Are they claiming copyright on the original photos or reprints in some manner such as a published book? What is the age of the original photos? -----Original Message----- From: Betseylee [mailto:betseylee@mstar.net] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 5:39 PM To: COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Publishing old photos The Daughters of the Utah Pioneers claim a copyright on all photos donated to them. Most were donated by descendants of the person in the photo not by the photographer. Are these truly copyrightable? Betseylee ----- Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 12:32 PM

The names of your parents and the date of the marriage is public record. As far as the photo: If a news crew takes photos or video, do they ask permission to use it on the news from everyone in a crowd?, or of an aledged criminal being taken off to jail? I don't think so. ... Look at is as your parents claim to public fame. Donna -----Original Message----- From: Kaesemein@aol.com [mailto:Kaesemein@aol.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 1:53 PM To: COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Publishing old photos I'm glad this topic came up because I also have a question about one old photo. My parents married in 1931 and their flower girl was an 11 yr. old girl who later became a famous movie star. There was a picture taken of the complete wedding party including this little girl and a copy was given to the little girl's parents as a momento. The movie star died a number of years ago, but I recently found a web page as a tribute to her and the picture of my parent's wedding is on that web site along with the date and my parent's names. No one EVER contacted my brother or I to ask permission to use it. I understand that a book about this movie star is also coming out this year and the picture might be in there. How can this be allowed without ever seeking permission from us? Marilyn

In a message dated 5/1/2006 9:53:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, clifflamere@nycap.rr.com writes: If Marilyn tells us that it was a professionally taken photo, it will not change the things I have said above. From what she has said so far, it could not have been assumed that it was professionally taken. I have been a non-professional photographer for two weddings of young relatives. It would be natural to take a photo of the wedding party. Marilyn, do you know who took the photo? If so, do you know when, or about when, the person died? Cliff Cliff- Even given the circumstances you suggest--if the photo was not *published* because it was taken by a non-professional and copies were never sold...the fact remains that Marilyn's question was: "How can this be allowed without ever seeking permission from us?" The answer is still the same--that permission need not be requested of the family of the bride and groom as they would not be the copyright-holders even if there is still potentially a copyright in existence regarding the photo unless, of course, the photo was taken by the family of the bride or groom. In any case, most definitely permission isn't required to use the name of the bride and groom and the date of the wedding--these are facts and don't belong to anyone. Joan

It seems to me that there is another issue here beyond that of copyright. It is an issue of privacy rights and publishing a photo without a modeling release. A photographer may own the copyright to his/her photo, but the people in the photo (and possibly their heirs) have rights to how their images are used. I found some interesting info on model releases at http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html Barbara Leak ----- Original Message ----- > > Even given the circumstances you suggest--if the photo was not > *published* > because it was taken by a non-professional and copies were never > sold...the > fact remains that Marilyn's question was: "How can this be allowed > without ever > seeking permission from us?" > > The answer is still the same--that permission need not be requested of the > family of the bride and groom as they would not be the copyright-holders > even > if there is still potentially a copyright in existence regarding the > photo > unless, of course, the photo was taken by the family of the bride or > groom. In > any case, most definitely permission isn't required to use the name of > the > bride and groom and the date of the wedding--these are facts and don't > belong > to anyone. > > Joan

Joan said, "The 1931 photo is in the public domain unless it is marked with a copyright notice AND that copyright was renewed--it would require BOTH to be true in order to still be under copyright--which is highly unlikely when you are speaking about a 1931 wedding photo." The statement is much too strong. I'm writing this email so that people with inherited photos don't get misled by the statement, since it is wrong when applied to about 90-95% of inherited photos. Let me explain. The statement could be accurate ONLY if the photo had previously been PUBLISHED. The statement above would have been true if the photo was *published* in 1931, but all we know so far is that it was taken that year. If the photo was taken by a non-professional, it almost certainly has not been published, and the statement above is almost certainly false. If the photo was professionally taken and sold to people interested in the wedding photos, the sale itself was a form of publication. In that case, the statement above would be true. Since Marilyn did not tell us whether it was a private or professional photo, we cannot assume it was professionally done. Of the 1931 wedding photos taken during the Great Depression (following the 1929 stock market crash), I would guess that many fewer than 50% of the wedding photos would have been professionally taken. Some details. If a 1931 photo was taken privately, and if it was never published, it originally had a common law copyright that would *never* run out (a length of protection that violated the intention of the founders of the country). The 1976 Copyright Act dealt with unpublished works. That law has gone through some revisions since. A pre-1978 photo first published 1978 to 2002 will go into the public domain in 2048. After 2002, an UNPUBLISHED pre-1978 photo would enter the public domain 71 years following the photographer's death. By 2006, all *unpublished* photos taken by people who had died 1935 or earlier had entered the public domain. So... it doesn't matter when an unpublished pre-1978 photo was taken; it only matters when the photographer died. [Different rules apply to a "work for hire" (where employer owns the copyight), works published anonymously, and works published under a pseudonym (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records).] If Marilyn tells us that it was a professionally taken photo, it will not change the things I have said above. From what she has said so far, it could not have been assumed that it was professionally taken. I have been a non-professional photographer for two weddings of young relatives. It would be natural to take a photo of the wedding party. Marilyn, do you know who took the photo? If so, do you know when, or about when, the person died? Cliff ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: > >In a message dated 5/1/2006 1:54:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, >Kaesemein@aol.com writes: > >I'm glad this topic came up because I also have a question about one old >photo. > >My parents married in 1931 and their flower girl was an 11 yr. old girl who >later became >a famous movie star. There was a picture taken of the complete wedding >party including >this little girl and a copy was given to the little girl's parents as a >momento. > >The movie star died a number of years ago, but I recently found a web page >as a tribute to her and the picture of my parent's wedding is on that web >site along with the date and my parent's names. No one EVER contacted my >brother >or I to ask permission to use it. I understand that a book about this >movie >star is also coming out this year and the picture might be in there. How >can this be allowed without ever seeking permission from us? > > >Marilyn > > > >Marilyn- > >The 1931 photo is in the public domain unless it is marked with a copyright >notice AND that copyright was renewed--it would require BOTH to be true in >order to still be under copyright--which is highly unlikely when you are >speaking about a 1931 wedding photo. > >The names of your parents and the date of their marriage are on public >record and would not be copyrightable, nor would it be private information--they >are facts. So I fail to see the question or problem. Why do you feel >permission is necessary to post the photo publicly? > >Joan > > > > >

The answer to that is very simple and it is actually the same answer to all similar copyright questions. Under copyright law there is nothing to stop anyone publishing anything without asking permission first. It is not an offence to do so. However if someone publishes something that is still under copyright they can be made to rectify the situation. This could take the form of withdrawing the offending item. It could be paying royalties to make use of the item. It could be paying compensation to the copyright owner or it could be a combination of all three. First you would have to ascertain who the copyright owner of the photo was, it may be the photographer and not you or your brother. Cheers Guy Kaesemein@aol.com wrote: > I'm glad this topic came up because I also have a question about one old > photo. > > My parents married in 1931 and their flower girl was an 11 yr. old girl who > later became > a famous movie star. There was a picture taken of the complete wedding > party including > this little girl and a copy was given to the little girl's parents as a > momento. > > The movie star died a number of years ago, but I recently found a web page > as a tribute to her and the picture of my parent's wedding is on that web > site along with the date and my parent's names. No one EVER contacted my brother > or I to ask permission to use it. I understand that a book about this movie > star is also coming out this year and the picture might be in there. How > can this be allowed without ever seeking permission from us? > > > Marilyn > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from this list click on mailto:COPYRIGHT-L-request@rootsweb.com?subject=unsubscribe (list mode) or mailto:COPYRIGHT-D-request@rootsweb.com?subject=unsubscribe (digest mode) – Contact COPYRIGHT-admin@rootsweb.com for list related problems. For the COPYRIGHT-L archives, go to http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/copyright. > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > > > -- Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England. http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts not promises! http://anguline.co.uk/ An organisation dedicated to bring rare books on CD, at an affordable price, to the local history researcher and to the family history researcher.

At 05:39 PM 5/1/2006, you wrote: >The Daughters of the Utah Pioneers claim a copyright on all photos donated >to them. Most were donated by descendants of the person in the photo not >by the photographer. Are these truly copyrightable? >Betseylee If you did not create it, or inherit the rights of the creator via the laws of inheritance, or have copyright transferred to you via written contract, you can not claim copyright. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Basics, Circular 1 http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc What Works are Protected, Two General Principles "Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright." Also note the phrase "a protected work" in the quote above.. If the work is not protected, i.e. public domain, it can not be taken out of the public domain. It belongs to the community at large and no one can claim copyright. Pat Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> >To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 12:32 PM >Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Publishing old photos > > >> >>In a message dated 5/1/2006 2:24:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, >>guy.etchells@virgin.net writes: >> >>First you would have to ascertain who the copyright owner of the photo >>was, it may be the photographer and not you or your brother. >> >> >> >>--- >>And the likelihood that even a professional photographer has renewed the >>copyright to a wedding photo taken in 1931 is slim to none...and even in the >>unlikely event he did renew copyright (perhaps because he learned the flower >>girl was a celebrity and he wanted to capitalize on it) the only person who >>could file a complaint about infringement would be the photographer or >>his heirs. >> >>Joan >> >> >>==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >>LATIN-WORDS-L is a mailing list for anyone with a genealogical or >>historical interest in deciphering and interpreting written documents in >>Latin from earliest to most recent 20th Century times, and discussing old >>Latin words, phrases, names, abbreviations and antique jargon. To >>subscribe, send subscribe to mailto:LATIN-WORDS-L-request@rootsweb.com >>(Mail Mode) or mailto:LATIN-WORDS-D-request@rootsweb.com (Digest Mode) >> >>============================== >>Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for >>ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: >>http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx >> >> > > >==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== >LATIN-WORDS-L is a mailing list for anyone with a genealogical or >historical interest in deciphering and interpreting written documents in >Latin from earliest to most recent 20th Century times, and discussing old >Latin words, phrases, names, abbreviations and antique jargon. To >subscribe, send subscribe to mailto:LATIN-WORDS-L-request@rootsweb.com >(Mail Mode) or mailto:LATIN-WORDS-D-request@rootsweb.com (Digest Mode) > >============================== >Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the >last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: >http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx >

It sounds to me like that this. If this little girl had never become a movie star, and she grew up like normal little girls, you would have no problem with her using a picture which her family POSSESSES and is not going to put into a book. SInce she is now famous, and you think she must have money (a very poor assumption), you are just after some money. You a greedy and jealous. So, why not just call her attorney and publisher and make your ransom demands, just to shut you up. I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Nor a pillow to sleep upon at night assuming a vampire like you can sleep at night. But go ahead, milk it for all it is worth. It is people like you who ruin our legal system and society. I don't like you at all. > From: Guy Etchells <guy.etchells@virgin.net> > Reply-To: COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 19:23:26 +0100 > To: COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Publishing old photos > Resent-From: COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 12:23:35 -0600 > > Kaesemein@aol.com wrote: >> I'm glad this topic came up because I also have a question about one old >> photo. >> >> My parents married in 1931 and their flower girl was an 11 yr. old girl who >> later became >> a famous movie star. There was a picture taken of the complete wedding >> party including >> this little girl and a copy was given to the little girl's parents as a >> momento. >> >> The movie star died a number of years ago, but I recently found a web page >> as a tribute to her and the picture of my parent's wedding is on that web >> site along with the date and my parent's names. No one EVER contacted my >> brother >> or I to ask permission to use it. I understand that a book about this movie >> star is also coming out this year and the picture might be in there. How >> can this be allowed without ever seeking permission from us? >> >> >> Marilyn >>

Only if the donor held the copyright and the deed of gift included the transfer. Mary PS Of course, they control the right to publish, etc. On 5/1/06, Betseylee <betseylee@mstar.net> wrote: > The Daughters of the Utah Pioneers claim a copyright on all photos donated > to them. Most were donated by descendants of the person in the photo not by > the photographer. Are these truly copyrightable? > Betseylee > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> > To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 12:32 PM > Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Publishing old photos > > > > > > In a message dated 5/1/2006 2:24:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > guy.etchells@virgin.net writes: > > > > First you would have to ascertain who the copyright owner of the photo > > was, it may be the photographer and not you or your brother. > > > > > > > > --- > > And the likelihood that even a professional photographer has renewed the > > copyright to a wedding photo taken in 1931 is slim to none...and even in > > the > > unlikely event he did renew copyright (perhaps because he learned the > > flower > > girl was a celebrity and he wanted to capitalize on it) the only person > > who > > could file a complaint about infringement would be the photographer or his > > heirs. > > > > Joan > > > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > > LATIN-WORDS-L is a mailing list for anyone with a genealogical or > > historical interest in deciphering and interpreting written documents in > > Latin from earliest to most recent 20th Century times, and discussing old > > Latin words, phrases, names, abbreviations and antique jargon. To > > subscribe, send subscribe to mailto:LATIN-WORDS-L-request@rootsweb.com > > (Mail Mode) or mailto:LATIN-WORDS-D-request@rootsweb.com (Digest Mode) > > > > ============================== > > Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for > > ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: > > http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx > > > > > > > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > LATIN-WORDS-L is a mailing list for anyone with a genealogical or historical interest in deciphering and interpreting written documents in Latin from earliest to most recent 20th Century times, and discussing old Latin words, phrases, names, abbreviations and antique jargon. To subscribe, send subscribe to mailto:LATIN-WORDS-L-request@rootsweb.com (Mail Mode) or mailto:LATIN-WORDS-D-request@rootsweb.com (Digest Mode) > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > > -- Mary K. Mannix Maryland Room Manager C. Burr Artz Public Library Frederick County Public Libraries Frederick, MD

The Daughters of the Utah Pioneers claim a copyright on all photos donated to them. Most were donated by descendants of the person in the photo not by the photographer. Are these truly copyrightable? Betseylee ----- Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Publishing old photos > > In a message dated 5/1/2006 2:24:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, > guy.etchells@virgin.net writes: > > First you would have to ascertain who the copyright owner of the photo > was, it may be the photographer and not you or your brother. > > > > --- > And the likelihood that even a professional photographer has renewed the > copyright to a wedding photo taken in 1931 is slim to none...and even in > the > unlikely event he did renew copyright (perhaps because he learned the > flower > girl was a celebrity and he wanted to capitalize on it) the only person > who > could file a complaint about infringement would be the photographer or his > heirs. > > Joan > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > LATIN-WORDS-L is a mailing list for anyone with a genealogical or > historical interest in deciphering and interpreting written documents in > Latin from earliest to most recent 20th Century times, and discussing old > Latin words, phrases, names, abbreviations and antique jargon. To > subscribe, send subscribe to mailto:LATIN-WORDS-L-request@rootsweb.com > (Mail Mode) or mailto:LATIN-WORDS-D-request@rootsweb.com (Digest Mode) > > ============================== > Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for > ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx > > >

In a message dated 5/1/2006 2:24:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, guy.etchells@virgin.net writes: First you would have to ascertain who the copyright owner of the photo was, it may be the photographer and not you or your brother. --- And the likelihood that even a professional photographer has renewed the copyright to a wedding photo taken in 1931 is slim to none...and even in the unlikely event he did renew copyright (perhaps because he learned the flower girl was a celebrity and he wanted to capitalize on it) the only person who could file a complaint about infringement would be the photographer or his heirs. Joan

In a message dated 5/1/2006 1:54:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, Kaesemein@aol.com writes: I'm glad this topic came up because I also have a question about one old photo. My parents married in 1931 and their flower girl was an 11 yr. old girl who later became a famous movie star. There was a picture taken of the complete wedding party including this little girl and a copy was given to the little girl's parents as a momento. The movie star died a number of years ago, but I recently found a web page as a tribute to her and the picture of my parent's wedding is on that web site along with the date and my parent's names. No one EVER contacted my brother or I to ask permission to use it. I understand that a book about this movie star is also coming out this year and the picture might be in there. How can this be allowed without ever seeking permission from us? Marilyn Marilyn- The 1931 photo is in the public domain unless it is marked with a copyright notice AND that copyright was renewed--it would require BOTH to be true in order to still be under copyright--which is highly unlikely when you are speaking about a 1931 wedding photo. The names of your parents and the date of their marriage are on public record and would not be copyrightable, nor would it be private information--they are facts. So I fail to see the question or problem. Why do you feel permission is necessary to post the photo publicly? Joan

I'm glad this topic came up because I also have a question about one old photo. My parents married in 1931 and their flower girl was an 11 yr. old girl who later became a famous movie star. There was a picture taken of the complete wedding party including this little girl and a copy was given to the little girl's parents as a momento. The movie star died a number of years ago, but I recently found a web page as a tribute to her and the picture of my parent's wedding is on that web site along with the date and my parent's names. No one EVER contacted my brother or I to ask permission to use it. I understand that a book about this movie star is also coming out this year and the picture might be in there. How can this be allowed without ever seeking permission from us? Marilyn

At 05:42 AM 5/1/2006, Richard A. Pence wrote: >I know there recently a long thread recently that may have covered this >issue, but I received a message the other day outlining this situation: > >An album of old photos was given to an individual who used some of them >in a recently published book. The photos were quite old enough to have >been in the public domain for some years. Does putting them in the book >give them a "fresh copyright"? Copyright derives from creation -- not discovery, acquisition, or publication. Once in the public domain, always in the public domain. Pat

I know there recently a long thread recently that may have covered this issue, but I received a message the other day outlining this situation: An album of old photos was given to an individual who used some of them in a recently published book. The photos were quite old enough to have been in the public domain for some years. Does putting them in the book give them a "fresh copyright"? Richard P. Fairfax, VA

from your list. thanks charlotte morton cimorto@megavision.com

At 03:53 PM 4/15/2006, you wrote: >Being naive about such things.... I always thought a verbal contract was >only as good as the paper it was written on, hence not worth anything. It depends <g> Contract law is probably outside the scope of this list, and the List Admin may want to terminate any extended discussion, but briefly, a written contract is *evidence* of the terms of the agreement should there be a dispute. For example, suppose you agree to sell your old lawn mower to your neighbor for $150 -- $50 now, $50 on May 15, and $50 on June 15. Now further suppose the mower stops working on June 10 and your neightbor refuses to make the final $50 payment. Absent a written agreement, he has the lawn mower and cancelled checks to prove he paid you $100. YOU have no evidence he agreed to pay $150 for the mower. OTOH, if a speaker asks for or agrees to a sound recording of his speech/seminar, the recorder makes (presumably) a high quality tape which would indicate a microphone on the podium or nearby -- which would (again presumably) be obvious to the speaker. If the speaker later claimed he did not give permission for the recording, the recorder could suggest the quality of the recording was prima facie evidence of the speaker's knowledge of and agreement to the recording. That would be "secondary evidence" of the oral agreement. Pat

At 02:13 PM 4/15/2006, you wrote: >**I don't think that distribution rights to the recording resides with the >recorder. I believe the recorder can only distribute the recording with >the permission of the copyright holder of the speech.** Cliff, Quoting Fishman again, a continuation of the same paragraph (The Copyright Handbook 16/11) "A video, film, or sound recording of a speech is a copyrighted work in its own right, owned by the person who made the work." I read that (assuming the recording of the extemporaneous speech was made with permission) to say that the person who made the recording has the right to distribute his/her recording as part of his/her copyright in the recording, which is separate and apart from the speaker's copyright in the "words". The recorder, however, would not have the right to make and distribute a written transcription of the words, since those words still belong to the speaker. The recorder only owns the sound recording. Clear as mud? Pat

Pat Asher <pasher@ee.net> wrote: > Stephen Fishman says: > "If the speech was given extemporaneously (improvised, not written down in > advance) but recorded with the speaker's permission, the author/speaker > usually owns the copyright in the speech itself, the same way as if it was > written down. But the recording of the speech belongs to the people who > recorded it." Thanks, Pat. The above is probably about as close as we are going to come in getting the "correct" answer. Richard

In a message dated 4/15/2006 2:25:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, clifflamere@nycap.rr.com writes: I don't think that distribution rights to the recording resides with the recorder. --- I think probably we all agree that at this point we leave the copyright issue and enter into a discussion of CONTRACT law. It would all depend on what the contract says. We have all been discussing recording of a presentation as it pertains to the speaker granting permission--not illegal or bootleg copying. Along with granting permission generally comes a discussion of what right is being granted--and this really should be in writing. I know, I know--oral contracts CAN be legal and binding--I've just seen way too many oral contracts that end up in "he said" "no she said" type arguments. To have any valid contract the parties to the contract must have a meeting of the minds--and often with oral contracts there isn't a meeting of the minds. Joan