Anyone familiar with pictorial copyright laws?

[Adam West]

I purchased some vintage Washington Redskins photos that are original vintage print Associated Press photos.

As part of the collection is the original negative used by the AP of Sonny Jurgenson in a nice action shot?

Since I have the negative in my possession do I know have entire legal ownership to it including photos that I might want to make from the negative or ownership rights over someone who might make a copy of the photo?

Also, what about the original AP photos? Can I reproduce these if I want with copyright infringement or not? There are a couple of them that are some really old redskins photos that are really nice and could see someone willing to pay for them but didn't want to break any copyright laws as I'm not sure what legal ownership I have to any of this.

[boss]

I'm not 100% positive, but my guess is you do not own the copyrights to any of those images. you would probably need to purchase those separately from the AP (most likely).

[sprytel]

(standard IANAL disclaimer)

The copyright is still owned by the AP.
Making prints for your own pernal use from negatives you acquired legally sounds like "fair use".
Making prints to sell to others would be copyright infringement.

[Brazoo]

You don't own the copyright. The copyright either belongs to the original photographer or the AP and you will probably have to research the specifics.

It's possible that the original photographer is long dead, in which case it might be in the public domain and nobody owns it. It's also possible that the rights were transferred to the AP when they purchased the image - so, they would still hold the copyright.

Making copies for yourself isn't covered under "fair use", but realistically who is going to find out?

[Brazoo]

Just to clarify, copyright ownership would have had to have been specifically transferred to you for you to own the copyright of the image.

Best case - it's in the public domain, but even then you may not be free and clear to legally print and sell the images. Here's a quick link - check out #10:

10 public domain misconceptions

[jimsmegos]

I agree with Brazoo... go for it. In a worst case scenario you get a cease and desist order first. But then again if you roll some major bank and get a lot of attention a lawsuit could show up at your door. Honestly when it comes to copyright protection in this modern digital age, good luck to every intellectual property owner. Its far to easy for any and all music, photos, video, text etc to be copied, bootlegged, swiped whatever have you. It's not that I condone copyright infringement it's just that defending one can be a remarkably costly procedure.

[Wee67]

Brazoo pretty much nailed it. I deal with these type of copyright and Fair Use issues on an almost daily basis and can only ehco what he said. The copyright would have been owned by the AP.

And printing and selling pictures from the negative absolutely does not fall under Fair Use.

Will the AP realize that of the thousands and thousands of pictures they own, this is one? I don't know. Will they go after you if they do, again, I don't know.

[Adam West]

Thanks...all of the old photos have an Associated Press stamp on the back but the negative has nothing on it to indicate that it is owned by anyone.

[david_b]

Hate to say, but typically going to print off a scanned copy at Target is just fine. I'm doing that with a nice vintage 1999 8x10 print of Nick Tate next week.

I did win a original Galactica negative I'll have to have printed some day.., just going to the local photoshop should suffice.

[Mikey]

But what establishes the fact a photo is owned by the AP ?

Example, a reporter (who works for a newspaper who's a member of the AP) takes a photo of a forest fire.

He decides the photo is unusable and never officially turns it in.

Who owns it ?

[Brazoo]

Thanks...all of the old photos have an Associated Press stamp on the back but the negative has nothing on it to indicate that it is owned by anyone.

I'm not sure if this is why you're mentioning that - but just to be clear it doesn't have to be marked with anything to be protected - even if it makes finding the copyright holder really really hard to do.

Also, even if the negative is in the public domain there are probably intellectual property rights that can be an issue - like the athlete's image, and the team outfit and logo etc. The IP rights could limit how you are able to use the images - in IP cases it's more about context then straight up copying.

Like, let's say the negative IS in the public domain and you wanted to use the image for journalistic purposes, that would probably be fine - but re-producing and selling the image itself is probably not kosher.

Of course all of this is dependent upon you getting found out and then making it worth someone wanting to sue you for your misuse. Usually you might just get a C&D first - but it's not a legal requirement for that to happen - it's just a matter of how much money the copyright holder wants to spend.

Some of this stuff depends on what year the image was taken - the copyright and IP laws change - and different laws apply to different times... I don't know anything about football so I have no clue how old these images are.

Just in terms of where you stand legally - I'm not a lawyer, but I do deal with these issues and I don't think I'm wrong.

I feel like such a downer in this thread! I don't mean to be!

[jimsmegos]

Your not a downer at all Brazoo, your a voice of reason.

It is better to be safe than sorry.

[Adam West]

It more just a curious question than anything. I don't have any intent of making copies and selling them. I was just asking the hypothetical question about pictures and negatives. If the Associated Press purchased a negative from a photographer outright, which in turn was sold to someone else, and in turn sold to me; I was wondering if I just own the negative with the obvious ability to have it developed into a picture if I want for myself but I was wondering if my ownership of the original negative gives me ownership rights to that image. Not sure if that makes sense.

[Adam West]

Here's an example that might be similar. Let's say I purchased an original iconic Picasso painting for millions of dollars. Would I have any ownership interest in the painting that extended beyond the painting? For illustration purposes, say someone wanted to sell reproductions of that painting. Would I also own the rights to sell someone a license to make copies of the painting or not? Again, this is all just an interesting hypothetical question for me. I am not going to make copies and sell any of these but was curious about the law especially artistic rights as to where someone's legal ownership begins and ends.

[kingdom warrior]

Here's an example that might be similar. Let's say I purchased an original iconic Picasso painting for millions of dollars. Would I have any ownership interest in the painting that extended beyond the painting? For illustration purposes, say someone wanted to sell reproductions of that painting. Would I also own the rights to sell someone a license to make copies of the painting or not? Again, this is all just an interesting hypothetical question for me. I am not going to make copies and sell any of these but was curious about the law especially artistic rights as to where someone's legal ownership begins and ends.

Once you buy the original from whomever holds the copyright to that image and as long as no one in the painting is someone else's copyright character you have the right to license it out. It is yours you own it.

Let's say you bought a Illustration from me once you buy the original, it is yours not mine. you now have ownership of the Illustration. You paid me for it.....