Photo copyrights....

1. 86

   DzyMsLizzyposted 11 years ago

   One more "thing" comes up; copyrights are said to expire after 72 years...  so, would images taken back in 1915 be considered public domain by now, especially if the site containing them is a government site (National Park Service), and only the original photographer's name from 98 years ago is used as a credit, but with no other copyright information?
   
   Ok...sorry for the convoluted sentence...my brain is fried right now--been a rough day.

   replyreport
2. 87

   Simone Smithposted 11 years ago

   The sentence looks good enough to me!
   
   Unless the copyright holder has renewed the copyright (a possibility), you should be fine using those images. Go for it!

   replyreport
   1. 86

      DzyMsLizzyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks, Simone!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         botiptonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Also many of the photos the government has were taken by government employees while at work and if so most of them are already in public Domain.  Even recent photos.  Do a little checking on it and you will find a ton of them.  Here is a place to start.  You may find the same image you are looking at there.  http://www.usa.gov/Topics/Graphics.shtml  You can also type in government public domain photos in google and find all kinds of links.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            A Driveby Quipperposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Now, that's helpful!

            replyreport
         2. 86

            DzyMsLizzyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Ah, ok, thanks very much.  I'll try that.  I do actually know the name of the original photographer, and he was not a government employee, and anyway, it was back in 1915...
            It is his photos that appear on the National Park Service website that I was using....

            replyreport
3. 0

   Bronwyn J Hansenposted 11 years ago

   I was looking for photos that were out of copyright for an article I wrote for another site. The photo was taken in the early 1860's, and only the photographer's name was known. It turns out that the State Library of Victoria are now claiming copyright, as the original plate is now in their collection.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      DzyMsLizzyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hello, Bronwyn,
      Hmmm.....yes, well.....IMO, that is a 'theft' of the copyright, as they were not the photographer by any stretch, and unless they have evidence that they were assigned/given that copyright by the original owner or his heirs, then it should be in the public domain.....
      It is like music--if you perform for profit any musical work by a current composer/artist, you must pay a licensing fee to BMI.   However, there are old, classical works by the great renaissance and baroque masters, who are long dead, and who lived prior to the advent of copyright laws...so, just because "London Philharmonic," e.g., produces a recording of those old works, I fail to see how they can claim a copyright, as they did not write the music.
      Possession might be claimed as "9 points of the law," but that last point must also be considered, it seems to me.....

      replyreport