This depends, Bob. If this photographer simply copied it, then they have no right to claim copyright on it. If, however, he enhanced, altered, or restored it to any appreciable amount then he has created an "artistic" or "creative" work which can be copyrighted. Since becoming disabled I have stopped doing photography, but have picked up doing digital photo restoration of antique family photos. While I have never retained a copyright and always sign it over to the owner of the original, I also charge a pretty penny as it is MAJOR time consuming work. Tim Bob Juch wrote: >Bev, > >I your case, the photographer can not claim a copyright. Not only was it >"work for hire" but the work was not original. Since you own the original, >you could sue the photographer if he made additional copies for sale. > >Bob Juch >http://www.Juch.org >

Tim, Even then it was "work for hire". Bob Juch http://www.Juch.org -----Original Message----- From: Tim Kemp [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy This depends, Bob. If this photographer simply copied it, then they have no right to claim copyright on it. If, however, he enhanced, altered, or restored it to any appreciable amount then he has created an "artistic" or "creative" work which can be copyrighted. Since becoming disabled I have stopped doing photography, but have picked up doing digital photo restoration of antique family photos. While I have never retained a copyright and always sign it over to the owner of the original, I also charge a pretty penny as it is MAJOR time consuming work. Tim Bob Juch wrote: >Bev, > >I your case, the photographer can not claim a copyright. Not only was >it "work for hire" but the work was not original. Since you own the >original, you could sue the photographer if he made additional copies >for sale. > >Bob Juch >http://www.Juch.org

Hi Tim, I was going to ask you about that. Actually, about what a really good digital enhancing program to fix/restore old photos or photos that were not photographed well would cost as I have a large ongoing project with my family tree regarding that. A photographer I spoke to online before had told me the one he used cost about 600 bucks or so, very expensive! Thanks, christy cia, cristy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Kemp" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:12 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: copyrights, "Fair Use", and genealogy > This depends, Bob. If this photographer simply copied it, then they have > no right to claim copyright on it. If, however, he enhanced, altered, or > restored it to any appreciable amount then he has created an "artistic" or > "creative" work which can be copyrighted. > Since becoming disabled I have stopped doing photography, but have picked > up doing digital photo restoration of antique family photos. While I have > never retained a copyright and always sign it over to the owner of the > original, I also charge a pretty penny as it is MAJOR time consuming work. > > Tim > > Bob Juch wrote: > >>Bev, >> >>I your case, the photographer can not claim a copyright. Not only was it >>"work for hire" but the work was not original. Since you own the >>original, >>you could sue the photographer if he made additional copies for sale. >> >>Bob Juch >>http://www.Juch.org >> > > > ============================== > Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. > New content added every business day. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx > >