Using photos of deceased people

[crazyhistorybuff]

What is the name of your state? Tennessee
what are legalities of using photos of long-deceased people in a blog or youtube video?
Photos from internet, ancestry, etc. NOT from a recent book.

 

[justalayman]

Unless you took the picture or the picture is in the public domain you would have copyright infringement issues.

That means the owner of the copyrights gets to sue you.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? Tennessee
what are legalities of using photos of long-deceased people in a blog or youtube video?
Photos from internet, ancestry, etc. NOT from a recent book.

How old are the photos?

Do you know who took the photos?

Are the people pictured famous?

For what purpose would the photos be used on your blog or in your YouTube video?

 

[crazyhistorybuff]

Would photos of long-deceased people (as in died Civil War, early 20th century) be considered public domain?

 

[crazyhistorybuff]

How old are the photos? 19th century, early to mid 20th century

Do you know who took the photos? no

Are the people pictured famous? no

For what purpose would the photos be used on your blog or in your YouTube video?

giving historical information about the area and people who lived there --

legalities if videos were monetized? legalities if videos not monetized?

 

[quincy]

Civil War era photos are in the public domain. You can use photos this age - and anything created prior to 1923 - without risk of copyright infringement.

If the photos have been modified or altered in any way (e.g., colorized), those photos may be protected but the originals would not be.

 

[justalayman]

Quincy, wouldn’t it be possible based on this from the copyright office that a picture from the civil war could conceivably still have copyright protection?


The op did ask about early 20th century works as well. I would suspect even if the civil war stuff is assured of being in the pubic domain, something from “early 20th century” (pretty generalized term) would not be so certain.

The law automatically gives federal copyright protection to works that were created but neither published nor registered before January 1, 1978. The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: life plus 70 years or 95 or 120 years, depending on the nature of authorship. However, all works in this category are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection. The law specifies that in no case would copyright in a work in this category have expired before December 31, 2002. In addition, if a work in this category was published before that date, the term extends another 45 years, through the end of 2047.

 

[quincy]

Quincy, wouldn’t it be possible based on this from the copyright office that a picture from the civil war could conceivably still have copyright protection?


The op did ask about early 20th century works as well. I would suspect even if the civil war stuff is assured of being in the pubic domain, something from “early 20th century” (pretty generalized term) would not be so certain.

Photos created "prior to 1923" are in the public domain and can be used for any purpose whatsoever without risk. That covers Civil War photos.

Could an old unpublished work still have copyright protection? Possibly.

 

[justalayman]

So please bear with me a minute because what you just said isn’t entirely clear to me

Are you saying it is or isn’t possible for a photo from the civil war era to be covered by copyright law? The first sentence says no but the latter suggests if the facts work out just right it would still be possible.

And would you be kind enough to provide the definition of published in terms of copyright law? Given that and registration are acts that invoke various aspects of the law it could be important.

 

[quincy]

First, here is a link to the Copyright Office's Circular 22, which indicates why my earlier simple answer will apply in most cases - but there are always exceptions. The exceptions can be a good reason for completing a copyright status search, regardless of the age of the work, prior to use.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.pdf

A published work is one that has been made available to the public on an unrestricted basis. Posting on the internet is generally considered publication (see: Getaped.com v. Cangemi, 188 F.Supp.2d 398, S.D. N.Y. 2002). Both published and unpublished works are offered copyright protection but whether or not a work has been published can affect the length of time the work has copyright protection.

 

[justalayman]

Thanks Quincy.

While some of that was truly for my edification, I suspect the op is a bit less familiar with the laws than I and could have taken your statement a bit too literally. Especially given your familiarity with the laws involved I see you occasionally missing a perspective we laymen may be seeing things from.

As always I appreciate and enjoy your explanations.

And patience. The patience of a saint.

 

[quincy]

No problem.

Additional notes: Even if a photo taken during the Civil War was not discovered and published until recently, the copyright in the original photo would have expired because of the number of years that have passed since the photographer's (presumed) date of death.

In 2020, works from 1924 will be in the public domain, with more works falling into the public domain each year thereafter.

 

[crazyhistorybuff]

Thank you everyone for your advice, input and information. This really helped out a lot!
One more quick question -- if I were to find a book published within the last couple decades but the photographs were taken prior to 1923 -- could I use those photographs?

(and my parents did raise me right! Courtesy dictates I give credit to my sources -- where I got information, photos etc. )

 

[quincy]

Thank you everyone for your advice, input and information. This really helped out a lot!
One more quick question -- if I were to find a book published within the last couple decades but the photographs were taken prior to 1923 -- could I use those photographs?

(and my parents did raise me right! Courtesy dictates I give credit to my sources -- where I got information, photos etc. )

The "collection" of photographs selected by the author for the book would be protected by copyright, as would be the author's book, but the individual photographs if created in 1923 or earlier would be in the public domain, absent any creative touches (like coloring) that have been added.

The individual photos should be okay to use.

It is always wise to ensure copyright status by doing a search, though.

Attributing the source is smart but attribution alone does not protect you from infringement if a work is still protected by copyright.

Good luck.

 

[crazyhistorybuff]

Thank you so very much. I've got a lot of research to do but, as crazy as it sounds, I'm looking forward to it!

You've been an immense help to me as I plan and begin my project.