antique glass plate negatives

[Chilidog]

I have come into possession of a couple dozen old glass plate negatives from various sources that apparently date from the very early 1900’s. For all of them, very little information, if any is known about the original photographer. In some cases, the people in the images are clearly recognizable, although if there is anyone left alive who would actually recognize them is a debatable question.

Some of them are good enough, or interesting enough, that I intend to try to scan them in to be digitally cleaned up and reprinted.

My question is this:

What are the copyright laws in regards to 100 year old negatives of unknown provenance?

[Justin Cormack]

Which country are you in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain is a good summary. Negatives would not be published works, so for unknown author in the US these would be public domain 120 years after creation.

You would be unlikely to have any issues though...


I have always found POP to be a good process for printing them, though it is harder to get than it used to be alas...

[Chilidog]

I just read through the other thread, "ethical / leagl quandary," and some of my questions have been answered.

were did you get 120 years from?

In one case, the photographer died in the 50's although I know nothing else about him.

Some of the pictures are clearly dated from before 1920.

As for POP, I figured on using Bostick & Sulivan's albumin paper.

Just a side note, if I scan an image into a digtal file, restore and tweak it, then print out an enlarged negative to make an alternative process image, is that now a "derivative work?"

[cyrus]

In the US anything published before 1923 is in the public domain.
Read more
http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

[Justin Cormack]

In the US anything published before 1923 is in the public domain.
Read more
http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Unfortunately photographs are rarely published!

the 120 years figure came from Wikipedia: "works of unknown authors or where the author's death date is unknown are copyrighted until the shorter of 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since their creation. "

[cyrus]

The term "published" has a specific meaning in copyright law and doesn't mean the same thing as we normally use the word, as in being reproduced in a magazine etc.

This is actually a rather important point since many copyright time deadlines start from the date on which a work is legally considered to be "published" and so it would be a good idea for everyone (not just the OP) to read up on that point. For example, to get the full benefits that come with registering a work with the US copyright office, you should register the work within 3 months of the date they were "published". But what does published mean, legally?

Read more: http://asmp.org/tutorials/published-or-unpublished.html

This gets a little more complicated because the term "published" was not given a legal definition prior to 1976

So in answer to the OP, in my totally not-a-practicing-attorney opinion, it comes down to whether the negs here are deemed to have been "published" as the term is legally defined. If yes, then they are public domain assuming they were published prior to 1923. If no, then the 120 years from the date of creation kicks in (so anything before 1891 would be public domain.)

BUT this is all purely academic. Realistically speaking, there is virtually no chance that anyone would pursue this with a lawsuit.

[Chilidog]

BUT this is all purely academic. Realistically speaking, there is virtually no chance that anyone would pursue this with a lawsuit.

I agree. Someone's going to have a hard time proving that the negative was actually taken by their great uncle Eb.

Thanks.

[Chilidog]

So, If I have an original negative that is in the public domain, and I create a print from it, is that print a derivitve work and is that copyrightable?

[cyrus]

So, If I have an original negative that is in the public domain, and I create a print from it, is that print a derivitve work and is that copyrightable?

No once in the public domain, always in the public domain. A print of a negative is probably not a derivative work because it lacks sufficiently original expression. It is just a reproduction with minor alterations at best. If you do stuff to it - color it, rearrange things, etc you'd have a better claim for derivative work -basically you'd have to transform the old work into something new and original, and only that new & original contribution is copyrightable.

[Darin Boville]

Are the images of a gnarly tree, on some sort of cliff, high up in the mountains?

--Darin