Selling without copyright

pinkeyes

pinkeyes

Suspended / Banned
Messages
16
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello

I wonder if you anyone could help or shed some light onto this.

I recently aquired a large number of negatives taken between the 1930's and the 1960's

They are of very famous people - royalty, celebraties and sports stars of the time. Some of them are very famous, and have never been seen.

I do not own copyright of the photographs, but I do know the person who took them is no longer alive. I do know that he gave them to my father who has given them to me.

My main aim is to sell them. I do not know if this is possible or even legal. Can I sell a negative without copyright, so long as I make that fact very clear? To for example say to a private collector?

I know once the copyright has lapsed, I can sell them, but in some cases this won't happen for many years.

Can anyone help ?
 
Copyright continues until 70 years after the holder of the copyright has died. So depends when the person died. I'm guessing that as the negatives are up to 1960, that was when the person died. If that's the case then you could have the copyright by the 2030's.
 
spaniel said:
Copyright continues until 70 years after the holder of the copyright has died. So depends when the person died. I'm guessing that as the negatives are up to 1960, that was when the person died. If that's the case then you could have the copyright by the 2030's.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Those are the provisions of the CDPA 1988, which doesn't apply in this case.

Robert, you need to get a specialist copyright or IP expert to look at these, especially if any of the work was of the commissioned rather than snap shot variety as anything taken prior to 1 August 1989 will have different copyright terms than the ones that we currently understand.

Broadly speaking the photos will have been copyright protected for 42 years from the date of their creation, or for seven years after the death of the author/holder, whichever is longer.

Under certain circumstances the copyright might not have even rested with the photographer, so you will need to have that established, especially when the subjects are the sort that you have listed.
 
Hi

Thanks for the responses.

I realise I wont have the copyright for a very long time. I am wondering if I can sell the negatives to a collector now without any copyright, and let them wait for the copyright to lapse.

As I said, due to the subjects on them, I think a collector would be very interested in owning them, even if they cannot sell prints or do anything with them.
 
pinkeyes said:
Hi

Thanks for the responses.

I realise I wont have the copyright for a very long time. I am wondering if I can sell the negatives to a collector now without any copyright, and let them wait for the copyright to lapse.

As I said, due to the subjects on them, I think a collector would be very interested in owning them, even if they cannot sell prints or do anything with them.
Click to expand...


I suggest you reread what I've just posted!

Edit:

Btw, once you establish correct ownership, your best bet may well be to licence these out via a library such as Getty or Rex Features, rather than sell them outright. Unless you are just after a quick cash injection, of course.
 
Last edited:
Copyright duration in photographs where the “author” is known

Copyright expires 70 years after the end of the year of the author’s death,
whether the photograph was published or not, except in the case of
photographs taken between 1 June 1957 & 31 July 1989.
The copyright in photographs taken between 1 June 1957 & 31 July 1989
expires on 31 December 2039, if the photograph was not published before 1
August 1989 and the author died before 1 January 1969.
If the photograph was published before 1 August 1989, and the author died
more than 20 years before publication, the copyright expires 50 years after the
end of the year in which the work was published.
Pre-1912 photographs of known authorship may be subject to revived
copyright, if for example the author died after 31 December 1924 and was a
member of an EEA country.
 
Hi. Mark, since you seem to be more clued up on this than I, a question that seems pertinent is how is selling them different from publishing them? I'd have thought there is little to prevent the sale/gift of these negs since the OP is able to establish a provenance. Isn't the thorny issue about use of them, i.e. publication?

I did a little reading, and it seems to me that perhaps had the OP not known of the originator, i.e. they are orphan works, that would make the whole thing simpler - or do I misunderstand?
 
spaniel said:
Copyright duration in photographs where the “author” is known

Copyright expires 70 years after the end of the year of the author’s death,
whether the photograph was published or not, except in the case of
photographs taken between 1 June 1957 & 31 July 1989.
The copyright in photographs taken between 1 June 1957 & 31 July 1989
expires on 31 December 2039, if the photograph was not published before 1
August 1989 and the author died before 1 January 1969.
If the photograph was published before 1 August 1989, and the author died
more than 20 years before publication, the copyright expires 50 years after the
end of the year in which the work was published.
Pre-1912 photographs of known authorship may be subject to revived
copyright, if for example the author died after 31 December 1924 and was a
member of an EEA country.
Click to expand...

Nice Cut & Paste!

As I said, Robert needs to talk to an expert in the field.
 
Photodiva said:
Hi. Mark, since you seem to be more clued up on this than I, a question that seems pertinent is how is selling them different from publishing them? I'd have thought there is little to prevent the sale/gift of these negs since the OP is able to establish a provenance. Isn't the thorny issue about use of them, i.e. publication?

I did a little reading, and it seems to me that perhaps had the OP not known of the originator, i.e. they are orphan works, that would make the whole thing simpler - or do I misunderstand?
Click to expand...

In regards to selling, you are spot on; ie you can sell the originals or negatives without copyright (ie right to publication)*, but they will be far less valuable.

Orphaned works is a sticky subject at the moment, as they technically don't exist in this country yet - although as the photographer is known the matter is largely irrelevant here!

*providing there is no restriction on resale in the original licence.
 
Cheers for the clarification, Mark. Agreed its about value - so the OPs options might boil down to (1) sell them in the immediate future, for a "lesser" value with the caveat of potential restrictions, (2) wait a decade or two, sell them IF there is still a market, and IF inflation hasn't devalued them and IF the interest in the subject hasn't declined or the physical condition of them hasn't deteriorated? I guess their 'value' is whatever an interested buyer is willing to pay which may be affected by the subject matter rather than any intrinsic value?
 
Last edited:
would part of the issue be estabilshing the act of gifting the images? if someone gifts you images and they then die, does the estate retain the copyright or did it transfer as part of the gift...it could surely be argued that ownership of the negatives inferrs copyright in the era in question?

ps Im asking rather than stating any facts here... rather than google and cut and paste..
 
CanonEOS said:
That's a Interesting read, on (8 .Acts that are allowed) so as long as it's for your own personal use it don't matter. if we take copyright law so seriously when the copyright law should shut down the world web, and banned all recordings;)
Click to expand...

Except that photographs are excluded from Fair Dealing, so none of those eight apply.
 
arwesa said:
would part of the issue be estabilshing the act of gifting the images? if someone gifts you images and they then die, does the estate retain the copyright or did it transfer as part of the gift...it could surely be argued that ownership of the negatives inferrs copyright in the era in question?
Click to expand...

That's what occurred to me too. Obviously the copyright in the images is a "possession" (in the loosest sense of the word) which can be sold, given away, etc. and would form part of the estate of a deceased person.

pinkeyes said:
I do not own copyright of the photographs, but I do know the person who took them is no longer alive. I do know that he gave them to my father who has given them to me.
Click to expand...

So I think there are two issues here. Firstly, can you prove that ownership of the physical negatives was legally transferred to your father? And secondly, does the transfer of ownership of the negatives imply transfer of ownership of the copyright? The first of these is straightforward, but the second would need specialist input from an intellectual property lawyer.
 
DemiLion said:
Except that photographs are excluded from Fair Dealing, so none of those eight apply.
Click to expand...


The international copyright laws which allows file sharing websites to exist... So, If a loophole exists, is it not almost equivalent to having no copyrights at all?
 
CanonEOS said:
That's a Interesting read, on (8 .Acts that are allowed) so as long as it's for your own personal use it don't matter.
Click to expand...
As DemiLion has pointed out - repeatedly and patiently - the 1988 Act isn't relevant to the case that's being discussed here. But anyway, your interpretation of it is completely wrong. Section 8 does list some very specific circumstances in which copying is allowed without breach of copyright. But it does not say, or even imply, that copying for personal use is OK except in these specific circumstances.

CanonEOS said:
if we take copyright law so seriously when the copyright law should shut down the world web, and banned all recordings;)
Click to expand...
Care to explain? I expect I'm probably not the only one who's struggling to follow your argument here...

CanonEOS said:
The international copyright laws which allows file sharing websites to exist... So, If a loophole exists, is it not almost equivalent to having no copyrights at all?
Click to expand...
No, you're completely wrong again.

When you share your photos on sites like Flickr or SmugMug, you explicitly grant the web site operators the rights to do what they need to your files - store them, reproduce them, display them, re-size them, etc. Copyright remains with you and this all works qute happily within the existing framework of law.

If anyone wants to "share" works to which they do not own the copyright, (e.g. pirated movies) then that's an illegal act and the international copyright laws do not allow such sites to exist.

Remind me again what your point was?
 
Can I ask a question that I don't know the answer to...

Does possessing the negative prove legal ownership of the image automatically?

I mean is it possible for it to have been sold to someone without the negative back then?
 
StewartR said:
If anyone wants to "share" works to which they do not own the copyright, (e.g. pirated movies) then that's an illegal act and the international copyright laws do not allow such sites to exist.
Click to expand...

So how come they do? piratebay has been going for some time and has still not been shut down
 
Gotta love the automatic hyperlinks on here... Pirat Ebay :D Thats the special version that just sells knocked off stuff 8)
 
I would strongly suggest that rather than having an armchair lawyers debate that the OP phones the Helpline at the horse's mouth of all such things, the Intellectual Property Office. Contact weblink below:

http://ns3.ipo.gov.uk/contact.htm
 
Thank you all so much for all the responses to this thread. I do think my next course of action will be to visit an IP solicitor and take some examples and see what they say. I will of course update this thread with any feedback I get.

desantnik said:
Does possessing the negative prove legal ownership of the image automatically?
Click to expand...

I do know that this makes it very difficult for anyone to prove otherwise. Especially with these negatives being so old. I still want to do the right thing, both legally and ethically - but this has been pointed out to me a few times.


Photodiva said:
Cheers for the clarification, Mark. Agreed its about value - so the OPs options might boil down to (1) sell them in the immediate future, for a "lesser" value with the caveat of potential restrictions, (2) wait a decade or two, sell them IF there is still a market, and IF inflation hasn't devalued them and IF the interest in the subject hasn't declined or the physical condition of them hasn't deteriorated? I guess their 'value' is whatever an interested buyer is willing to pay which may be affected by the subject matter rather than any intrinsic value?
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. A good portion of these glass negatives are damaged, and need cleaning through being stored in damp boxes in damp cellars. In fact I will be starting another thread soon on advice to clean them up !

I want to sell them now, at a lesser value if necessary, as waiting the 30 or 40 years will be no use to me, and its likely the value will decline anyway, for the exact reasons you say.

StewartR said:
So I think there are two issues here. Firstly, can you prove that ownership of the physical negatives was legally transferred to your father? And secondly, does the transfer of ownership of the negatives imply transfer of ownership of the copyright? The first of these is straightforward, but the second would need specialist input from an intellectual property lawyer.
Click to expand...

I cannot prove any ownership. I cannot even prove if the images were taken by one person, or they in fact owned the copyright itself.
Some of the images look like press photographs, others look private.

They were passed from person to person - and my dad took them to prevent them being thrown away (he saw the potential value) - but there is no proof of this either.

WilliamC said:
I would strongly suggest that rather than having an armchair lawyers debate that the OP phones the Helpline at the horse's mouth of all such things, the Intellectual Property Office. Contact weblink below:

http://ns3.ipo.gov.uk/contact.htm
Click to expand...

Thank you - very useful !
 
Robert, seriously, have a chat to Rex Pictures and see what they say. They're one of the largest independent photo libraries in the UK.

Obviously get any advice from them cross checked before selling though!
 
DemiLion said:
Robert, seriously, have a chat to Rex Pictures and see what they say. They're one of the largest independent photo libraries in the UK.

Obviously get any advice from them cross checked before selling though!
Click to expand...

I will do - and thank you so much for your input into this thread.
 
StewartR said:
As DemiLion has pointed out - repeatedly and patiently - the 1988 Act isn't relevant to the case that's being discussed here. But anyway, your interpretation of it is completely wrong. Section 8 does list some very specific circumstances in which copying is allowed without breach of copyright. But it does not say, or even imply, that copying for personal use is OK except in these specific circumstances.


Care to explain? I expect I'm probably not the only one who's struggling to follow your argument here...


No, you're completely wrong again.

When you share your photos on sites like Flickr or SmugMug, you explicitly grant the web site operators the rights to do what they need to your files - store them, reproduce them, display them, re-size them, etc. Copyright remains with you and this all works qute happily within the existing framework of law.

If anyone wants to "share" works to which they do not own the copyright, (e.g. pirated movies) then that's an illegal act and the international copyright laws do not allow such sites to exist.

Remind me again what your point was?
Click to expand...

My point was if everyone take’s this copyright law so seriously in life why doesn’t everyone in the international countries vote on it to banned the illegal websites? That damages their Business? And if the international copyright laws are so powerful why do we have so many illegal websites now?

It's because when one website gets shuts down ten others illegal websites will replace it on the world web,

What i don't understand is when the government made all these copyright laws why didn't they block all the loopholes within the law in the first place so if loopholes exists within the law why have this copyright law at all.;)

Another argument is the business companies strategy is to put more money on the original product because they lose on money on illegal websites but for the people who buy the original are paying for this strategy move wouldn't this push more people towards the illegal websites more.
 
unfortunately there are a lot of theiving b@$t@rds who make a fortune from piracy and a lot who think its clever to rip off artists/companies by distributing their songs/software etc. a lot of them are from hong kong/china middle east etc. and the authorities in those countries have no intention on doing anything...effectively their industries get the benefits without having to pay... piracy is a cultural thing that shouldnt be tollerated. Your post makes me think you are possibly of that mind set and believe the same should apply to images...because piracy exists then copyright laws should be abolished...what a pile of idiotic crap.



sorry for the rant. doesnt directly impact my life, I just have principles and believe if someone puts in the effort they deserve the reward...
 
Last edited:
I expect some people will have read about the photos of Vivian Maier - thousands of negatives (many still undeveloped) taken by a nanny with an interest in photography and discovered a few years after her death in a thrift store by someone.

I'm pretty sure that many of these photos have now been put in a book and sold, so I guess the author will not have "owned copyright" to the photos.
 
arwesa said:
unfortunately there are a lot of theiving b@$t@rds who make a fortune from piracy and a lot who think its clever to rip off artists/companies by distributing their songs/software etc. a lot of them are from hong kong/china middle east etc. and the authorities in those countries have no intention on doing anything...effectively their industries get the benefits without having to pay... piracy is a cultural thing that shouldnt be tollerated. Your post makes me think you are possibly of that mind set and believe the same should apply to images...because piracy exists then copyright laws should be abolished...what a pile of idiotic crap.

sorry for the rant. doesnt directly impact my life, I just have principles and believe if someone puts in the effort they deserve the reward...
Click to expand...

You talk about images and copyright laws i agree with copyright law over a picture that you have taken but if you put it online the piracy team would copy it and sale it on in another country!. What could you do about it nothing so my point is if the copyright laws are there to protect you over your images why is it so easy for the piracy to take it?.

I was told here that the Chinese are very good at copying things but not any good at Inventing new things.

Because i live in HK it don't me a Chinese. And piracy is not a cultural thing here it as nothing to do with cultural
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
I expect some people will have read about the photos of Vivian Maier - thousands of negatives (many still undeveloped) taken by a nanny with an interest in photography and discovered a few years after her death in a thrift store by someone.

I'm pretty sure that many of these photos have now been put in a book and sold, so I guess the author will not have "owned copyright" to the photos.
Click to expand...

Guessing is always a bad idea.

The guy who bought the photos carried out a complete due diligence search after the purchase.
 
CanonEOS said:
You talk about images and copyright laws i agree with copyright law over a picture that you have taken but if you put it online the piracy team would copy it and sale it on in another country!. What could you do about it nothing so my point is if the copyright laws are there to protect you over your images why is it so easy for the piracy to take it?.

I was told here that the Chinese are very good at copying things but not any good at Inventing new things.

Because i live in HK it don't me a Chinese. And piracy is not a cultural thing here it as nothing to do with cultural
Click to expand...


I would beg to differ. HK has been at the centre of the counterfeit goods market for years, long before the Chinese took control. It is also one of the centres of UK tax avoidance with the illegal importation of technical goods.
 
DemiLion said:
I would beg to differ. HK has been at the centre of the counterfeit goods market for years, long before the Chinese took control. It is also one of the centres of UK tax avoidance with the illegal importation of technical goods.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should blame the British government for the counterfeit goods because HK was run by the British for 100 years before given it back the mainland China then;)

And did you know then the British held HK they paid rent to Peking you call it now Beijing so the UK didn't own it only rented it.
 
Last edited:
when you have shopping centres and stores full of counterfiet coppies of software etc. openly on shelves being sold and no action by authorities how can it be seen as anything other than cultural...singapore is the same...china and russia have for a long time been the source/sponsors.
 
Last edited:
arwesa said:
when you have shopping centres and stores full of counterfiet coppies of software etc. openly on shelves being sold and no action by authorities how can it be seen as anything other than cultural...singapore is the same...china and russia have for a long time been the source/sponsors.
Click to expand...

You read to much news & web news, live here and see for yourself before making a judgment like that over a country that you never lived in or understand it cultural and it people, i have been here seven years and the shopping centres here don't have counterfiet goods only side streets, maybe you should blame the US, & UK holidaymakers for counterfiet goods been sold here they shop in the side streets of HK before return to the US or UK because they want to pay for cheaper goods and tax free.
 
Last edited:
CanonEOS said:
Maybe you should blame the British government for the counterfeit goods because HK was run by the British for 100 years before given it back the mainland China then;)

And did you know then the British held HK they paid rent to Peking you call it now Beijing so the UK didn't own it only rented it.
Click to expand...

Get your facts right.

HK and Kowloon were owned by us outright, whereas the NT was leased to us for 99 years in 1898.

The only reason that the whole lot was returned to the mainland was the strategic difficulties that would have been faced in trying to sustain the original territory by itself.
 
What a mixed up thread :lol:

I can't see the problem with selling the negatives/slides! copyright or not? Who would be able to challenge any distribution of the images as surely someone would have to be able to prove they own copyright to claim..... So where's the problem? :shrug:
 
CanonEOS said:
My point was if everyone take’s this copyright law so seriously in life why doesn’t everyone in the international countries vote on it to banned the illegal websites? That damages their Business? And if the international copyright laws are so powerful why do we have so many illegal websites now?

It's because when one website gets shuts down ten others illegal websites will replace it on the world web,

What i don't understand is when the government made all these copyright laws why didn't they block all the loopholes within the law in the first place so if loopholes exists within the law why have this copyright law at all.;)

Another argument is the business companies strategy is to put more money on the original product because they lose on money on illegal websites but for the people who buy the original are paying for this strategy move wouldn't this push more people towards the illegal websites more.
Click to expand...

Clearly copyright laws aren't in Everyone's interest, some people rely on piracy to make money - some people rely on pirated products for their entertainment.;)

When governments create laws they can only deal with known issues, the UK copyright laws pre-date what we know as the internet by many years. The idea that governments could foresee PirateBay and Napster whist we were still listening to Walkmans and many people didn't even have a VCR is simply ridiculous.
There are many reasons why people would choose to break copyright laws, as well as many international interpretations of those laws and strategies for upholding them. This isn't really a subject for a forum post, you could spend a lifetime studying it and we'd still be no nearer an answer.;)

And it's not really closely related to the OP's problem.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top