posted 09-22-2003 01:44 AM                       

quote:

---

This is likely off-topic for most, as it deals with still photos, but I'm hoping someone may have some insight.

My sister has been sorting through boxes of family photos, and getting copies made for various siblings. However, photo shops have refused to make copies of what they deem "professional" photos -- weddings, school graduations, and a few family portraits. They claim variously that for either 50 or 100 years, it is illegal to make copies of these. (She is in Rochester, NY, and claims are that this is a state law.) This despite the fact that most of the photographers and photo studios are no longer in business; and those that are no longer have negatives on file.

Has anyone heard of such a law, or run into such a situation?

---

quote:

---

Not sure what the term of copyright is in NY, but in most places it will be for 70 years after the death of the originator or artist/photographer. It makes no difference that he is not in business anymore or that the negatives have vanished. He/she was the originator and has the right to this protection.

There is also the fact that the commissioner of the photographs may be the copyright owner, but I think that you will find, in general, that the law still applies. No doubt someone from that side of the pond will be more specific.

Argyll, Scotland

---

quote:

---

I'm surprised that wedding photos, etc. are a copyright issue for a photographer as I would think this service was "work for hire" and ownership rests with the family who paid for the services. (A DP of a motion picture doesn't hold the rights to the film.)

---

quote:

---

Most portrait and wedding photographs are not done as work for hire and the assumption is that "it's copyrighted when you push the button" in the U.S.

---

quote:

---

I think you will find that far from common courtesy there is a very definite law relating to copyright both here and in the USA.
Unauthorized Copy negs are generally an infringement of this right, whether or not they were taken in Rochester.

---

quote:

---

I am a little confused by this statement - if you have a studio portrait, or a series of wedding photographs taken by a professional photographer, how is this not a "job for hire", and why should this be any different than say the work that a DP does on a movie? Is there separate legislation for
professional photographers? And if so, why hasn't the Kobal collection (for instance) been sued out of business by all the individual photographers?
I'm sure they (and Corbis etc) are not just using the original negs...

Does anyone actually have any specifics on this either in the UK or in the US?

---

quote:

---

For legal questions relating to still photography, check the website of ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) and APA (Advertising Photographers of America). Historically, these two international organizations have set the standard and laws for issues such as "work for hire", privacy, copyrights and related. And yes, based on the number of groundbreaking cases in these areas, separate legislation does now exist due to the persistent efforts of these professional groups. The ASMP book "Professional Business Practices in Photography", first published in 1982 (as well as other related topics such as Stock Photography, and business forms) set rules and contracts in the areas of editorial, advertising, stock, etc. that are still in use today. We photographers, have always appreciated the excellent work of ASMP and APA in protecting our rights and legal claims, while establishing order in a sometimes chaotic profession.

---

posted 09-22-2003 03:05 AM                    

quote:

---

Hi Adam. We will of course update the photo credit; thanks for acquiring permission on our behalf. We'd love to have a higher resolution version, if it's not too much trouble. We unfortunately have no way of knowing what the true source is for a photo submission; we rely on the person submitting it to give credit where credit is due. We are working on making our policy on this more prominent on the site.

We would of course welcome contributions from any of your folks; we gladly share any photos that Kipp or myself have taken. We have no way to do that as one batch though... let us know which theater's images or specific theatre and we'll send them in a zip file.

Thanks for calling our attention to the miscredit.

---

The credit has yet to be changed. Fat chance of me sending high-resolution copies of the rest of the drive-in photos in this particularly large collection.

I probably spend 80 hours a week working on trying to keep up with email submissions, on top of my full-time job and any spare time spent doing research. Issues like miscredited photos on Cinematour always get put at the top of the list.

This is the first I've heard of any other photos being posted elsewhere. I suppose it's because I hardly ever use drive-ins.com because it never works. And, honestly, with past experiences, I'm not sure anything I can do would accomplish anything.