Who owns your old photos?

JimM · Post by **JimM** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:21 pm

Recently I borrowed some old family photos to copy.. The photos were taken around 1914 and were the usual posed portraits.
I scanned the photos onto a media card and off I popped to ASDA to print them off.
I put my media card into the digital photo machine then handed my receipt to the girl and wandered around the store while my photos were processed.
When I returned for my photos I was met by the supervisor who told me that they could not give me the prints ... in her opinion my photos were professionally taken and therefore under copywrite. [-X
My protests that these were photos of my family taken over ninety years ago made no difference... I would have to PROVE that the photographer had been dead for seventy years.
Well to cut a long story... I took the media card to TESCO and explained the position, they told me that as long as I accept ownership of the material they would not question it. =D>

Post by **Tracey** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:03 pm

WHAT !!!!!!!!! sounds like a right jobsworth ! With all my old photos dating from 1800,s i have never been asked this and one of them does have copyright written on it.
I used to print them straight from my pc but the quality isnt the same and by the time youve shelled out for good quality photo paper and outrageously expensive ink cartridges its cheaper to get them professionaly coppied.
Sorry this isnt a legal answer but so many people must be doing the same thing now and having the same problem as you. Lets hope there is a copyright lawyer looking !
But glad to hear Tesco saved the day !

sheilajim · Post by **sheilajim** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 1:09 am

Hi Jim & Tracy,

This kind of copyright doesn't make much sense.

The photographer in these cases would originally be commissioned to take the picture. For example, if today I went to a photographer to have my picture taken, the picture would belong to me, not the photographer. I could then do as I pleased with it, give it away, tear it up, etc. Any decendants would also own the picture. The photographer would not be able to do as he pleased with my picture without my permission.

I don't pretend to know the copyright laws of Scotland, or even of the U.S. and Canada. This is just common sense!

This does bring to mind another thought though. How long do Photography Studios keep pictures that they have taken? Does anyone know? Imagine if you could find old lost photos of your Grandparents, etc.

Sheila

PS. I am personally happy with the copies I get from my printer. I agree that the ink and paper are expensive, but I am more satisfied with my own printouts than I have been with some professional copies.

Looking for Boyd,McLaren,Kennedy, McDonald, Langan, Morin, Findlan, Key, McKinnon, McKee

JimM · Post by **JimM** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:05 am

Hi Tracey and Sheila
It is a bit of a mine field..
It appears that although you may own the actual photograph..the photographer retains artistic and publishing rights which include reprints.
the photographer may have lone since gone out of business but someone may have inherited the copyrights.. and it's up to you to find out !

So the options are
1 - become the owner of the negative.. how likely is that?
2 - get a letter of permission from the photographer or copyright owner ... ditto
3 - prove that the photographer has been dead for seventy years

k

Like you said Tracey it works out cheaper to get store copies but watch-out you don't get a jobsworth at the desk.
Copyright laws are on this site...... I'm off now to hide my photo album 8-[

http://ahds.ac.uk/copyrightfaq.htm#faq31

Jim

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:07 am

sheilajim wrote:Hi Jim & Tracy,

This kind of copyright doesn't make much sense. The photographer in these cases would originally be commissioned to take the picture. For example, if today I went to a photographer to have my picture taken, the picture would belong to me, not the photographer. I could then do as I pleased with it, give it away, tear it up, etc. Any decendants would also own the picture. The photographer would not be able to do as he pleased with my picture without my permission. .......snipped..............

Hi Sheila

While you most certainly own the prints that you buy from the photographer, and can do with them whatever you like, you don't own the copyright and the negatives unless you have made an appropriate arrangement with the photographer

Agreed that he cannot make use of your photo for purposes other than more copies for you, unless he arranges with you otherwise.

David

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:57 pm

As far as copyright is concerned

If a person (or artist) takes a photograph of their own volition, they own the copyright.

If you commission a person to take photographs (i.e. you hire a photographer), then you (and your descendants) own the copyright.

I do design work for a company, and while we have no contractual agreement on the subject, a court would take a dim view if I were to make use of this work for my own use. I am paid to produce work for them.

'He who pays the piper, calls the tune' may not actually be in the law books. But it's a good rule of thumb when determining ownership.

If anyone is looking for a new law to add to the books, might I suggest that 'jobsworthing' should be punishable by looking the miscreant in the stocks outside the establishment in question. While the have the right to decline to do any act they believe to be illegal (rightly or wrongly),
they have no right to retain the photographs! Of all the people in the affair, the one with no right of posession is 'jobsworth'

Dave

Lizzie · Post by **Lizzie** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 1:19 pm

Hi All

Not in Canada you don't!

I was in the same position as Jim last year. I came accross an old picture and decided to frame it. I took it to the local Wall* Mart Store and they refused to do it because it had been taken by a Proffesional Photographer. Indeed it was, taken in Glasgow around 1900.

No amount of pleading moved them. They told me it was against the Law?
I have mentioned this to other people and no one ever heard of such a Law!

I later came upon a Store who does restore old pictures. Maybe they had a special permit?

Lizzie

JimM · Post by **JimM** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 1:52 pm

Hi Lizzie
That's very interesting ..
On my original post I said that I went to Asda..
In case you don't know, Asda are a very large retailer over here that were recently bought over by guess who?... yes Wall*Mart.
I wonder if anybody else out there has old family photos they want to get copied?
Then better avoid Asda/ Wall*Mart ...... according to them you are breaking the law

Jim

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 4:12 pm

I quote, selectively, from the site that JimM referred to ..........

In the United Kingdom, virtually every work created by the labour, skill and judgement of individuals and institutions is covered by copyright as long as it meets certain conditions. These pre-requisites are:

The work must be original

The work must be in a material form.

Ideas cannot be copyrighted, but the expression of those ideas into a physical format will gain copyright.

There are several different categories under which different materials are classified in the 1988 Copyright Act and subsequent amendments and additions. The Table below [extract only included in relation to photographs] outlines the major categories and their lifetimes, but you should check appropriate texts for more details:

The category in question in this case is "Artistic Works" defined as "Graphic works (painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut), Photographs (not part of a moving film), sculpture, collage, works of architecture (buildings and models for buildings), and artistic craftsmanship (e.g. jewelry)."

In this case, unless specifically agreed and contracted otherwise (my addition), the copyright vests with the " Authors/creators life plus 70 years after death. ", i.e. in the case of a photograph, the photographer, not the person commissioning the photograph.

The generally accepted and understood contract, extensively tested in the courts, is that the photographer is being contracted only to supply copies of the photos taken, not copies together with the negatives and the copyright, unless that is specifically and separately agreed. Have a look at any professional photographer's standard terms and conditions, and you will find that the photographer's rights to the copyright are asserted and confirmed, unless there is agreement to and payment for the contrary.

Will all those who were given the original negatives of their wedding photos, or whatever professionally taken photos in the UK, please raise their hands

OK, you may well not have been aware of the implied contract and the implication in terms of the copyright, but, if you didn't specifically make it clear that you wanted the copyright, and paid the necessary extra for the priviledge, then that's the reality.

What is happening here with later copies of the prints is that the shops involved are covering their ****** in terms of lack of clarity as to the copyright owner.

David

Post by **Ina** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 9:24 pm

I had the same problems here in California trying to have old photos copied. We have Kodak photo copy machines in many stores but none of them will copy old photos because of copyright laws. I finally took them to a large warehouse type store (Costco) and they printed them without any questions being asked.

Copyright laws can be complicated. My son has a lawsuit pending against a professional photographer who took photos of his dog with her new litter of puppies. She had a 16x20 copy of the photo on display at her studio.......but then she sold the rights to the photo to Hallmark Greeting Cards without asking my sons permission. Only reason my son found out was that he received a greeting card from a friend with his dogs photo on it.

Ina