Reproducing and selling 100+ year old historic prints - Ethical?

[battra92]

After all if I were to sue you, and you won, it would still be a headache and costly. If you were to lose it would be a bigger headache and even more costly.

That's a good point. I think for the time being I'll just restore them for the family archives.

[athanasius80]

I'd say do it. You probably won't make any money, but there's cool stuff to be put back in circulation. Check beforehand about copyrights though.

[Ian Leake]

This thread is as much a commentary on modern US society as on photography. It's sad that fear of being sued seems to be the main decision factor involved. Questions like: "Do these photos have historical interest?" or "Is there a business case for this?" seem secondary to "Will someone sue?"

My instinctive answer is that if you honestly believe these to be out of copyright and you think there's a business case (i.e. a market with sufficient demand for you to make a reasonable profit) for what you propose then go and do it. Obviously both of these require a little research.

[gr82bart]

I'm not too good with remembering famous photographers, but wasn't some rural photographer named Farmer (I think that's why I remember thisguy's name) made famous this way? I think it was a collector ofold photographs who collected nothing but his photographs and and published a book on his works. Now, apparently his photographs are worth bajillions and guess who has most of them? The guy who collected and reproduced them. Find out what this guy did from legally and I'd say you are in the clear.

Regards, Art.

[Curt]

Ian, do you know what the law is in GB on old photographs? Each country has it's own laws on everything. I think it's a "when in Rome do as the Romans" saying. Doesn't about every country have a set of copyright laws? I know it's a shame to have to think of it but what if I went to a gallery and took a digital camera and made a picture of one of your photographs and then came back home and made postcards out of them to sell. Even worse what if your photograph included one of your family members. I know they arn't the hundred year old ones mentioned but you get the feel. Photography can be many things to many people.

Personally I think the idea of getting the images out is great and if "battra92" makes a buck, eu, pound, etc.. then so what, they did the work and the intentions appear to be good.

What if Eugene Atget's life work wasn't reprinted and exhibited. Oh what we would have missed. A record of Paris like no one else had done.

We have a photographer, Darius Kinsey (sp) who photographed the woodsmen and the NW American forests etc. in the early part of the last century. Those images which appeared in text books I will never forget. There were so many people in them, imaging if the descendants objected to the reprinting of them. They have transcended mere photographs and have become history.

Curt

[Curt]

Here is one web site to check out. There are several web sites but this one has some of his equipment which all will recognize.

http://www.whatcommuseum.org/pages/archives/kinsey.htm

[Ian Leake]

Doesn't about every country have a set of copyright laws? I know it's a shame to have to think of it but what if I went to a gallery and took a digital camera and made a picture of one of your photographs and then came back home and made postcards out of them to sell. Even worse what if your photograph included one of your family members. I know they arn't the hundred year old ones mentioned but you get the feel. Photography can be many things to many people.

With respect Curt, I suggest you read my post properly. I specifically mentioned copyright as a reason not to do this. And nowhere have I suggested nonsense such as going into a gallery and taking photos of photos and selling them.

[Dave Parker]

Ian,

Its not just modern US, I have a book here that I was reading last night that was printed and distributed in 1898 on Darkroom formulation and such the also mentioned copyright issues, so this is not a new thing, as is it is not anywhere in the world, copyright extends a long ways back and in fact, I watched a show on the Rossetta Stone that made a statement about the british sueing the french in 1822 over the ownership of the copyright on the stone, and if anything has historical value it is the Rosetta Stone!

LOL

Dave

[jovo]

I'm not too good with remembering famous photographers, but wasn't some rural photographer named Farmer (I think that's why I remember thisguy's name) made famous this way? I think it was a collector ofold photographs who collected nothing but his photographs and and published a book on his works. Now, apparently his photographs are worth bajillions and guess who has most of them? The guy who collected and reproduced them. Find out what this guy did from legally and I'd say you are in the clear.

The guy in question here is Mike Disfarmer. There is an article about the collection of his photographs and the story of their discovery in the current issue of B&W magazine (issue 41, February '06). Here's a link for more information as well: http://www.disfarmer.com/. Apparently, if done correctly, selling this type of work and reproducing it in book form is quite legal and unassailable. (Of course anyone can sue anyone for anything here in the US, but most people don't. Lawyers with IQ's above room temperature don't initiate litigation unless they stand to make an adequate return from the action. Do this right and there's no incentive to sue...at least not for the lawyers.)

[127]

If you're doing it because you think it's worthwhile, rather than for profit, then you should do it. If it helps to clear your conscience you could donate part of the proceeds to some relevant charity. Then if someone does sue you they look bad for taking money from your good cause.

Ian