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

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 > > > > >