Straight Up Ethics/policy Question

Straight up --

Legally, I don't know.

Ethically, no.

Straight up answer would be no. Even though the laws were different back then they are not public domain images.

straight up - if they aren't yours, they aren't yours. it would be no different than finding your work years from now and a stranger selling them for profit to add to their gallery. copyright rules remain in effect for like 70 years after death.

legally you can get away with anything, yet can still backfire if someone recognizes it as theirs. ideally it would better to just represent your own work so your known for that.

---Mike Savad

Bradford, at what point do images that have never been copyrighted become public domain images?

Images are automatically copyrighted from the moment you press the button. I think the term is 70 years or so before work becomes public domain, but there are ways to extend the copyright even after that.

Mike, I didn't see your post until now. I would never represent those images as my work.

This reminds me of a slightly different scenario. A long time ago my old boyfriend posed in historic native gear on horseback for a professional photo shoot. He signed a release and was paid (a pittance) for his time. A few years ago I saw those prints being sold on Ebay by someone who wasn't the photographer. I've wondered about the legality of those sales but I never looked into it.

First I assume that you searched the images and found nothing in the slides to lead you to the photographer. I also assume that you cannot go back to the person you bought them from to ask who is the photographer. [ where did you purchase them? ]

If you have searched through the images for clues, and have attempted [if possible] to contact the seller of the slides, and have exhausted all other avenues at finding the original photographer / relatives, then I personally would consider them mine. Now I can just see other members cringing at that statement, but what are you supposed to do with them? They were either abandoned or sold by the photographer or his/her family or found in the trash. If there are quality images it would be a shame not to make use of them. What would be the point shoving them into a drawer or tossing them?

AGAIN.. that is if there has been a reasonable effort to find the original photographer or relatives. If you can document that search then "I think" legally and ethically you would be fine...disclaimer... I am not a lawyer ;O) At that point if you do decide to sell them or make use of them in your art, then added that little story of how you came by them in the description should also go a long way towards doing the right thing.

Just one man's opinion.

bob

I don't know who the photographer is. I bought them sight unseen online from someone who bought them from someone else. Not sure how many hands they've passed through. I was interested in them because of the location and didn't expect to see good photography. Yes, I'd be happy to profit from prints but I also think it's a shame for them to never see the light of day.

Nope, buying old slides gives you no more right to reproduce the image than buying a a CD gives you the right to copy and sell the music on the CD.

Bob, I didn't see your post either as I was typing mine. I think I may have answered your questions and I agree with your take on this issue but I don't want to do something that's illegal.

Copyright is always intact, whether you bought them or not, unless you have specific documentation saying so.

This is no different than buying a print. Without the copyright or a rights release you do not have the rights to reproduce. You can sell the original, but not copies of it. Only the original copyright holder has the legal right to do that.

You would probably never be caught, but why risk it.

Well I still think that if you trace them as far back as you can and document that search and tell the story in your descriptions of the images if ever any action is taken the law will see that you did a reasonable search for the original photographer and have not misled anyone there would be no legal action.

Can or did you contact the seller? Have you tried to do an reverse image search of any of the slides? Tineye, or google image search.

Certainly there is a chance the slides were taken by a now famous photographer, and if he/she should see their images being sold here would certainly contact you, but I think that would be more a positive thing than a negative one.

I really do not see it as a risk it she does her due diligence of trying to find the photographer. And includes the story in her descriptions and is not taking credit as the photographer. If by chance these slides were taken illegally from the original owner do you not think they would be thrilled to get them back?

I bought them about 15 years ago and asked the seller where he got them after I had a chance to review them. I doubt that the emails between us still exist on any of my old hard drives but there is always that possibility. I don't remember where he said he bought them but I tend to think it was a yard sale or estate sale. I do remember him saying that he didn't know the name of the photographer. Part of my interest in them now is their possible historical value because of the period clothes being worn at that time. You rarely see that style there now.

And you would be well within your rights to sell or donate them to a museum to preserve their historical value.

However, you do not have the rights to reproduce and sell. You might very well never get caught, but as far as it being legal, unless the copyright has expired then its not legal.

I'd probably scan a few in and do a reverse Google image search on the off chance of finding the copyright holder.

They could be considered orphaned work after you make a diligent effort to find the owner. I can't tell you what a diligent effort is. But orphaned and public domain are not the same.
This may help a bit.
http://www.collegeart.org/publications/ow

I am not an attorney but think if you actually pay for something and have a receipt its yours. Unless someone here is an attorney, I wouldn't take what any of us say as bible. The law can be interpreted many ways. Their is a guy who bought tons of old slides from a Chicago newspaper that had many famous mobsters in them. He opened a gallery and sells them.

Bradford you may have something there, that was not something I was aware of. Looks like this scenario almost perfectly.

This is directly from the link Bradford linked --

"Because under US copyright law a copyright is automatically granted to a creator when a work is made (“fixed in tangible form”), and because copyright endures in a work for 70 years after the death of the creator, there are millions of works where the copyright has not yet expired but that have no identifiable or findable copyright owner."

Since the OP believes the photos were taken in the 1970s, I don't believe these could be, by definition, orphaned works.

Just wondering - my Dad worked with Andy Warhol in the late 1950s. Dad was an art director working on an account, and hired Andy to do 4 drawings (collage illustrations) for 4 ads that were to appear in the NY Times. We have slides of the artwork from that time, which Dad had taken with the date imprinted on the old 35 mm slide cardboard, etc. I grew up hearing the whole story of how Andy came in, spoke with my Dad, was hired, etc. We don't have the original art, but have been trying to find some connection to prove that these are indeed images of art that Warhol did. I can't find any bank records going that far back. (Dad's records started around 1960, the ones that I could find in his files.) Any idea on how to make the connection? Already spoke with the Warhol Foundation, who reco'd me to the Andy Warhol Museum, who has not gotten back to me yet. Thanks if anyone has any ideas on how to authenticate these, and if we can, do they have any value.

At the very least, they might add 4 images to Andy Warhol's legacy - his collection - of which the public might not be fully aware.
Thanks.

Miriam... you might get more responses if you start a new thread on this. ;O)

Miriam,

In light of this article, I'd be interested to know what the Warhol museum responds. http://www.artsjournal.com/realcleararts/2013/05/the-absolute-mess-in-warhol-matters.html If you don't get a response from them you might start by looking at the bibliographies to Warhol biographies to get a sense of what Warhol documents are available and where. If your dad's business records don't show the paintings, Warhol's might. I wouldn't be too hopeful though.

Again if you aren't an attorney you prob shouldn't be giving legal advice. I for sure am not an attorney.
Here is what i read and am sure their are many of the same and different as well.

First Sale Doctrine - this term is used to refer to what is defined in 17 U.S.C. §109 (a), which says that if you own a particular copy of a copyrighted work (eg. a photographic print), and that particular copy was lawfully made and lawfully obtained, you can sell, trade, give away, or otherwise dispose of that particular copy without the permission of the copyright owner.

Also, she paid for the physical scans, not the rights to use those scans anyway she sees fit.

You bought images, not the rights to reproduce and sell them. However temping it may seem.

What if someone bought a print of yours, sold it in a yard sale years later, and someone bought it, scanned it and started selling prints of it.

Is that ok ????

So, Kevin, how come you're giving legal advice? LOL I think if the OP takes anything from this thread, it should be this:

1.) Tread slowly
2.) Try to find the copyright owner.
3.) If she's having trouble finding the copyright owner, try harder.

Joseph, my legal advice unlike yours was to talk to an attorney not a wannabee

She came here and asked us for advice. We all gave it to her. No one claimed to be lawyers or that we were right. Never mind that most of us were saying she can't sell the images. I guess I forgot to bow down at your immense knowledge. Sorry. By the way, this sure sounds like legal advice from you --

"I am not an attorney but think if you actually pay for something and have a receipt its yours. Unless someone here is an attorney, I wouldn't take what any of us say as bible. The law can be interpreted many ways. Their is a guy who bought tons of old slides from a Chicago newspaper that had many famous mobsters in them. He opened a gallery and sells them."

You state pretty clearly "but think if you actually pay for something and have a receipt its yours." Which is not true at all. She paid for the sildes, not the right to reproduce those slides and sell them.

Jeffrey... not quite the same. Your example is someone buying a print, not an original. The OP purchased the original film, not prints made from the film. Through whatever chain of events the original photographer has let the originals go. Either he died, they were stolen, his family sold them... we don't know.

But they are now in the OP possession and she either destroys them or uses them "ethically" by her due diligence in trying to find the original photographer or descendants, failing that including the story in her descriptions accompanying the images if she chooses to monetize them. That I believe would be a reasonable attempt to "do the right thing" and also provide a possible exposure for the original photographer (if they were stolen) to recover them, rather that the OP destroying them, which would be a senseless thing and tragic thing to do.

Joseph, feel free to bow anytime you like

Ethically...no, it's not your work.

she stated that she would not be claiming it as her work.

Well, Jenny can claim to be an attorney. Just saying :)

Well, it seems that my only options are to sell the slides, give them away or let someone find them among my things after I pass on. If someone finds them after I die, they will assume that I took them. That being the case, I may become a famous photographer when I'm dead, LOL.

Kathleen... no those are not your only options.

You can do what you wanted to... scan them... clean them up and offer them for sale... along with your story of how you came to own them, and your search for the original owner. If you are never contacted by anyone then great... But lets say that you are contacted by someone. There are a couple of things that might mean.

1. the original owner or family may inform you that the slides were indeed sold and expected them to be used however you choose.
2. the original owner or family did not even know they were gone.. or possibly the family did not even know they existed and would be grateful to get them back...
3. the original owner or family will inform you that they were stolen and would be grateful to get them back.

any of the above would be a much better outcome than their never seeing the light of day out of unreasonable fear.

bob

"any of the above would be a much better outcome than their never seeing the light of day out of unreasonable fear."

Exactly. Go for it.

And IF a "owner" steps forward, they better be able to prove who they are.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

It's pretty clear that just because you bought an image it is not yours in the sense that you can ever call it your own creation. As a commercial photographer, I have never released an image copyright, and never will.

That being said, if you have done your homework and done your best to track down who the images were created by, then certainly you can offer them for sale provided you express proper attribution. In this case, the artwork would be attributed to "Anonymous". Be sure to have a disclaimer in your descriptions that these are found works, and that if any viewer knows of their origin, to please contact you right away so that you can manage the rights properly. This is not a dead end prospect, and if you are upfront about their back story, that could have the effect of creating a mystery that may add appeal.

OK, what if I do as you suggest and different individuals come forward claiming ownership? How would any of them go about proving ownership of the copyright? I'm asking not because I want to dispute any claims but because I would have no way of knowing who is telling the truth and who is lying.

Kathleen,

I don't know what the right answer is regarding whether to publish the photos. But if you held back a few key photos, you could probably identify any real owner as the person who could identify those.

They (alleged copyright holders) have to prove ownership. I can't just claim I took a picture because I like it. I have to prove it in a court of law, "Beyond a Reasonable doubt." Heck if it were that easy to claim other works as your own, I can think of a lot of work on this website that I would love to call mine. (That gives me an idea...) If there are dates and locations on the images, then keep that information to yourself, as well as film types and sizes.

It's kind of like finding a ring in the park. You put an ad in the paper saying "found item" and the true owner has to describe just what it is that they lost to claim it.

Proving ownership could be most difficult particularly if these images are originals and from what you've said, that's just what they are. I would put money on this that no one would ever come forward. If the original creator was that concerned about the images, then certainly there would be some sort of identifying marks on the film. Back in the days of slide film, we used copyright, date, name, phone number, image title, description, image number, and all that was on a 35mm chrome.

The worst that might happen is that you would get a "Cease and Desist" notice.

As soon as you put them up, I'm claiming them as MINE! You'll hear from my team of lawyers shortly.

Yo Pedro, I like your style!

I would consult a REAL copyright attorney.

I had an issue with my ex. When we were married, we would go on vacation, and she and I would take pictures. Somehow, after the divorce, I got all the pictures left with me. So, I used one or two of those as source material for my paintings. Once she saw I was making a little money at it, she claimed they were her "copyright" (even though we both took pictures) and that I was a terrible person (imagine). So, I consulted a REAL attorney who specialized in this stuff. He laughed. Marital assets, such as these were, would not be subject to copyright. They were subject to the disposition of assets in the divorce. The decree said all property left with me, became mine. He quote was basically "I would love to see her take this to court and have the judge laugh in her face."

So, not all photographs are subject to copyright. Consult someone who actually specializes in the law to find out for sure. Even if you have to pay for a consultation, it may be worth it in the long run.

Hello

You should always seek advice from a qualified attorney that specialises in copyright law.

Any advice given to you on this forum is actually illegally given (unless giving opinions only which will not help) as nobody here is a copyright lawyer.

Please contact official help.


Abbie
Community Manager