I'm helping a friend who is a photo historian do some research. Any thoughts?
"Other than the famous case of Alexander Gardiner against the Brady Studio, are there any other cases rooted in the latter half of the nineteenth century that have stood out? (I am writing a chapter on image appropriation and trying to give a little background.)"
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Wow, as a fellow researcher and author of "obscurivia" I commend you. I have nothing to contribute to your particular effort, but relish hearing that I am not alone in the pursuit of ancient and antique knowlege.
Platt D. Babbitt had the rights to Niagara Falls in the 1850's.
A photograph of Oscar Wilde was the subject of the landmark Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony Supreme Court case (1884), by which the protection of the copyright law was extended to photographs. They were not included in earlier latus, the Court said, because photography as an art did not then exist.
terrific guys!
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
While I don't have any awareness of other copyright cases, I do have an example of an image that would have been caught up in the Gardner/Brady case-
I have seen versions of this image with the Brady backmark AND with the Gardner backmark. They appear to be close enough from version to version that I do believe they are the same negative.
possibly from a duplicate copy negative too I suppose.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
here's another one that's a bit of a mystery - I don't recognize the sitters. It's a Brady CDV, and for some reason it has the copyright notice, along with the date, 1865, printed on the front. I own around 20 Brady CDVs, and while all of them have the Brady (or the E&HT Anthony, from an image by Brady) studio back mark, I would say less than 1/3 have copyright information on the front, and most of those are the Fairy Wedding photos (the 1863 wedding of Tom Thumb and Lavinia Warren, midget stars of P.T. Barnum's American Museum and circus), which I can understand Brady wanting to enforce his copyright for, as they were major money-makers. Others make no sense - why not have the copyright notice on his photos of the Union generals? Those were also hot sellers. Why not have it on some of his more unique images, like one I have of the Pleasant Valley Winery in upstate New York?
Just as an FYI, if anyone is interested, the last photo I posted I have discovered is a photo of Clara Barton and John J. Elwell, she of the American Red Cross fame and he a Union general in the Quartermasters Corps. They worked together at Fort Wagner in South Carolina, and were linked romantically despite the fact that he was already married.
It is obvious from the image that they are in a deep relationship. As my wife would say, "Look a the way he is touching hte small of her back; that means they are having sex for sure."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks