In a message dated 5/2/2006 3:10:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, Kaesemein@aol.com writes: <<The photo was taken by a professional photographer on their wedding day and my parents purchased a number of copies for the immediate family and members of the wedding party.>> This means the photos WERE considered as being published at the time they were taken and sold to the family and wedding party as I had originally assumed. --------- <<The photography studio has been out of business for at least 40 yrs. or longer.>> Which means that in all probability the copyright was not renewed if, indeed, the photos from way back in 1931 were ever marked as being under copyright in the first place. ----- <<Does this mean then, that if I give photos of my wedding to family or friends that I or my children have not right to their control any longer? ....... For example if a relative publishes a book about his/her life 60 or 70 yrs. down the road, he can use the photo of my husband and I in it without asking permission of myself or my children?>> Well, copyright laws are different today than they were in 1931, but if the photos were not taken by you then the photographer holds the copyright--not you. Neither you nor your family members have the right to reproduce a photo that is under copyright without the permission of the copyright-holder --but the only person who can complain about infringement is the copyright-holder--the photographer. If the photo is out of copyright by the time the person wishes to use it -- then they can probably use it without permission from anyone. The link that was posted to the list about "model releases" is something you might want to read over and while this is a many-faceted issue of Civil Law, you would probably have a difficult time pursuing a family member legally for publishing an out-of-copyright wedding photo on that basis. See: http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm to learn when a copyrighted work passed into the public domain. Joan