If I buy slides who owns the photos ?

BADGER.BRAD

BADGER.BRAD

Messages
3,671
Edit My Images
Yes
I occasionally in my job come across photos and slides thrown out as rubbish and sometimes see them at car boots, As I understand the person who presses the shutter button owns the photo so how would I stand if I posted them up somewhere ?
 
If the photographer took the photographs whilst employed by someone else, they probably don't own the copyright.

If the photographer took the photos on their own account, then it seems unlikely that they are still actively managing those photos as a potential income stream, if they have been thrown out or allowed to be sold. So in practice, it seems extremely unlikely that the original photographer would have a claim for breach of copyright. There are many instances of people posting "found photographs" on this and other forums.

Of course if the content of the photographs are likely to cause embarrasment (I'm thinking of something more serious than "I always hated that novelty jumper") then there is a risk that the photographer, or the subject, may complain even if they don't have a valid complaint of breach of copyright.
 
In the case of a transparency, if you've bought it then you've likely purchased the original image - logic tells me that copyright might go with that, but I suspect someone will be able to demonstrate that I'm incorrect.
 
Copyright is distinct from the physical object. Unless the copyright is sold with the object, all you own is the object itself.
Copyright lasts as long as the law at the time stated, both who owns the copyright, and how long it lasts, can vary greatly as to when the image was first made ( or published) and the law at the time.
There is no single answer... but it is highly unlikely that you own the copyright in the case you suggest. In the past Professional photographers rarely owned the copyright, as it was owned by the person who commissioned it. The copyright of All my early work is owned by my then clients. This is true of Portraits, weddings, commercial Industrial and any other paid work. Works I took on spec, or out of interest are my copyright.
 
It's correct that the ownership of the object is distinct from the ownership of the copyright (although museums have been working end runs around that for years). In general, copyright belongs to the creator, with the exception of what I think are called works for hire, eg where created in the course of employment. In any case, copyright runs for life plus 70 years in most countries (I think it's life plus 50 in Australia still), and requires no formal registration or renewal, or copyright notice. (I'm skating a bit over 20th century US copyright here, which lasted for shorter terms and did require renewal, but was possibly "grandfathered" into the new copyright regime.)

I think, if you come across a 35mm Kodachrome slide, the odds are it's still in copyright. E6 slides, even more likely. The only way to know for certain would be to identify the creator and find out when she died.

All that said, a good way of thinking of dealing with copyright is a risk management game. If you're not making money from it, and are prepared to take it down if the true owner turns up and claims it (relatively unlikely for a found slide), then the downsides are pretty small. One way round is to post them with a question asking who made them, so you're genuinely trying to help the original creator or their descendants re-unite with the work.

Sorry, more than you're likely to want to know about copyright at 23:30 on the day England was happy to lose some sort of strange game of footpingpong... :)
 
I feel sure that such slides might be deemed "orphan works" a guide to how to handle the copyright owners interest is the last doc (dealing with 'still' images) on this gov.uk webpage.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/orphan-works-diligent-search-guidance-for-applicants

It is my understanding that is someone is in possession of what is thought to be an orphan work and they wish to copy it, publish or make commercial gain from it they must go through the due diligence shown in the example form on that page.

HTH? :)
 
ancient_mariner said:
In the case of a transparency, if you've bought it then you've likely purchased the original image
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I recall seeing sets of slides (usually of tourist attractions) for sale when I was (much) younger. They would have been copies of the originals.
 
Box Brownie said:
I feel sure that such slides might be deemed "orphan works" a guide to how to handle the copyright owners interest is the last doc (dealing with 'still' images) on this gov.uk webpage.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/orphan-works-diligent-search-guidance-for-applicants

It is my understanding that is someone is in possession of what is thought to be an orphan work and they wish to copy it, publish or make commercial gain from it they must go through the due diligence shown in the example form on that page.

HTH? :)
Click to expand...

True. I meant to mention orphan works, you're right that these slides with no sign of attributable creator would most likely be orphan works. But again, I think it's a risk management issue, and that the risk is small. But IANAL and this is not advice! :D
 
ChrisR said:
True. I meant to mention orphan works, you're right that these slides with no sign of attributable creator would most likely be orphan works. But again, I think it's a risk management issue, and that the risk is small. But IANAL and this is not advice! :D
Click to expand...

Such matters when simply (?) viewed as a risk management exercise are something only the individual can answer................................who are we on a forum to judge! All we can do is share knowledge for all to be a aware of and to aid/inform any decision.
 
Thanks everyone,much appreciated since taking up photography I don't really seem to have come across many but in the past I've come across wedding albums newish looking and old, general photos and also slides, the old wedding albums always make me feel sorry that someone has not kept them, the newer ones I'm guessing is were something went wrong and they were just thrown out.

Thanks again all
 
This is a bit off topic, but the closest thread I could find. There's a bit of a twitter trend yesterday about a box of glass plate negatives bought for £4 at a car boot sale, dating (it appears, thanks to twitter) to the early years of last century. Heard some papers may have taken it up, too. Quite Interesting...

https://BANNED/meandmybigmouth/status/1031476453785919488
 
Unless you are planning on exploiting these images commercially, it doesn't really matter.

You own the physical slide/print/negative but the original photographer owns the copyright.



Steve.
 
The glass plates were taken in the first decade of the last century so they may well be out of copyright. As far as I recall copyright on photographs lasts for 70 years after the death of the photographer. As these are approx 110 years old that may well be up.
 
Byker28i said:
What happened in 1996?

Works that were still in copyright on 31 December 1995 had copyright terms extended where the new rules on copyright terms gave a longer term. The term of protection is particularly complicated for photographs taken before 1 January 1996.

https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/copyright-law/duration-of-copyright-protection
Click to expand...

I think in this case, the diagram referred to in that guide (at http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/pdfs/copyrightflowchart.pdf) shows that copyright in these photos would expire 70 years after the death of the photographer (if the latter is known) or else 70 years after the photo was taken. Which is a bit odd when the photographer is currently unknown, therefore copyright has expired, but the photographer might become known tomorrow, in which case copyright might suddenly reappear!
 
ChrisR said:
This is a bit off topic, but the closest thread I could find. There's a bit of a twitter trend yesterday about a box of glass plate negatives bought for £4 at a car boot sale, dating (it appears, thanks to twitter) to the early years of last century. Heard some papers may have taken it up, too. Quite Interesting...

https://BANNED/meandmybigmouth/status/1031476453785919488
Click to expand...

I should have said that the point of posting wasn't really about the copyright status, but about the interesting story from that twitter thread. Think I picked the wrong thread here!
 
ChrisR said:
I should have said that the point of posting wasn't really about the copyright status, but about the interesting story from that twitter thread. Think I picked the wrong thread here!
Click to expand...
Agreed the story was very good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top