Copyright laws on older photographs?

[lovetron]

What is the name of your state? North Carolina
I have been doing some research and have found that the copyright law on older photographs is 50 years after the death of the original photographer took the photos. I have also read that for new works it is now 70 years after the death. Which is correct?

Anyway, if it is 50 years, and the sports photograph Charles Conlon died in 1945, how is it that the Hall of Fame and The Sporting News own the copyrights to his works? Based on copyright law, shouldn't anyone be able to copy these photos since it has been over 50 years after his death?

I guess they HOF can file for an extended copyright protection like Disney did? Any help is appreciated.

 

[ellencee]

Depending on the reason(s) for your questions, I may have an answer for your.

If you are interested only in professional photographs of historical significance with protected copyrights above and beyond copyright protection provided for studio photographs, then I do not have an answer.

If it's studio copyrights or independent professional photographs not protected by expanded copyright laws, then you may copy any photograph older than 50 years, totally unrelated to any reference of date of death of the photographer. I gained this information through genealogy 'authoritative' sources.

That may have been of no use to you!
EC

 

[divgradcurl]

"I have been doing some research and have found that the copyright law on older photographs is 50 years after the death of the original photographer took the photos. I have also read that for new works it is now 70 years after the death. Which is correct?"

Well, for works created on or after 1/1/1978, the term of copyright is life of the author + 70 years. For works created prior to that date, life is much, much more complicated...

For a work created in 1945, the term of copyright WOULD have been 28 years + a single renewal term of 28 years. 1945 + 28 = 1973, so the first term would have expired in 1973. The renewal term would run until 1973 + 28 = 2001, which would mean that the work is in the public domain, right? Wrong. 17 U.S.C. 304(b) states that any copyrighted work in its renewal term as of the effective date of the Copyright Term Extension Act -- October 27, 1998 -- gets a copyright term of 95 years from the date copyright was initially secured. So, since the 1945 picture was in its renewal term (albeit towards the end of the term) in 1998, it gets a term of 1945 + 95 years = 2040. Basically, you'll have to wait at least another 37 years before you can use that picture without permission...


"If it's studio copyrights or independent professional photographs not protected by expanded copyright laws, then you may copy any photograph older than 50 years, totally unrelated to any reference of date of death of the photographer. I gained this information through genealogy 'authoritative' sources."

Iwould be curious to see what your source is for this, because I don't think this is correct. The copyright laws do not have different classes of copyrights for studios or professionals or private individuals -- they are all the same. The one exception is that under the 1978 and 1998 laws, works done by anonymous and pseudonymous authors -- which would include works by corporations -- are given a term of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter, while "authored" works are given life or author + 70 years.

I know this is complicated, but it is what it is. I hope this helps...

 

[divgradcurl]

Actually, now that I think about it, here is a rule of thumb you can use:

Work created on or after 1/1/1978: Life of author + 70 years

Work created on or after 1/1/1964 but before 1/1/1978: 95 years from date original copyright was secured.

Work created on or after 1/1/1923 but before 1/1/1964: 95 years from date original copyright was secured, but only if a renewal was properly obtained, otherwise date of original copyright + 28 years.

Work created before 1/1/1923: public domain.

These are general rules -- but there are a lot of exceptions that could result in a work being copyrighted when you don't expect it, and vice-versa -- so if you are unsure, you should discuss things with an attorney experienced in copyrights before spending a lot of time, money or effort on a project that may involve someone else's copyright.

EDIT: I fixed the years to match up with the actual laws!

 

[ellencee]

Perhaps there is a difference in the usage of the photographs that would have bearing on the issues.

I have some professionally taken photographs that are over 50 years old and can be reproduced for inclusion in a genealogy book or for personal use. I have not attempted to publish any of the photographs in a magazine or book or other for-profit publication.

Last year, I had a heated dispute with an employee of WalMart's photo department. I wanted to make a copy of a photograph taken by a personal camera and placed in one of those sticky-paged photo albums from the 70's. The photograph I wanted to copy was next to a purchased picture from the Baseball Hall of Fame; a photograph of the late Babe Ruth. The photograph of the family member that I wanted to copy would not release from that sticky page without being ripped apart. I wanted to copy the whole page. You would have thought I was attempting to commit armed robbery in the photo department. Unable to reason with the employee that there was a way to do it without violating anyone's rights, I demanded to see the store's manager. I spoke with him on the phone and he came to the photo department with a handfull of documents on the laws of protected copyrights and the regulations governing photo-copying. I listened to his speech and then asked if I could use one or more of those pieces of paper to block the photo of Babe Ruth and make a freakin' copy of my relative. Graciously, I was allowed to do so. Then, I asked for permission to make copies of professionally taken photos of family members, photos that were made in the 20's and the 30's, and the 40's. The manager assured me it was no problem as long as the photos were 50 years old or older.

That's my reference and my resource. As I stated, perhaps your reason for wanting to reproduce the photo is different from my copying of professional, studio-taken, photos of family members.

When I left WalMart, I went to another store and purchased a photo scanner and printer. Maybe for the heck of it, I made a copy of dear old Babe Ruth's picture; maybe, I didn't.

EC

Oh--the family members' photos are going in a genealogy 'book', available in print (if we ever finish) and already available online. Neither is a violation of copyright laws according to genealogy resources, including certified genealogists that work for the US Department of Records and Vital Statistics, Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC.

 

[ellencee]

All of a sudden, I remembered the difference between your scenario and mine--the photographer of the photos--in my scenario, the photographer is unknown, and the studios that are still open have stipulated in writing that photos that are older than 50 years can be reproduced.

Picture Gilda Radner's editorial on the SNL news--

'Nevermind'.

EC

 

[lovetron]

Actually, most of the photographers photographs were taken before 1932, but he died in 1945. So is that significant?

 

[divgradcurl]

"most of the photographers photographs were taken before 1932, but he died in 1945. So is that significant"

Maybe, but actually I fogrgot about one thing -- if I remember correctly, the work on the 1976 Copyright Act -- the one that went into effect in 1978 -- began in either 1964 or 1966; in preperation for the changeover, works that would have expired during that time were given extensions automatically until 1978, when the longer terms come into play. The result is that, instead of 1/1/1932 being the cutoff date, the actual cutoff date should be 1/1/1923.

So EVERY work published prior to 1/1/23 is now in the public domain; works published after 1/1/23 may be in the public domain if proper registration and renewal was not sought . You could check the U.S. Copyright office's website to see if a particular photo was properly copyrighted and renewed. However, there are other rules as well for works that were not published, etc.

So, I apologzie for the confusion above -- the date you should be concerned with is 1/1/1923 -- anything after that date may still be copyrighted -- anything copyrighted during that period would have a term of 28 years from date of copyright + 67 years for the second term, of 95 years from date of original copyright.

I hope that helps clear up some confusion.