Scanned Vintage Images

[ktsls82]

Hi, I am wondering of anyone wants to swap high quality scans of vintage photographs or postcards they may have though e-mail or on cd. Many of us like old images for atc's, chunky books and altered books. I thought this way we wouldn't have to dish out so much money to buy new photographs from vintage stores. I have a large collection of old photographs and postcards that I would be glad to share, a scan for a scan. Let me know if you are interested.

[emelengy]

I'm interested; although I'm not too sure how many I've got to share...will pm you, or something...

[judielaine]

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

Note that for unpublished works -- like family photographs or letters -- copyright is the life of the creator plus 70 years.

It's very possible that much ephemera, like menus or matchbook covers, are considered "published," but i don't really know. In that case, they went into public domain immediately until 1978.

[ktsls82]

I guess that is true but pictures from our own personal collections will not be a problem. They are usually of relatives. Plus most photographs don't have copyrights on them. Most of my pictures are early 1900's and before.

[judielaine]

Originally Posted by ktsls82

I guess that is true but pictures from our own personal collections will not be a problem. They are usually of relatives.

The creator (and the heirs) have rights, even if they're family!

Originally Posted by ktsls82

Plus most photographs don't have copyrights on them.

And for creations that were not published, prior to 1978, the duration of copyright is the creator's life plus 70 years (during which the copyright belongs to the creator's heirs).

Originally Posted by ktsls82

Most of my pictures are early 1900's and before.

So, if someone took a photo at age 35 in 1915, and they lived to be 70 (thus, dying in 1950), the *unpublished* photo enters public domain 70 years after their death, 2020.

The copyright on that unpublished photo belongs to their heirs. If you're an heir of the photographer, you could probably assign the rights to the public domain or specific individual (depending on how good terms you are with your cousins!)

It's this sort of problem that has librarians and archivists pushing for an amendment to the copyright act for orphaned creations. I've written about it in my blog; Wired magazine has and easy to read overview of the problem; and the American Library Association has done a great deal of work advocating for moving orphaned works into a less "locked-up" state.

http://www.grey-cat.com/curious/?cat=14
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64494,00.html
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/washn...ab/17mar22.htm

Cheers,
judith

[emelengy]

The creator (and the heirs) have rights, even if they're family!

What if I *am* the heir...or family? And most of the photos I'd consider sharing are of great-grandparents, all of who were gone by the mid-thirties to forties...so that's mostly covered, I'd think...? What is the copyright duration on published works, such as antique postcards, etc. ? (I've recently bought a few from the 'teens and twenties...not reproductions...?) What about book illustrations, from the same period or earlier?

[judielaine]

Originally Posted by emelengy

What if I *am* the heir...or family?

As long as you don't have some cousin who kicks up a fuss, as the heir of the creator you can choose to do anything that you would choose to do with your own art. If you want to "license" it to someone else to use in art, that's fine.

Originally Posted by emelengy

And most of the photos I'd consider sharing are of great-grandparents, all of who were gone by the mid-thirties to forties...so that's mostly covered, I'd think...?

Unpublished works are in copyright for the life of the creator plus 70 years.

I really don't know what early 20th century photographers assumed when taking portraits. Were they works made for hire? Thus ownership of the image went to the folks paying for the portrait? Now days, most photographers choose to retain copyright. If your family member was the creator of the work, you know best whether seventy years have passed since the creator's death.

Originally Posted by emelengy

What is the copyright duration on published works, such as antique postcards, etc. ? (I've recently bought a few from the 'teens and twenties...not reproductions...?) What about book illustrations, from the same period or earlier?

See http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

Published works before 1923 are in the public domain. (I think the point is the term was not renewable.) I think it's safe to assume the image side of the post card is "published." The written side is un-published.

Between 1923 - 63, if there is a copyright statement, the right was for 28 years and could be renewed. The max of all the renewals adds up to 67 years. So, it's 2006 now -- even with all the renewals possible, something published before 1939 is probably (i am not a lawyer) in public domain. Let's say you have a 1960 post card with a copyright statement. You can decide if you really think the copyright owner went through the trouble of filing a renewal notice in the 1980s. Remember, though, that the written side, unpublished, is protected for seventy years after the author's death. (The heirs own the copyright.)

Between 1964 - 1978, if there is a copyright statement, the term of copyright is 95 years.

Between 1923 - 78, if there was no copyright notice on a *published* work, it was immediately in the public domain.

After 1978, it's locked up from the public domain for an extremely long time.

[emelengy]

Wow...could they have *made* it any more complicated?!! Maybe I'd better not ask!! Thanks for the very useful information!

After 1978, it's locked up from the public domain for an extremely long time.

Even if there is no copyright notice? And another thing...(sorry, I keep thinking of what-ifs!) is one allowed to use actual book pages, from a published work? So that nothing is copied, exactly? I should think if the book is your own, you could do what you like with it, but I could be wrong...! I was shocked to discover some years ago that professional portraits of my children are copyrighted by the *photographer*...so years later, I cannot make copies, even for myself, and even after the photographer no longer has the negative! Weird...and a bit disturbing...

[Misti_Ko]

You don't want to know the answer to that question. A few years ago, I thought about making magnets from images from magazines etc. My understanding of copyright law is that is called making a "derivative" image and is a violation of copyright, even though you're not actually making a copy. It seems that you can re-sell a book intact, but are not allowed to alter it and then sell it.

The more you look into it, the uglier it gets. Like, you are violating copyright if you sell a garment made from a commerical pattern, unless you have permission from the copyright holder.

I think if you are not selling your art you might be wise to adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

[emelengy]

Sounds like that's the best bet, if one is reasonably courteous and not looking to profit from another's work...and if there's nobody around to care...I for one would much rather my work be enjoyed, after I'm gone, than wind up in a landfill! There are laws, and there is common sense...And when it comes to filling landfills, and thereby polluting the world yet further, I'm afraid I'm mostly on the side of the latter... Shhhh...don't tell! ;D

Which is not to say that I won't obey copyright, insofar as I understand it. But if it's a question whether copyright holds, and a choice of using an old image in artwork or tossing it out, I think usefulness takes priority over some vague sense of possible ownership. If that's a problem, I will apologize profusely, and attempt to put it right...but...somehow...I'm not too worried!