Interesting interpretation of copyright!

would it not be though that because they have the slides the photographer no longer owns the picture??

or is it still that because who ever took it even though he no longer has the picture in his possession he still owns copy right?
 
SpikeK6 said:
would it not be though that because they have the slides the photographer no longer owns the picture??

or is it still that because who ever took it even though he no longer has the picture in his possession he still owns copy right?
Click to expand...


A bit of reading for you

http://www.salshuel.co.uk/copyright.htm

specifically "duration of copyright"


Heather
 
Last edited:
All the seller says is "These came to us in an auction so I suppose the copyright passes along with the slides."

He supposes incorrectly and should a buyer use the slides other than for personal use then they could well find themselves in a bit of bother.


This is just an example of the misunderstanding people have about "art" in general and photography specifically.
Many wrongly believe that owning a physical print, negative, slide etc gives them "all rights" when it does nothing of the sort.

If I had an e-bay account I would mention this to the buyer, but as I don't then I will leave it up to someone else.
 
Ah right ok I understand now.

I have sent the seller a message with the info in the link.
 
awphot said:
He supposes incorrectly and should a buyer use the slides other than for personal use then they could well find themselves in a bit of bother.
Click to expand...

Technically true but practically unlikely.

The original photographer obviously cared so much about his images that he sold them. Or more likely, is dead and the family just sold off everything.

In the latter case, the family probably do not care about the copyright, would not know if it had been infringed and even if they did, no longer have the evidence to prove it.

I think this is a case of the copyright being abandoned.


Steve.
 
Ownership and authorship are two different things. If someone buys these, they own the slides, and none of the rights to use them.
 
^this


I see no issue here. There are loads of photographic flea market stalls all over the world selling imagery.

What that person is selling, is essentially, a collection of mounted 35mm slides. What's on them is irrelevant really. If you buy them, and then publish them, then you are infringing copyright. You can buy and sell artwork as much as you want.

If you buy one of my prints, you can do with it what you want.... just don't publish it, but the actual print.. the artefact you bought.. that's yours.. hang it, sell it, burn it... up to you.


Yet again.... people getting their knockers in a twist over copyright... Time to make those watermarks even bigger eh? :)


[edit]

He is wrong for suggesting the copyright is transferable in some way though. I think he feels the need to defend selling another's work when in reality, he doesn't.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
If you buy them, and then publish them, then you are infringing copyright.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true.

However, the listing states that they bought them from an auction. It is highly probable that it is from a deceased photographer's estate.

With that in mind, if you were to buy them and sell prints for example, technically that is copyright infringement.

But the only person who can bring an infringement claim is the copyright owner. The copyright most likely transferred to the same person who put the slides up for auction.

That person has no interest in the copyright of the images, probably does not know the content of the slides, would not recognise any of the images even if they were on show as posters in a shop window in their home town and no longer has the evidence of ownership.

So whilst publishing is technically infringement, it comes with almost zero risk of being sued for remedies.

If someone buys these and starts to sell prints from them, the copyright police will not come knocking at their door!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Oh no.. nothing will happen if you did I should imagine.. Technically, you would be infringing copyright though.

Buying and selling artwork is perfectly fine though if you're buying an selling the artefact for personal ownership and viewing. Copyright applies to the image, not the physical medium it is presented upon.
 
I'm not sure if it has become law yet but there was talk about an orphaned works clause which covers works where the copyright owner cannot be traced.

If that is now part of law, it would cover this.

Pookeyhead said:
Copyright applies to the image, not the physical medium it is presented upon.
Click to expand...

Yes. The right to copy. The clue is in the word!!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
"I have been advised that the copyright for these actually stays with the photographer, living or dead. "
 
graphilly said:
The listing was updated yesterday with the quote. I don't think they are necessarily trying to fool anyone.
Click to expand...

Indeed. As Pookeyhead pointed out, they are not doing anything wrong in offering them for sale.


Steve.
 
He sent me an email thanking me for the information on the copyright.
As so changed the listing.
 
If you're referring to the 12 images as examples of the slides being offered, then he's covered under the fair use policy.
 
st599 said:
Until last week he was committing a civil offence - until there's been some case law setting precedence, who knows.

Reading the new laws, he's probably not doing anything wrong.
Click to expand...

What offence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top