MicrostockGroup

Alamy has them up to it's eyeballs, multiples of the same images from various sources.

Once something arrives in the public domain, chance's are (with lots of specific exceptions) it's fair game.

Interesting topic

Oldhand

That's why I was asking because I have seen these pictures online. I've never tried it and I have a s*** load of studio photos from the 1800's....even some Indian photos. Just wonder if they would sell.....of course some of the stock sites would probably reject them for lack of MR....lol

How does it work if they have been republished since they were taken? I have thought of scanning in illustrations or photos from out of copyright books but never know for sure if they have been republished since the original date and how that effects where I would stand with regards to the copyright.

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?CreativeOn=1&qt=mary+evans&all=1&creative=&adv=1&dtfr=&dtTo=&et=0x000000000000000000000&ag=0&vp=0&loc=0&lic=6&lic=1&hc=&selectdate=1&txtdtfr=&txtdtto=&size=0xFF&ot=1&ot=2&ot=4&ot=8&imgt=1&imgt=2&archive=1&chckarchive=1


http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=2831690&order=6&fileTypeSizePrice=[{"type":"Image","size":"All","priceOption":"1"},{"type":"Illustration%20[Vector]","size":"Vector%20Image","priceOption":"All"},{"type":"Flash","size":"Flash%20Document","priceOption":"All"},{"type":"Video","size":"All","priceOption":"1"},{"type":"Standard%20Audio","size":"All","priceOption":"1"},{"type":"Pump%20Audio","size":"All","priceOption":"1"}]


Couple of links for you

Oldhand

To me this is more on the moral side.  It's ok that we can use things that are now public domain, but is it correct to sell them?

I'm with you on this one. The whole idea of things being in the public domain is that the creator gets a fare share in their lifetime, their beneficiaries benefit for a time after, but there should come a point when its free to use. To imply that you're "licensing" and image that you don't have any copyright to is to me somewhat misleading.

DT accepts them. Just do a search on vintage photography, most do not have model releases or are sold as editorial. Here's my favorite (I guess it's not a true vintage photo) -

There is a difference between physically owning the images and owning the copyright to them. By publishing the images, even if you're licensing them you may be effectively putting them in the public domain. For example if someone downloads your image from Istock and posts it on the web, effectively there is nothing stopping anyone else from downloading and re-publishing that image.

Some archives don't publish or allow copying of works, because they realise that the physical control of the work is the only thing stopping widespread distribution of that image.

I don't know if the Indians are ancestors or not, several of them are shots of the chiefs of the Crow nation, but the studio shots are and many of them were already published in a book my grandmother wrote in 1964 so I don't quite get how that is morally wrong? Will the photos we take today and sale on microstock be morally wrong for someone to publish in 70 years? I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say and if I am please explain.

It's an old photo, there's no moral issue. Once something goes into public domain, it's free for everyone to use as they wish. That's what Public Domain means. No more rights. And for the other part, if someone publishes it again, that doesn't change anything. The "the right to control copying" clock runs until it stops and that's the end. Since most of the images in this thread were never registered and are anonymous, that makes them different that works which were copyrighted and registered at one point in time.

What no one has mentioned is that as a collection, old images are protected. You can't copy a book of old images, just because the contents are all old. You can copy one image. Best example of this is someone who produces a CD collection of maps. You can't copy it, even though all the maps are rights free. You could take one map and re-use it. Recipes are the same type of materials. You can copyright a collection or a cook book, but not an individual recipe.

Now another result from the usual suspects. SS accepted my one old image from the 1880's Editorial, IS refused it because of people in the picture and no MR, DT Editorial (no sales). So if someone has different results, please tell me how, I'd like to have it selling on IS. USA the copyright expired long ago.

Canadian Law: "Where the identity of the author is unknown (if the author is anonymous or pseudonymous) then the copyright lasts for either 50 years from the publication of the work or 75 years from the making of the work, whichever is shorter." In either case a photo from 1880 is 130 years old!




If the images you have are old and have no copyright, you can't get one now. Your question about if your relatives own the rights, would be the same. Either the original creator owns the copyright, or if they were assigned, the heir. But if they expired, based on the original creation date... the whole world has the right to free use, no one owns the rights anymore.

Specific images with identification and potential for broader use, may sell. Some old shot of a someones Grandmother, is common and offers no interest to the buyers. What I mean is, unique or unusual images may sell, but common ones, probably won't be worth the effort.

Edit: found the page that has a nice summary of US law.

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

1923 or before should be PD. So 1880s would be a good way beyond any protection based on the 120 years from creation.

Property - Prior to 1 Dec. 1990, Constructed by 1 Dec. 1990, Protected only as plans or drawings.

I read this as No Property Release Needed for a building constructed before 1 Dec. 1990.

Publishing a book is different than selling. Using the photos to illustrate an article about Indian chiefs is different than using them to sell cigarettes. I would have no problem to have my great-grandparents photos used in an article/book/documentary about immigration, but I would not let them be used to sell pasta.