Dumb question about photos.

[sbfinley]

This is probably a dumb question, but I'm not that smart in the first place.

As my collection is 99% cardboard, I rarely buy memorabilia unless it relates to Tommy Bridges. Recently several Type 1 photos and original negatives, both glass and cell, have popped up on ebay.

You can call me stupid right ... about.... now: If you own the original negative of a photograph do you then own the copy and creative rights to the photograph? Not that I'd be running around making posters and trying to sell them. I just think it would be cool to be able to say, "I own that image." Or at this point are most pre-war images public domain now?

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

[bmarlowe1]

[quote=sbfinley;797636]This is probably a dumb question

It isn't a dumb question at all. All I can tell you with certaintly is that if your image was published anywhere prior to 1923 - it is public domain. Otherwise it can be very complicated :confused: - consult an intellectual property attorney.

[slidekellyslide]

This is a good question. Mark is right that images pre-1923 are in the public domain...there are probably other tricky points to consider...some players have estates that own rights to images and you probably can't use a photo of Babe Ruth in an advertisement without permission.

[sbfinley]

I appreciate your responses. Like I said before it's less a question of being able to put the image on a box of breakfast cereal, than it is being able to state "I own that image."

Just recently I have gotten interested in original photographs and negatives. The question arose from my musical background and education. In the music industry it was common courtesy (though not required) to provide the owner of a song or catalog with the master tapes. In such terms master recordings have become the defacto currency in music rights and ownership.

i.e. Ever hear those stories of musicians storming a record company and demanding the masters from their vaults.

It just got me thinking about original negatives and the owner of said negatives claim to ownership of the image. It is a strange gray area I'm not familiar with to stake a claim on "image" that territorially doesn't infringe upon "likeness."

For example if you own the original negative of a photograph that depicts Mel Ott in mid swing. I find it hard to believe you could plaster the image on the side of a box that features your new brand of "Mel Ott batting Tape" without seeking permission from the Ott Estate.
However, if you own the original negative of a photograph that depicts Mel Ott in mid swing could you prevent some random Joe from mass producing the photograph in glossy 8x10's and selling them on ebay?

Like both of you alluded to, it is a gray area that would probably require some legal fees.

[drc]

That you own the negative doesn't automatically give you the rights to the image. You can buy negatives from a photographer and the sale includes the rights. However, in other cases you are just buying the negatives as pieces of memorabilia with no rights of reproduction.

As already noted with many antique negatives, the copyrights have run out so you can do what you want.

With the negatives you are talking about, you likely won't own the rights to the image but will be the only one to make a quality photo of the image-- and certainly will be the only one to make photos directly from the original negative.

These types of negatives are usually valued as collectibles items in and of themselves. Some collectors might make photos from them, while many will not. It's like with a 1950 Bowman lithograph printing plate. The plate will have value as a piece of rare memorabilia, but likely no one is going to print more cards with it.

[sbfinley]

Cool. Thanks.

[drc]

For the record, it wasn't a dumb question at all. As this thread show, the answer isn't simple.

Also, I've seen auctions of modern negatives by official MLB photographers that included the rights to the images. So those would be cases where the auction winner would own the images.