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

[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/...rkness-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.in...0-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.