Found Photographs

[gatorpuke]

I live in Mass
Twenty five years ago I found a group of discarded amatuer photographs.
I have recently discovered these kinds of photographs,as artistic and historical documents,are of cultural relevance.
I have been offered an exhibition of these photographs in NYC.
I am concerned that some of these images show people doing stupid things,or by the eye of time&etc show folks in possibly compromising circumstances.
As there are books now being published of these found photographs,even a important exhbition at the Metropolitan Museum in NY and the Getty in LA...
I am however concerned that I could be sued for invasion of privacy,slander or defamation of charachter. What is your opinion?
Furthermore;some umbrella homeowners policies offer coverage for these kinds of infranctions...should I take that insurance out,in your opinion?
Thank you

 

[freespeech]

Where did you "find" them and how are they that relevant if they are already on display elsewhere?

Does the source who will display your copies not require some sort of proof of ownership if these photos are indeed that relevant? Are they pornographic in nature when you say "compromising" situations?

 

[gatorpuke]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear...these 'Kinds' of photographs...called Vernacular Photography are a 'new' and cutting edge form....I meant these kinds of photographs,taken by amatuers,of everyday life,have been exhibited and published recently.

I found them in the trash at a photofinishing firm....
No,they are not pornographic.....

 

[gatorpuke]

Further,the NYC gallery finds them extremely valuable as an artistic and historic document...substantial offers by collectors have been made...the gallery wants me to sign an indemnification agreement releasing them from any liability......
I however,would like to share in that wonderfull possiblilty.....

 

[AmosMoses]

Man, are you telling me that in 25 years Uncle Earl and Aunt Betty Sue's Polaroids of their 2005 trip to Dollywood are gonna be worth a small fortune?! WOW!

 

[freespeech]

I found them in the trash at a photofinishing firm....
QUOTE]

I am just curious but what made you keep these photos all these years? Are they of famous/historic figures? Why now? Did you make a practice of going through trash at photofinishing firms, or perhaps work there and made your own copies when you saw what they were? The last few words are just a thoughts that may come to anyone who recognizes the photos once displayed or exhibited.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

You are being asked to do something you can't do because you don't own the pictures or the rights to them any more than the photoprocessing company owned those rights, even though they are "found" property to you, you don't own the rights. Did any of the models sign releases? DO you have the negatives? Essentially you have stolen property when it comes to those rights. Now if you had taken those photos it would be a different story.

Now where are the pictures of all the managers getting drunk and acting like fools at a business meeting I took years ago, maybe I can get those put into an exhibit? Maybe that company will even buy the photos, they have bought other collections of photographs before? See where this is leading? I took those photos, I paid for the processing and have the negatives, I not only had their permission to take the pictures, they asked me to document the meeting in photos but I don't have signed model releases.

 

[gatorpuke]

Sir-Not-An-Arborist.....

Of course what you say is standard knowledge concerning this subject and Thank You.

However,as mentioned,there is a very active trade,exhibition and publishing in these very similar images. Thus,the law evidently is lagging behind cultural practices.
My querry I now focus on is the indemnification issue. What are the ramifications of displaying in a gallery with which I signed an indeminifaction agreement? For instance,on what basis can an individual who is in one of the photographs persue me legally?...Slander,theft(as you say)invasion of privacy or whatever?
OR
can I get around this issue by advertising that this show is basically an advertisement to find the true owners of the photos so that they can be returned?
Thank You

 

[rmet4nzkx]

If you sign the agreement you are comitting fraud, so in addition to civil liability you also face criminal consequences. I suggest you consult a criminal defense attorney.

 

[gatorpuke]

I am not an aborist

Well,'tis an ideminification agreement that the attorny for the GALLERY is insisting I sign......
Thus ,it's unclear to me why I would be committing fraud....the indemnification clause states that I take full responsibility for legal repercussions...and not the gallery.......

 

[rmet4nzkx]

That contract is based on the belief that you hold rights to those photos and you don't, that is where the fraud is. Tell their attorney the truth and see if his request is the same. They don't want to invest in underwriting your display only to have it come to a legal battle, they are still affected. You know this already and you are hoping for a different answer or someone to aid and abet you.
Nice try, no cigar.

 

[gatorpuke]

Aborist,
It's rather offensive for you to assume that I am 'hoodwinking' the Gallery.
That is not correct.
I don't know what burg you roost in....but this is New York City....and it's the hip art world.
Please take your immature presumptions elsewhere.........

In fact....your comments are slanderous......

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Please, you are the one who is immature. There is no slander in informing you of the laws re your specific request. If I were wrong you better believe that the other senior members would have swooped in and corrected me without delay. You don't own the rights to those photos and I can only inform you to tell the truth. If you want to display your own work, or work product where you own the rights or have signed model releases, that is a different story but in this case, anything less than full disclosure is fraud.

I'm sorry you don't like the answers, but you knew what they were going to be going in.

 

[gatorpuke]

Aborist
You are absolutely wrong to assume I have not informed the Gallery of the accurate history of these photographs. I don't know why you have assumed I havn't.
My querry concerns the indeminification agreement that THE GALLERY is asking me to sign. Given the obvious copyright issues..and given I could be persued legally for copyright infringement...can I be persued for Slander or Invasion of Privacy? How would a court fix a monetary settlement on such a case-given any possible gain I might accrue from selling that photograph?

 

[AmosMoses]

Hey man, it's the hip New York art world, not some burg in Mississippi! Should you be found civilly liable for anything, just roll with it and live the Bohemian starving artist's life that the rest of us bohunks are not refined, sophisticated and polished enough to understand. I mean, I for one admit that I obviously lack the artistic talent that is required to dig someone else's work out of a Dumpster to try to pass it off as my own...and I am pretty proud of that, thank you.