A first
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron&nbsp; </b><p>As a collector, I bought an old, unpublished photograph directly from its notable photographer. A condition of the sale was that I had to sign a statement that I wouldn't reprint, copy or post the photo.

A first
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>Of course, there's no better proof of authenticity than court papers showing that the photographer sued you for stealing the photo ... I once had the Director of the Reagan Library call me at my home as he had conerns that photographs I owned were stolen from the Reagan family. My thoughts was that his (and I knew unfounded) concern only cemented that the photographs were genuine.

A first
 

Posted By: <b>slacks</b><p>Hankron - just out of curiosity, why is that a first? It sounds like the kind of stipulation that would be normal. (Assuming by "post," he meant on the web, not on your fridge...)<BR><BR>It makes sense to me that you can do what you want with the original (if you acquired it legally), but if you make copies, the lawyers start filing in.

A first
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>I've long been aware of the various copyright & reproduction laws, but I've never had an eBay or other memorabilia seller make me to sign and mail him a statement. Have you?

A first
 

Posted By: <b>pomobileclk</b><p>Reading this thread makes me ask this question,I have in my collection numerous sports 4x5 B&W photo negatives from the 1930's and 40's that came in their original newspaper envelopes and was thinking about making prints and selling them.<BR><BR>Are there any legalities involved?

A first
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>It is a more complex subject than can be covered in a single post-- a variety of factors, including who shot and owned them, who they depict, etc.<BR><BR>From a practical standpoint, it is up to and only up to the rightful copyright owner to object to their reproduction. So if there is no one to object or who will object, there is no copyright issue.<BR><BR>It is often possible for the current negative owners to make into reprints, but copyright considerations should be considered first. I tend to beleive that if a reprint is advertised as being legal and official and made from the original negative, it will enhance the value.<BR><BR>Generally, where you will get yourself into trouble is when you make unauthorized reprints of modern famous photographers or still in existance organizations who are possesive about their images. If your photographer is not famous and is dead, it would be unlikely that his estate has pack of lawyers following auctions. Likely, no one cares.<BR>

A first
 

Posted By: <b>slacks</b><p>Hankron - back to your question: no, I haven't, but this is not my area of expertise. I know a little about royalty-free and stock photography, but really nothing about vintage/collectables.

A first
 

Posted By: <b>pomobileclk</b><p>Thanks for the quick response and the info. <BR><BR>They were from a NYC newspaper still publishing. They are mostly NY hockey from the 1930's to the 40's (Rangers, Americans, MAHL)and they contain the original newsclippings and captions inside the envelope along with the negatives. I've made some prints for a few collectors but didn't want to overdo it and run into any trouble.

A first
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I beleive your negatives came from United Press International. You would have to contact UPI to determine, but my guess is that they might not allow you to make commercial reprints (but ask) ... Realize that it is acceptable for your to make prints for your own personal use, whether to hand from your wall or to give as the odd present to a friend. I beleive it would be fine to print a photo to go along with the negative when you go to sell it ... The potential (I say potential as there has to be a copyright objector for there to be an objection) problem would arrise if you printed thousands to mass market.<BR><BR>Whether or not you own the rights to the image, your negatives are rare and desirable. Negatives in and of themselves are collectable.

A first
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>For those who picture 1955 Bowmans or that Mickey Mantle postcard on their webpage or in an aricle for Beckett, realize that there is a rule of fair use. If you have an informational page or article, it is considered fair use to to show an example or examples of what you writing about. As opposed to if you are going to make your own Mickey Mantle/New York Yankee T-shirts to sell outside Yankee stadium<BR><BR>And, if there is a the unlikely objection by the Mantle Family or Yankees Organization to you posting of an image on you Mickey Mantle Fan Site, the objection will almost always simply be a request that you remove the image.<BR><BR>In short, how and in what context you intend to use an image is as important as whether or not you own the copyrights to the image.<BR>

A first
 

Posted By: <b>pomobileclk</b><p>All the photos from the negatives were used in the Daily News. I have added a pic of the negs. Once again, thanks for sharing your kmowledge.<BR><BR><img src=http://members.aol.com/pomobileclk/negs.jpg>

A first
 

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>If they are from the Daily News, it would be in your interest to contact the newspaper. You may find that they had sold off the photo department's archives years ago and gave up the rights, or that they otherwise don't object to you using them.