Copyright is Forever ...even for 100 old photos...

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.flickr.com/groups/100_years_ ... 167106526/
Way to go f*** Wal-Mart!

Ignorance is running rampant ! ! A photograph taken by a studio is paid for by the person ! ! Therefore. it belongs to that person ! !! The only time such an issue comes into play would be if you wanted a copy of a newspaper, magazine, or book photograph. If your grandfather is General Grant, then yes, there might be a copyright on it. Even then, it's dicey.

100 years, the copyright would've expired. I believe it only lasts around 70 something years? That's why all these movies from the 1940s that haven't had their copyrights updated are going into public domain.

But I guess unless the photo has a copyright date on it, WalMart probably doesn't feel like taking chances...and even then, they take exception for one person, they have to extend it to everyone...

Not that I'm defending WalMart

Wow. once again, more proof that walmart is completely stupid, and never to be shopped at, or trusted.

Nuts.

The facts are these:

During a photographer's lifetime, copyright does belong to the photographer. (I know, I'm married to one!). In the past, the photographer would usually keep the negatives to ensure the customer didn't go getting prints elsewhere. Today, they'll often hand a wedding couple, say, a CD so they can print their own (looks good to the customer, but they won't get the higher quality prints a pro can give them - but then, some prefer it that way.)

The photos become public domain 70 years after the photographer's death. If you have photos 100+ years old, they most likely are public domain. Any copies of them - and indeed, any photocopies of any public domain visual material - are also public domain. This means you, or anyone, can do what you like with them. I scour swap meets and flea markets for those postcards they used to make from family photos, to use them in collage. Lots of other collage artists do likewise. This is perfectly legal.

The laws on material still within copyright are strict as heck. In theory, you can be sued for cutting out recent magazine pictures and using them in a collage, no matter how much you alter the source material. In practice, we work with what we can get away with! The 'fair use' clause doesn't apply to visual stuff the way it does to text. If the law had worked this way in the past, artists like Max Ernst, Kurt Schwitters and Peter Blake would have been breaking the law, because they used contemporary clippings.

The truly annoying thing these days is the spate of photo agencies like Getty buying up material which was previously public domain - stuff like historical archive photos - making it their copyright, and charging people for its use. Stuff that was previously freely available online. I'm all for the people who track down hard-to-get-hold-of vintage stuff and sell them at $20 a book for 500 images like Dover do. They mean I don't have to pore through hundreds of secondhand stores searching out Victorian magazines. But there are agencies who do the same thing and charge $300 a time, and that's plain greedy. (Especially when, with a little research, you can find the same images elsewhere online for free.)

I've never heard of any copy shop in the UK laying down the law that way, although most stores (and libraries) do have warnings up. My own solution is to have a scanner at home. Not a solution everyone can afford, but the only way to make sure no jobsworth tells you what you can and can't do.

A very good friend works there.

I know at least 3 people that work there, and all of them say very bad things about the company, and how they manage to keep prices down.

Here's more info:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

Dont have those here, but i have a real bad impression of them,
i just see so many people (not just on wp) that have so much bad
to say about them. Come to think of it, i`m not sure i`ve ever heard
anyone say anything nice about them wow

^
well, i guess thats something

I've also heard if someone shows up at a Walmart with images that the lab tech *thinks* look professional, they won't be printed either. Even if it's the photographer with the images in hand! I do photography, I don't use Walmart (occasionally do use Sam's Club-same company-for large prints), but I have other choices because I live in So Cal.

The other issue with Wally World is a high turn over rate for employees. So even if you find a decent lab tech, there's no guarantee they will be there for long! Plus I prefer a company that calibrates their machines on a daily basis. Going to Walmart is ok for basic prints as they are basically contact sheets, but a better more professional lab produces better prints, especially for portrait enlargements.

^
Yes, I've heard that, I think there was a discussion about someone being treated badly about that not so long ago at BoingBoing.

thank God there are still plenty of labs here in my town, all of them very conveniently located, not Wal-Mart near them