Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgwirecom
OK heres another angle on the topic. I collected a load of original 35mm slides of Mark McGwire. I was told that since I have the original negative I own the rights. So is that the case with old negatives?
|
A strong no. Owning the negatives or transparencies in and of themselves does not give you any copyright. If you took them yourself you would own the rights unless you sold them. If you purchased negatives or transparencies from the person or entity that owned the rights and they signed them over to you you would own the rights. Otherwise they would be retained either by the photographer or the entity that owned the rights. A general rule for copyright is that the copyright is retained for 85 years after the image could have first appeared in a publication. This is not hard and fast, but it gives you an idea what you are working with. The copyright can be renewed, but with many photos it is not done. The estate of an individual or photographer can still control images of that person or photographer. This can be seen with the photographs taken by Ansel Adams, being controlled by one entity. There is also an opposite to this. One of the 500 lb. gorillas, Getty Images, tries to claim copyright over images where they have not acquired rights and sell them as if they do. The 85 years applies within the U.S. The copyright period in Europe is much shorter. I believe it is 65 years. Another consideration is licensing. The major sports leagues retain permanent rights over the logos and uniform styles of all of their teams. Even if you purchased the rights from the photographer you would still need a license to commercially sell photos that display the logos or distinct uniform styles of any team. The next time you see a pro athlete in an ad on t.v. pay attention to the uniforms. You will see a lot of commercials with generic uniforms with similar colors to the pro uniform, but no real logos. I will not even go into orphan images, of which I own more than a few.