1, 1946 now lasts for 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which they were taken.

Ownership of copyright in photographs taken between January 1, 1946 and July 31, 1989 depends on whether they were commissioned. If they were commissioned, the copyright owner would normally be the commissioner, unless the commission contract explicitly stated that the freelance photographer would own the copyright. If not commissioned, then the person who owned the material on which the image was made (the negative film or transparency, say) would own the copyright - not the taker. This bizarre rule led to much misunderstanding and confusion over copyright ownership during those years when good equipment was expensive, and cameras with film were often lent to freelance photographers by, for example, news agencies and newspapers. However, if an employee took a photograph during those years, the rule was different: the employer would own the copyright, unless the contract of employment explicitly stated otherwise.

Where reasonable efforts have been made to identify the author of a photograph taken on or after January 1, 1946, without success, copyright lasts for 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was taken or, if it was published, 70 years from the end of the year of publication. If the identity of the author becomes known during the 'unknown' copyright period, copyright lasts for the identified author's lifetime plus 70 years after the end of the year in which they die. However, there is no breach of an unknown author's copyright in a photograph if it has not been possible to identify that person, and it is reasonable to assume that either the copyright has expired or the author died more than 50 years before any 'infringing' act took place (such as reproducing or merchandising such a work)."

The author then sites a useful example for anyone who has old photographs from say the 19th century:

"Consider a hypothetical case. A local heritage museum has been given a collection of photographs of the surrounding area, and wants to rephotograph, frame, exhibit, sell as postcards, or post on its website. The prints appear to date from the 1890s, 1900s, 1930s, 1950s, 1960s and 1990s. None has been published previously, to the best of the museum's knowledge. Those taken before 31 December 1945 would no longer be protected by copyright. Those taken in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1990s would be protected by copyright for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years after the end of the year of their death. The museum should try to trace the copyright owners of the images taken in the 1950S, 1960s, and 1990s, and seek their permission to rephotograph and market those images. After making reasonable efforts to trace the copyright owners, without success, the museum should decide whether it is reasonable to assume that the copyright has expired, or that the author died more than 50 years ago - and it would be prudent to take out an insurance policy to cover any liability that may arise from breach of copyright - before using the images as planned."

As I hinted in a previous post, it's all a bit of a minefield, which is why things changed in 1989. I wouldn't know what the situation in, for example, North America might be.

Outside of the above, if anyone followed the Peter Stubbs link, I hope they had a look at the rest of his site, there are some wonderful old photographs contained within, and a great deal of useful information.

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/

Best,

Scott

[DavidWW]

Wow, thanks Scott!

About the only thing that I can think of to add is that I'm sure that the contract that many people signed for their wedding photies or the portrait of the dug post-1945 and pre-July 1989 would have had a clause that explicitly stated that the freelance photographer would own the copyright!

David

PS Many moons ago I tried to get this type of guidance from a major archive in Scotland, and singularly failed
dww

[scooter]

Hi David,

Yes, I suspect they may well have done. Anyone who has ever been engaged as a wedding photographer knows that the real money is made from reprints, which is why they won't give you the negatives! The mark-ups on prints can be quite extraordinary. Occasionaly I lecture at Universities and always tell them that if they want to make any kind of money from the business they should go down the wedding route.

Best,

Scott

[sheilajim]

Hi Scott

That was a lot of information. I guess that we should all look at what we sign. I am going to assume that anything before 1945 can be legally copied, at least for personal uses.

I have nothing against Photographers making a decent living. It is after so many years have passed by that I think things have gone too far.

You said that your grandfather left you with his Photo collection. If they are of ordinary people, do you have their names? If you do, it could be worth your while to try and contact them. Some family members might want to see and buy copies of old pictures of their parents, grandparents, etc.
I know that I would.

Regards

Sheila

Searching for Boyd, Kennedy, Key, McKee, Langan, Moran, McDonald, McKinnon, Findlan, McVeiny

[JimM]

Just a final word on this issue
I wrote back to the store complaining that they were applying a law from 1988 to photos taken in the 1920's.
I have just received a written appology and a token voucher.
Thanks to Scott and everyone else who replied =D>

Jim

[scooter]

Hi Jim,

Glad it worked out ok for you. What a result!

Sheila - yes, Grandad was more of a documentary photographer so there's no real way of knowing who any of the people are - with the exception of a rather whiskery Duke of Edinburgh. Maybe I'll send him a print or two. Perhaps I'll get an invite for tea with his missus?

Best,

Scott