Ignorance has been bliss for us so far. If I take pictures of the pictures they can be used in publications, brochures, etc., not for profit? I don’t really see the difference legally between a picture and a scan as the iPad Pro takes some pretty incredible photos of photos. I have been photographing large water damaged photos and they are almost as good as a scan.

Thank you so much for this discussion and your input. 

JuliAnn

On Apr 2, 2018, at 2:24 PM, topladave <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

No. All copyrighted photos whether taken by an amatuer, artist, or as a work for hire cannot be used in publications if the copyrights are still active.

The photos that you physically own can be used in exhibits and your own photos of them (not exact copies) can be used in brochures of your exhibitions showing them on exhibit.

As previously stated, if these photos were taken and published before 1923 then they are likely in the public domain and you can use them as you wish. If they were published after 1923 or fall into certain categories previously mentioned, then they may still be under copyright.

Cheers!
Dave

David Harvey
Senior Conservator & Museum Consultant
Los Angeles CA. USA


On Mon, Apr 2, 2018, 12:15 PM American Sokol <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks Gregory and Dave. This gets very complicated, especially since our collection is raw, we are just starting to catalog, and have tons of photos starting from the late 1800’s. I do think many of the photos were taken by a hired professional photographer. Since they were for hire I am assuming we can use them in our publications or as we wish? We have been using them in our publications.

What a great discussion. Thanks again.

JuliAnn

On Apr 2, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Gregory Jackson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
It
JuliAnn,
 
Legally, it doesn’t matter if you can track down the family or not.  According to the law, the copyright belongs to the creator or the heirs for the duration of its copyright lifetime.  That lifetime depends on the classification of the work (unpublished, unpublished anonymous/pseudonymous/for hire, published, etc.)  As a rule of thumb, anything published before 1923 is in the public domain as are most works when the creator died before 1947.  So unless the copyright was transferred to your museum, you cannot claim copyright.  An earlier poster had it right – there is no legal means to keep others from using a photograph that you don’t hold the copyright to, that has been placed in the public domain or even one that is considered an “orphan work.”
 
Greg
 
Gregory A. Jackson, CA
Bryn Athyn Historic District Archives
Glencairn Museum
267.502.2997
 
 
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of American Sokol
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2018 2:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MUSEUM-L] Copyright Question
 
What about cases where the photos are 50+ years old and the photographer and the studio are long gone? Tracking down family would be extremely difficult.
 
Thanks.
 
JuliAnn


On Mar 30, 2018, at 7:36 AM, Tod Hopkins <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
A quick follow-up to my earlier post. My comments should not be extended to questions about the use of the copyrighted works of others. I did not mean to suggest that one should not respect copyright simply because there is no money involved, nor that copyright has no meaning beyond monetary interests. 
 
Copyright gives the creator control over use of their works. You should always seek permission for use. 
 
Cheers,
                tod
 
 
 
On Mar 29, 2018, at 8:22 AM, Tod Hopkins <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
If you are asking for a purely legal answer, you are on the wrong track, though it may be the easiest answer. This is really a moral, ethical, and aesthetic question and should be treated as one.
 
Legally, placing the words on or near the photo has no significance.  Further, unless the museum created the work in question, it is legally wrong for the museum assert copyright. That’s the end of the issue as far as the law is concerned.
 
However, there is a creator and you do have an ethical obligation to “credit” the creator if it was not the museum. You do not need to credit yourself. It’s your exhibit. You don’t need to take credit for every photo in it.
 
But don’t put the credit on the photo. That’s defacement. You wouldn’t do this to a painting. Why would you do it to a photo? Just because you can?
 
Copyright is entirely about money, the protection of one’s monetary interest in an original work. If there is no, or little, monetary interest, wasting time on issues of copyright is usually a waste of energy. Yes, there are rare occasions where copyright is asserted as a matter of artistic control, but it’s important to remember that copyright law is explicitly about monetary interests.
 
Is there a real monetary interest? Would you or someone else be willing to sue over it? If so, you need to worry about copyright. If not, it’s really just an ethical issue of proper credit.


Cheers,
                  tod
 
 
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
2233 Wisconsin Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20007
202-342-0001
 
 
 
Cheers,
                  tod
 
 
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
2233 Wisconsin Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20007
202-342-0001
 
 
 
On Mar 23, 2018, at 3:48 PM, Ashley LaVigne <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 

Hello everyone. I have a question re: copyright. Our museum displays historic photographs in townships across our county and we were recently asked to help create tour kiosks along a bike trail. These will contain roughly 100 images. My director is adamant we now place a copyright tag on every single image, including the ones we will print and mount in our gallery displays. I think these look tacky and take away from the images, but he is convinced people will steal these images and reproduce our images for their own use/financial gain--thus saying we might as well not even house photos in our collection or sell them because everyone will have them. I personally think this is a bit dramatic. I was under the understanding that these photos are copyrighted regardless, and that ownership would have to be proven should we find someone reproducing our images anyway? 

Can anyone offer advice so when the subject arises again I can understand it better? I have been reading copyright laws, but I guess I need something laid out in a way I can easily understand. 

Please feel free to contact me off list. 

Thank you!

Best, 

Ashley LaVigne

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).

 
 
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
 
 
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
 
Julie Barcal
American Sokol Archives
 
 
 
 
 

To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1


To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1


Julie Barcal
American Sokol Archives





To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1


To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1


Julie Barcal
American Sokol Archives





To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1