Yep.

On Shutterstock you cannot upload that anymore...although I think they did not remove the ones that were uploaded...

there must be a reason why they dont' accept anymore...some risk?

Yeah there has got to be some risk involved.  Even though the time-frame has passed, the copyright of the works may have been purchased by another party.  However submitting them as 'editorial' is surely less risky.

I don't think that's how it works.  The copyright doesn't get extended if someone else buys it, AFAIK.

Yeah there has got to be some risk involved.  Even though the time-frame has passed, the copyright of the works may have been purchased by another party.

Nope. Public Domain is Public Domain.
The main risk is that when you buy old books, scan images, edit the images, keyword and upload: The image can then be downloaded by someone and then distributed freely, there is really no way of preventing this.

I have some old engravings on microstock sites, I just happened to have some books with nice images - it would have been a shame to just hide them. They make some money - but I stopped this when SS stopped accepting them. I also feel a bit guilty when someone buys an extended license to some of the images - legally they really wouldn't need to do that...

IS Used to have their limit at 1884, that is a sure bet, it's even before the Berne Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention

Yes and No.

If someone buys the company and takes over the rights, the original copyright is continued to be in force. Also correct, the time limit on a copyright does not change or extend, because someone buys a company. The term/deadline/expiration is still the same.

Yes, but in old enough images (for example 1884 and earlier) there is not any copyright, there never was, because no such thing existed (not at least in current form). If there never was a copyright, it cannot be renewed or extended.

Yes, I wish I had done more, when they were taking them. As for the rest of the sites, that's what I was referring to - the people that will still take them. Not much action.

My problem was I took too much time, making them perfect and I probably didn't need to.

See below, great way of looking at it. I also look at the search and finding something interesting as good entertainment.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 23, 2015, 21:18

I have done high quality scans, 600 dpi, edited, cleaned and adjusted, sometimes it can take half an hour of more, to make a really clean, high quality, image. And for that? A sub now and then?

I see it more like cultural work, to make images available instead of having them gather dust.

I have gotten decent returns from my engravings, especially from SS. I propably don't have a single image that has only 1 download. It's all about having a fast workflow and scanning only the images that may interest current audiences (and that aren't already on the sites). Also accurate keywording is essential, so I have learned history quite a bit while doing this - I know the story behind every image

But now I don't do this anymore, when SS stopped accepting the images, it was the best selling site - hands down.

Copyright, I probably went into too much detail but it's complex and complicated. Countries, ownership, editors of collections vs individuals. Country of publication also makes a difference. How many years after the death of the artist in some modern laws. It's not just about, pick a date, and there's the answer.

Yes, but in old enough images (for example 1884 and earlier) there is not any copyright, there never was, because no such thing existed (not at least in current form). If there never was a copyright, it cannot be renewed or extended.

Really there were no copyrights in 1884? I think you need to check your facts on that.

1) UK - The British Statute of Anne 1710, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute. (basically granting a monopoly on works that printers had published to prevent unauthorized copying = thus Copy Right)

2) USA - An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.
The Act was signed by the Speaker and the President of the Senate on May 25, 1790. It was signed by George Washington on May 31, 1790.
(it was for 14 years)

3) The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, usually known as the Berne Convention, is an international agreement governing copyright, which was first accepted in Berne, Switzerland, in 1886.

But: Before the Berne Convention, national copyright laws usually only applied for works created within each country. So for example a work published in United Kingdom by a British national would be covered by copyright there, but could be copied and sold by anyone in France.

Berne Convention was devised to have the International copyright laws, cover works, from anywhere and their reproduction, anywhere else. It was supposed to enable some uniformity. Unfortunately the US didn't stick with the same rules as the rest of the world. We're getting closer.

4) USA before 1923 it's Public Domain. The rights have run out. There's a nice easy one. 

I think your assumption that anything from 1884 is probably public domain, is valid, although, in theory someone born in 1874, who published something in 1884 and then lived to be 100, would take that work to 1974 - and 50 years after their death would be... 2024. Not impossible but highly unlikely and improbable.

How many ten year olds have works worth renewing the copyright after expiration? Which is another complication. Some old works, were never properly protected and many were never renewed.

I think the reason SS has dropped this is nothing more than legal complications and not knowing if someone who makes or copies something, is aware of the source and the actual copyright laws. Rather than get into impossible reviews and expensive research, (not to ignore possible lawsuits for infringement) they just said "no more". Also as we have seen over and over, some people will copy, steal, and claim works as their own, for a few more downloads.