Author Topic: Are photo's from the 1800's copyrighted?? (Read 8551 times)

donding · « **on:** May 30, 2010, 12:47 »

Has anyone ever had any luck selling old 1800 scanned photos or can you even do it since you aren't the photographer?

Oldhand · « **Reply #1 on:** May 30, 2010, 15:08 »

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

Fotonaut · « **Reply #2 on:** May 30, 2010, 15:11 »

I don't know of other countries, but in Norway depicting art is protected until 70 years after the artists death. After that it no longer has restrictions.

donding · « **Reply #3 on:** May 30, 2010, 15:19 »

Quote from: Oldhand on May 30, 2010, 15:08

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

Perry · « **Reply #4 on:** May 31, 2010, 03:22 »

I think iStock's policy is to accept photos/illustrations that are in public domain and made before 1884 (I have read it somewhere in their forums).

The problem here is: how do you know exactly when the photos were taken?

Microbius · « **Reply #5 on:** May 31, 2010, 06:00 »

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.

Oldhand · « **Reply #6 on:** May 31, 2010, 07:03 »

As I understand things:-

Firstly we're talking historical images, they are very big sellers with the correct outlets. Look at someone like Mary Evans picture library on Alamy etc. Old cartoons, photos', engravings etc. This is an overlooked area as the difficulty is in getting hold of the pictures at a good resolution.

Assuming you've got hold of some, let's say native Americans from the 1800's. It does not matter if ten other people have the same pic on Alamy, public domain is just that. You are merely paid as a facilitator or source of the image. You scan, keyword and upload it, hence deserve to be paid. If your's is of better quality, at the top of the search, or keworded better you may make the sale.

Next problem where to sell them. Alamy is your first port of call, especially now as you can have separate upload route for collections of historical images over 5mb if I recall correctly. This has levelled a previously difficult playing field where large agencies only were able to sell them online at Alamy under their previous 48mb limit. Other macro agents would take them, but that would take some more research.

With the micro's, the following was the case a few years ago, not sure about today..

SS - No - has to have been taken created by you.
IS - Yes - you must prove it is in the public domain.
CRE - Yes - but so what!
FT - Not that I'm aware of.
DT - Possible, again they have their own criteria for accepting them
123 - Possible
Can - Possible

Send them to Alamy and IS for the best returns.

On a slightly different note, try looking on Alamy for film stills - plenty of scope if you can get hold of them!

Oldhand

Oldhand · « **Reply #7 on:** May 31, 2010, 07:08 »

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

donding · « **Reply #8 on:** May 31, 2010, 17:24 »

Thanks for the links old hand. I'll check them out. I guess I could try, if they don't like them then they can reject them...

madelaide · « **Reply #9 on:** May 31, 2010, 17:27 »

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?

Perry · « **Reply #10 on:** May 31, 2010, 17:32 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 31, 2010, 17:27

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?

Then again: would it be a good thing to let the old fabulous stuff just collect dust on the shelves? IMHO there is nothing wrong in selling public domain works, you are not selling the creativity, you are selling the work of scanning / cleaning up / uploading etc.

I have some old book scans (pre-1884) for sale on the micros and they are selling some. Not great, but it was worth the work. And I always write the source in the description and tell the image is in public domain.

travelstock · « **Reply #11 on:** May 31, 2010, 18:10 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 31, 2010, 17:27

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.

donding · « **Reply #12 on:** May 31, 2010, 18:17 »

The photo's I'm referring to are not in the public domain. These are actual photos I own. My guess after reading this, is that the stock sites...micro...would probably want model releases on the dead people. A lot of the photos are of Indians. I found them in my grandmothers things in an old leather album. I haven't a clue who they are or rather it would be worth the trouble of scanning and uploading. I might try just a couple just to see if they make it through and rather they get any traffic if they do.

red · « **Reply #13 on:** May 31, 2010, 20:15 »

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) -

donding · « **Reply #14 on:** May 31, 2010, 20:25 »

Well I guess I'll try it. Besides the Indian photos I've got tons of studio shots from the 1800 Victorian era.

travelstock · « **Reply #15 on:** June 01, 2010, 02:55 »

Quote from: donding on May 31, 2010, 18:17

The photo's I'm referring to are not in the public domain. These are actual photos I own. My guess after reading this, is that the stock sites...micro...would probably want model releases on the dead people. A lot of the photos are of Indians. I found them in my grandmothers things in an old leather album. I haven't a clue who they are or rather it would be worth the trouble of scanning and uploading. I might try just a couple just to see if they make it through and rather they get any traffic if they do.

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #16 on:** June 01, 2010, 09:29 »

Quote from: donding on May 31, 2010, 18:17

A lot of the photos are of Indians. I found them in my grandmothers things in an old leather album.

Are the Indians your ancestors? In either case, I don't find respectful to put them for commercial use, and perhaps even for editorial if this is something that somehow in their culture they would find disrespectful (possibly it isn't, but it's something I would consider).

Now, historical photos of places, that's another story. I have many photos of Rio that my father took - including the construction of the city's first skyscrapper - and that would be totally ok to sell. I wonder however if my brothers would not have rights over them too?

donding · « **Reply #17 on:** June 01, 2010, 13:19 »

Quote from: madelaide on June 01, 2010, 09:29

Quote from: donding on May 31, 2010, 18:17
A lot of the photos are of Indians. I found them in my grandmothers things in an old leather album.
Are the Indians your ancestors? In either case, I don't find respectful to put them for commercial use, and perhaps even for editorial if this is something that somehow in their culture they would find disrespectful (possibly it isn't, but it's something I would consider).

Now, historical photos of places, that's another story. I have many photos of Rio that my father took - including the construction of the city's first skyscrapper - and that would be totally ok to sell. I wonder however if my brothers would not have rights over them too?

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #18 on:** June 01, 2010, 14:03 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 31, 2010, 17:27

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?

What if you were writing an article about Shakespeare for example and wanted to illustrate it with one of the very few portraits that are generally accepted? Ultimately someone has to scan it, clean it up, keyword it, upload it and also the agency has to host it. Surely they deserve to be paid for the service they are providing?

There's quite a nice choice of Shakespeare portraits on IS, very few on SS and DT and none at all on FT & BigStock.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #19 on:** June 01, 2010, 15:02 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 31, 2010, 17:27

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?

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!

Quote from: donding on May 30, 2010, 12:47

Has anyone ever had any luck selling old 1800 scanned photos or can you even do it since you aren't the photographer?

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.

Oldhand · « **Reply #20 on:** June 01, 2010, 15:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 01, 2010, 14:03

Quote from: madelaide on May 31, 2010, 17:27
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?

What if you were writing an article about Shakespeare for example and wanted to illustrate it with one of the very few portraits that are generally accepted? Ultimately someone has to scan it, clean it up, keyword it, upload it and also the agency has to host it. Surely they deserve to be paid for the service they are providing?

There's quite a nice choice of Shakespeare portraits on IS, very few on SS and DT and none at all on FT & BigStock.

One of the biggest sellers of these type of images has a clause to that effect. They are providing a service or facility, which is what they are paid for. They don't claim the copyright themselves.

To pick up madelaide's point, I saw in a hollywood film that Indians's didn't like being photographed as it meant them losing their soul. We are talking hollywood here, but it's a shame that good pics from willing subjects never see the light of day. If we all took a moral stance (no criticism implied here), then where would the pics of Shakespeare in children's textbooks come from?

To finish (it's been a long a wearisome day), if anyone has any contacts in Hollywood, get yourselves on the distribution list for film stills from the lastest blockbuster movies. Send them off to the right outlets (again facilitating a service, in no way claiming copyright), and it's the same principle. Micro doesn't take them but Alamy, sure as England will slip up in South Africa, will.

By the way, thank's to a certain agency who pulled all my world cup images a week before it starts because of the most ridiculous copyrighted term law in the World.

Looking forward to beating all you good American at the sport we invented.

Oldhand

madelaide · « **Reply #21 on:** June 01, 2010, 16:45 »

Quote from: donding on June 01, 2010, 13:19

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.

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Are photo's from the 1800's copyrighted?? (Read 8551 times)

donding

Oldhand

Fotonaut

donding

Perry

Microbius

Oldhand

Oldhand

donding

madelaide

Perry

travelstock

donding

red

donding

travelstock

madelaide

donding

gostwyck

RacePhoto

Oldhand

madelaide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors