Is it OK to use material from the 1940's and 50's in my book?

[invisibleflash]

I want to put a scan from an article in a 1945 Popular Photography article and an article from a 1950's Popular Mechanics article. Do you think there would be a copyright problem?

Thanks

[Tin Can]

Posted here it may qualify as fair use educational.

[Oren Grad]

IANAL, but you cannot assume that the copyrights from the 1940s and '50s have expired. Also, if you intend to use the entire articles rather than just excerpting small portions for comment, you may well exceed fair-use limits. Best to consult someone who actually knows copyright law.

[Bob Salomon]

Why not just contact both Pops and ask for permission?

[IanG]

If it's an academic book then yes you can use small sections, not whole articles or chapters though as long as you cite the reference and give full credits.

Ian

[Light Guru]

I want to put a scan from an article in a 1945 Popular Photography article and an article from a 1950's Popular Mechanics article. Do you think there would be a copyright problem?

And use them for what? Use has a LOT to do with weather or not its ok to use them.

[invisibleflash]

IANAL, but you cannot assume that the copyrights from the 1940s and '50s have expired. Also, if you intend to use the entire articles rather than just excerpting small portions for comment, you may well exceed fair-use limits. Best to consult someone who actually knows copyright law.

I'd be using a photo from an article.

[invisibleflash]

Why not just contact both Pops and ask for permission?

Well I could try to contact them. I thought if there was no problem with using them then I wont bother to contact. I didn't know if limitations to copyright came into play.

[invisibleflash]

And use them for what? Use has a LOT to do with weather or not its ok to use them.

I'd be using them for this book in a chapter on historical perspective of IR flash photography.

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/piercing-darkness-update/


My book is a limited edition, hand-printed artists' book with a 50 book edition. Although the book would have a price on the cover it would be acquired as a donation to public institutions and museum ibraires.

The only thing that would bother me for fair use is the price on the cover, even though it is not being sold. I also may sell some of the books someday. I don't donate all books in the edition. But as of now, I have no plans to sell my books. No one would pay enough that makes it worthwhile to hand-print books.

Other than a price on the cover, the book would fit fair use. Both of the magazines I would like to pull from are on Google Books. I don't know if that means anything. I guess Google takes what it wants anyway, but their use is definitely for educational purposes.

[Jac@stafford.net]

IANAL, but you cannot assume that the copyrights from the 1940s and '50s have expired.

For the general case, Oren is right. If it is Google Books, best check with them.

[Light Guru]

I'd be using them for this book in a chapter on historical perspective of IR flash photography.

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/piercing-darkness-update/


My book is a limited edition, hand-printed artists' book with a 50 book edition. Although the book would have a price on the cover it would be acquired as a donation to public institutions and museum ibraires.

The only thing that would bother me for fair use is the price on the cover, even though it is not being sold. I also may sell some of the books someday. I don't donate all books in the edition. But as of now, I have no plans to sell my books. No one would pay enough that makes it worthwhile to hand-print books.

Other than a price on the cover, the book would fit fair use. Both of the magazines I would like to pull from are on Google Books. I don't know if that means anything. I guess Google takes what it wants anyway, but their use is definitely for educational purposes.

If your publishing it in a book then you DEFINITELY need to get permission to use them.


I'd be using a photo from an article.

The copyright is probably with with the photographer not the magazine.

[Oren Grad]

The copyright is probably with with the photographer not the magazine.

The OP hasn't told us whether the articles are portfolios - unlikely in Popular Mechanics, I'd think - or technical articles, most likely written for hire.

[Corran]

I'd be using a photo from an article.

Yes you'll be violating copyright.

Read this:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

And this:
http://copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

Copyright for a work for hire expires 95 years after publication. If it's not work for hire it is 70 years after the death of the creator.

I don't believe your book is eligible for Fair Use, at least how you've described it, and especially with a price on the cover. And further, as I tell my students, Fair Use is ultimately decided in a court of law after you've been sued, so, if you want to contend it's Fair Use, be prepared to pay the price for defending your belief.

*I'm not a lawyer, I've just worked with copyright a lot*

[Tin Can]

It's all the fault of Mickey Mouse.

He's a tough guy.

[invisibleflash]

If your publishing it in a book then you DEFINITELY need to get permission to use them.



The copyright is probably with with the photographer not the magazine.

Sounds like a hassle.

What about taking photos of a copy of a magazine article if I own a copy of the magazine? I had heard I have proprietary rights to freely photograph my property. Or is that just for taking photos for selling it or personal use?

[invisibleflash]

Yes you'll be violating copyright.

Read this:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

And this:
http://copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

Copyright for a work for hire expires 95 years after publication. If it's not work for hire it is 70 years after the death of the creator.

I don't believe your book is eligible for Fair Use, at least how you've described it, and especially with a price on the cover. And further, as I tell my students, Fair Use is ultimately decided in a court of law after you've been sued, so, if you want to contend it's Fair Use, be prepared to pay the price for defending your belief.

*I'm not a lawyer, I've just worked with copyright a lot*

Thanks for the info. I guess I will have to pass on it. Too GD complex and iffy.

[goamules]

That would be making a copy, the same as scanning our any other reproductive method, wouldn't it? It doesn't matter how it gets into the new work, it's that I can read it (view it if a photo), and it's the same as in the original.

"reasonable person" (jury) viewpoint here.

[invisibleflash]

Since the original Kodak went bankrupt and liquidated, what do you think about using an old Kodak photo taken in the early 1940's for a book project?

It was in a 1940's issue of Pop Photo, but as I looked closer I could see it was from a Kodak spread, so I don't think it would do any good to contact Pop Photo for permission. But the photo is in their magazine.

[djdister]

Did you not like the answers you received in this same thread?
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?126843-Is-it-OK-to-use-material-from-the-1940-s-and-50-s-in-my-book

[Mark Sampson]

The Eastman Kodak Co. did indeed declare bankruptcy, but they have not been liquidated and are still very much in business. I would check the copyright laws, and meanwhile assume that EK's lawyers will aggressively their trademarks and copyrights.

[Sirius Glass]

The copyright and its rights still belong to a corporation or someone. Now do due diligence and pay the toll.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I am not now a practicing lawyer, nor an attorney.

Fair use is a defense. You cannot apply for fair use. You do your thing and take your chances. I do not know enough about the OP's intentions, his full case, however I can evince scenarios that would be appropriate to fair use.

So, in an evil mode I say Go for It! And let us know how it turns out. (evil grin)
.

[John Kasaian]

Why don't you just ask Kodak?:confused: You may be able to get valid permission from the Eastman Kodak House as I recollect many historic old images are under their governance and they are likely supportive of scholarly endeavors.

[invisibleflash]

Why don't you just ask Kodak?:confused: You may be able to get valid permission from the Eastman Kodak House as I recollect many historic old images are under their governance and they are likely supportive of scholarly endeavors.

OK, will do.

is there a date for old work where you can be sure that it can be freely used? Sometimes this stuff has to go to the public domain.

[Oren Grad]

Threads merged.

[Michael Rosenberg]

Many magazines as part of the publishing contract with an author will have transfer of copyright to the magazine. If a magazine is no longer in existence the parent company of the magazine may still be, or they transferred the copyright. If it is an individual they may have transferred the copyright to their heirs. If you are sued you must show documentation that you showed every effort to contact the holder of the copyright. Be aware that if you are sued the entity can, and probably will, ask for damages..... It does not matter if your book is going to be a best seller or a very limited edition art publication.

If it is that important to your book, and you don't want to expend the effort to find the copyright holder, then reference the article and leave it up to the reader to find the articles.

As everyone else explained, read the law. Also, contact your local/state law school and see if they provide support on copyright law for artists. I believe that Duke University may.

I am not a lawyer, but am married to a patent attorney.

Mike

[seezee]

Please read this in its entirety (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html) before deciding that this is fair use. Commercial vs. non-commercial is not the only requirement, so the price on the cover doesn't necessarily come into play. For instance, newspapers are commercial enterprises & issues are sold for money, but they are also news & editorial, which gives some protection under fair use. Non-commercial work can violate fair use, e.g., see rule 1 in the article.

[Corran]

OK, will do.

is there a date for old work where you can be sure that it can be freely used? Sometimes this stuff has to go to the public domain.

I already linked to you very explicit copyright information directly from the gov't, and even answered you already the last time you asked this question. If you don't care to read it, why should we answer, yet again?

Please go back to the start of this now merged thread and read it from top to bottom. You'll find your answers. Or just do whatever you want and hope the lawyers don't come knocking.

[Kodachrome25]

OK, will do.

is there a date for old work where you can be sure that it can be freely used? Sometimes this stuff has to go to the public domain.

Or, better yet, show the creators of some good work you value their time and effort and come to some form of agreement in terms of compensation? Why are you so focused on free? Do you not believe the work and time and others is worth something?

Currency by definition means "To Flow" so in order for it to continue, we as a society are going to have to start working away from this nasty internet born habit of a "Freeconomy" in order to be fair to one another.

[Drew Wiley]

Heck. I know of people being sued for commercially using abandoned negatives from the 1930's.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Heck. I know of people being sued for commercially using abandoned negatives from the 1930's.

Yeah, yeah. It ain't uncommon. Just ignore.

One of my brothers posted an astonishing insightful web page regarding Marcel Duchamp and was intimidated by the threat of a law suit by self-appointed guardians of the artist's work.

It never happened.

See: http://www.understandingduchamp.com/

[Drew Wiley]

Just ignore? That's a nice way to have your home taken out from under you. It has happened over a mere photographic image. What if some concern in Hollywood claims the rights? People in this crazy town sue each other over every silly thing conceivable (one specific reason why I work here, but don't live here). Think fifty
grand just to start the process. They'll starve you out, if nothing else. I know people who will print old negs and even sell them, but only by direct contact. They
wouldn't dare post anything on the web or publicly advertise the images. The are more lawyers in the water than sharks.

[invisibleflash]

Pop Photo, Pop Mechanics, Agent for Yoshiyuki do not respond to licensing requests. ICP via Getty Images wants almost $500 for using one Weegee pix in my book. So will just have to leave them all out.