Who owns your old photos?

[Tracey]

re some of what David posted about copyright and the 70 year thing.........
This is what it says on some of the photos taken c1860-1900 so they were covering their backs even then ! and because it is so blindingly obvious that no one in these photos or the photographer could possibly be alive may explain why prints have never been questioned !
Elite Sudios Market Street Aberdeen..........Negatives kept copies may be had
E.M Middleton King Street Aberdeen...............negatives preserved copies may be had.
John Craigen 17 Crown Street...............Extra copies of this picture may be had at anytime by sending name
Robt Stewart High Street Elgin.......................Negatives kept copies may be had
Ovinious Davis Princess Street Edinburgh........this one has no claim on it.
The County Studio Donalds Court Schoolhill Aberdeen ..............this one has copyright written in pen on it

[sheilajim]

Hi Everyone

I suppose that means that everytime we make a copy of a professional photograph on our own printers, that we are technically breaking the law!

I must have some criminal genes in my ancestry, because I don't care , and will continue to make copies.

Is this board monitered by the police? 8-[

Oh! Oh! Is that someone banging on my door?

Can you do geneological research from prison?

Sheila

[Tracey]

Hi Sheila............Not if as David says.................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
Or maybe if it was a privately taken photograph on a Box Brownie or a Dick Tracey ? ( way before my time but my dad has them ! )

[Cathy]

Just thought I'd add my experience.
I have recently taken some photos I borrowed from a cousin to my local chemist Colliers Wood, London). I also had them enlarged. No questions asked.

Cathy

[DavidWW]

It probably all comes down to what is reasonable and the willingness or otherwise of a shop to recognize this.

If it's a small independent who see that you are not trying it on in terms of the photos only being a few years old, and it's obvious that the photos are from many decades ago, then nothing will be said.

That's "reasonable"

But if it's a branch of a chain and a diktat has come down from Head Office, ...........

David

[Guest]

Can't disagree with DWW. Professional photographers have talked their way into a nice little monopoly.

But think on this.

Digital cameras. You can take the photos yourself. Process them yourself (no messy chemicals!). Print them yourself. Electronically watermark them yourself (so you'll know if they turn up in a greeting card).

You can send them round the world in the blink of an eye.

Get a reasonable camera and you can print out good 10 x 8s. A top camera will do 20 x16s. Or you can save the effort and not print the dodgy ones. The printers are amazingly cheap.

The complete choice is yours.

Or you can pay a guy who ends up owning your family album for the next hundred years.

[sheilajim]

Hi Everyone

This just goes to show, how ridiculous this copyright of personal Photographs is!

How long do Photographers keep their negatives? I think that only the negatives of celebrities would be kept for any length of time. Can anyone go to a studio today, assuming they are still in business, and ask for a copy of a photograph that they the studion had taken 5 or 10 years ago, never mind, 50 or 100 years ago

How would anyone prove that a particular picture of an ordinary person was taken by a particular Photographer if they didn't have the negative?

This is just a point that I want to make.

Sheila

[scooter]

Hi,

If anyone is still confused by this issue (and it is a nightmare!) then you might want to look at Peter Stubbs website:

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_H/0_home_ ... yright.htm

As a professional photographer working in national press/magazines/publishing and advertising for over ten years I have found this thread quite interesting. One point I would like to make is that we haven't 'talked ourselves into a nice little monopoly'. The industry is extremely competitive and cut-throat, and without current UK copyright laws the vast majority of photographers would be out of business quicker than you can say New Register House!

"If you commission a person to take photographs (i.e. you hire a photographer), then you (and your descendants) own the copyright" - Not true after 1989.

Best,

Scott

[scooter]

How long do Photographers keep their negatives? I think that only the negatives of celebrities would be kept for any length of time.

Hi Shiela,

Most photographers I know would never destroy their negatives, celebrity or not. My grandfather was a photographer and I have inherited his entire archive. Although he probably didn't think about it at the time, some of his output still holds a great deal of currency, and from a historical perspective is of immense interest. Editing it all has been fascinating, and provided a real insight into his life. I look on my work as my future pension. Having said that, I couldn't comment on high street photographic studios etc.

Cheers,

Scott

[DavidWW]

Now this I did not know!

Many thanks to Scott for clearing this up for once and for all!

Quoting from the site that Scott referred us to at
http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_H/0_home_ ... yright.htm

Introduction

I have no particular expertise on copyright law. However, here are a few brief notes on my understanding of the general situation in the UK. If you have a different interpretation of the copyright rules, or if you can add anything to my comments below, please email me.

These notes are based on my discussions with librarians, galleries and other holders of collections and on reading the book below and other reference books. However, I have been reluctant to quote directly from these books for fear of infringing copyright!

Copyright - Interpreting the Law for Libraries, Archives and Information Services by Graham P Cornish [ISBN 1-85604-409-2]

Peter Stubbs



Who owns copyright on a photograph?

Commissioned work

In the case of photographs or other work that has been commissioned:

- for work commissioned before 1 August 1989, the person commissioning the photograph will normally own the copyright on the work.

- for work commissioned from 1 August 1989 onwards, the photographer will normally own the copyright.

Transfer of Copyright

Whoever originally owns the copyright (as above) it is possible to sell or transfer copyright ownership to another person. e.g. a publisher.


In other words, it appears to be the case that all these shops/chains refusing to copy photos from, say, the 1930s, for fear of breaching copyright are in the wrong!!

David