legal / ethical quandry

[Randy]

The short of it:

I acquired a lot of 4X5 B&W negs that are of weddings, taken in my area from the mid 50's through the mid 70's by a local photographer who passed away a couple years ago. He abandoned these negs when he sold his house and went into a retirement home. I acquired them from the current home owner.
The deceased photographer has two middle aged children who no longer live in the area and I have no idea where they live, but might be able to find them.

My question - Any thoughts on the legality of me scanning the negs, perhaps posting them in on-line galleries and trying to locate the people in the photographs, and offer to sell prints? Many or most of them may still live in my area, or have descendants / relatives in my small town.

I am sure most of the people in the photographs did not get very good prints (judging from his negs) and I could probably offer a better product to them, or their descendants by scanning and printing.

Thoughts?

[Sevo]

I don't know about peculiarities of the US copyright law (which seems to have been rather primitive at that time, requiring registration, so that the original photographer might perhaps have lost his copyright). But by current European standards it would be a very stupid business plan, unless you find the heirs and negotiate with them. If you proceed on your own and the heirs stumble upon it they would be entitled to damages higher than any profit you are likely to make.

[Greg Blank]

Sir;

I think you will get sued out the wazoo. The previous home owner had no right to the images Or to sell them to you if you bought.The current law states that the native copyright applies for fifty years beyond the creators death. Offering them on the QT as you suggest will immediately raise eye brows and anyone with a bit of common decency will report you to the family. You have no rights for the next 50 years. They do Not need to be registered to be copyrighted, you providing ample proof of guilt by soliciting the business.

The short of it:

I acquired a lot of 4X5 B&W negs that are of weddings, taken in my area from the mid 50's through the mid 70's by a local photographer who passed away a couple years ago. He abandoned these negs when he sold his house and went into a retirement home. I acquired them from the current home owner.
The deceased photographer has two middle aged children who no longer live in the area and I have no idea where they live, but might be able to find them.

My question - Any thoughts on the legality of me scanning the negs, perhaps posting them in on-line galleries and trying to locate the people in the photographs, and offer to sell prints? Many or most of them may still live in my area, or have descendants / relatives in my small town.

I am sure most of the people in the photographs did not get very good prints (judging from his negs) and I could probably offer a better product to them, or their descendants by scanning and printing.

Thoughts?

[Jim Galli]

Sir;

I think you will get sued out the wazoo. The previous home owner had no right to the images Or to sell them to you if you bought.The current law states that the native copyright applies for fifty years beyond the creators death. Offering them on the QT as you suggest will immediately raise eye brows and anyone with a bit of common decency will report you to the family. You have no rights for the next 50 years. They do Not need to be registered to be copyrighted, you providing ample proof of guilt by soliciting the business.

Curious to see what folks will say. 1961 was 50 years ago. Time may be well up on many of them. Plus, for crying out loud, the original photog abandoned in place. He walked away from them. Why would his heirs have any rights to them?

[cyrus]

Legally, youre violating copyright of original photographr now belonging to his heirs even tho u legally bought the negs themselves. Only defense is abandonment of copyright if u can show that u attempted very hard to get the heirs interestrd snd they didnt care. But the burden would be on u to prove abandonment.
Practically, what are the chances that the heirs will care enuf to come after u? If i were u i would give heirs small $ and purchase rights to the pics. They cant take the negs from u so better than nothing for them. So everybody gets a little taste. This is not legal advice, see attorney etc

[Brian C. Miller]

Get some advice from an attorney, and let the attorney do a "due diligence" search. It's one thing to republish photographs made by someone who died, without heirs, in 1960, but that's not your case here. It's easier to protect yourself before someone gets the scent of money.

[Mark Sampson]

Talk to the ASMP, they have the copyright knowledge for cases like this.

[Wayne Aho]

As far as property goes, if someone buys a house with contents, then all the contents pass to the new owner. Just my guess, that the negatives or any photos left would go to the new house owner, and he could sell them as he pleased.
I have been to estate auctions where the owner passed away, and his relatives had to bid on the family pictures. By the way, I am definitely not a lawyer and just adding my unqualified opinion on this matter.
I've purchased old photos, and photo albums, and I consider them mine.

Wayne

[Kirk Gittings]

You may consider the photos yours but reproduction rights are another matter. Someone who buys a print from me does not have the right to reproduce it. And that is part of the question here.

I don't think that one can assume he abandoned his negatives and his copyright to them. For example was he mentally competent at the time? That is just one question of many.

[Greg Blank]

Enforcement of © Goes onward from date of death not creation date in this case. If I can as a creator, prove you violated my © I can sue & will, provided that I am alive. If not and there is a shread of evidence related to my intent to transfer my rights to next of kin and the state has no leans or claims then God help you if my family says you owe for damages. Look at the AA issues wrapped in supposed found images. From personal experience suing somebody for © infringement is not hard, just costly. If you have assets like a house, or whatever the lawyers retainer may be worth it to someone to prove you screwed them out of a penny. I won a judgement a few years back after my © was not honored beyond the initial contract. That fellow went to jail for ten years in addition to the civil suit involving more than a few pro photographers myself included.

Curious to see what folks will say. 1961 was 50 years ago. Time may be well up on many of them. Plus, for crying out loud, the original photog abandoned in place. He walked away from them. Why would his heirs have any rights to them?