Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbitears
That's an interesting suggestion Tim, and within my capabilities. However, wouldn't there be copyright to contend with?
Assuming I don't go the re-print route, any other suggestions from anyone on what to do with the negative? Sell, get graded(even possible?), further research, etc? If the full parent image no longer exists in print or negative form, it basically makes this a "1 of 1", I assume that would increase the value?
|
Considering that you'd only be doing a few, it probably wouldn't come up.
An actual IP attorney would be the way to go if you want to make a serious go of it, like hundreds of high quality prints instead of just a handful.
Not cheap but worth it.
As far as I know, it's pre 1923, so the image has become public domain, meaning you can use it.
But.... Some states especially NY have name image likeness laws that control how you can use an image of someone famous. So for example, a 1915 photo of a random factory league player can be used without much worry.
A 1920 Photo of Babe Ruth? Whoever is managing the licensing for his estate would probably have something to say about selling a lot of expensive prints, and maybe about just a handful of small cheap ones. (depending on how agressive they are)
A copy negative can still be a nice thing. And maybe valuable. TCMA would know a lot more.
Your copy was probably photographically "printed" from a larger format original. That's done to sort of protect the original, and allow distribution of different sizes that a place printing a magazine or newspaper or other publication would want based on their equipment.
As a collectible, it's in an odd place. Negatives are hard to display well, and part of the attraction of old photos is displaying them. But a glass copy negative is uncommon, even if it might not be unique.