Marilyn, The first paragraph of this discussion relates to pre-1978 copyright law. The professional photographer, as "creator" of the photo, had the right to get a copyright on the photo. However, the photographer is not likely to have done that in 1931. It would have required both time and a small fee to register the copyright of a photo that would get a few sales and then nobody else would be buying copies ever again. If it doesn't say Copyright or something similar on the back of the photo, it was never copyrighted. If it says so, you can be sure the copyright was not renewed 28 years later (the photo had no value). Since the photo was sold, it lacked protection afforded to works not published. It is reasonable to assume that the photo is in the public domain, which means that anyone is free to use it. In 2006, copyright is automatically assigned to any creative work. It does not have to be registered. For example, the email that you sent to the list is copyrighted even if you didn't know it and didn't say so. Concerning photos of your own wedding, I assume that it took place before 1978, and that it does not say copyright on the back of the photo if professionally taken. If my assumptions are correct, you own a copy of the photo, but nobody owns the copyright. If the photo was taken privately, and it has never been published, then the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo (or the heirs). If a private photo was taken by a parent or grandparent of you or your husband, then your children would be heirs of the common law copyright, but that copyright will expire according to certain rules and may not be available 60 years from now. Even if your children owned the copyright of a photo that had been given away, would they want to pay legal fees to prevent someone from using it in a family genealogy? I'm sorry that I don't have a reasonable solution for you. Cliff Kaesemein@aol.com wrote: > >Cliff, > >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. > >The photography studio has been out of business for at least 40 yrs. or >longer. >The flower girl/movie star died in 1981. > >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? > >Marilyn > > > > >