Original negative from historic event, or Type 1 photo of same?

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by mcgwirecom

OK heres another angle on the topic. I collected a load of original 35mm slides of Mark McGwire. I was told that since I have the original negative I own the rights. So is that the case with old negatives?

A strong no. Owning the negatives or transparencies in and of themselves does not give you any copyright. If you took them yourself you would own the rights unless you sold them. If you purchased negatives or transparencies from the person or entity that owned the rights and they signed them over to you you would own the rights. Otherwise they would be retained either by the photographer or the entity that owned the rights. A general rule for copyright is that the copyright is retained for 85 years after the image could have first appeared in a publication. This is not hard and fast, but it gives you an idea what you are working with. The copyright can be renewed, but with many photos it is not done. The estate of an individual or photographer can still control images of that person or photographer. This can be seen with the photographs taken by Ansel Adams, being controlled by one entity. There is also an opposite to this. One of the 500 lb. gorillas, Getty Images, tries to claim copyright over images where they have not acquired rights and sell them as if they do. The 85 years applies within the U.S. The copyright period in Europe is much shorter. I believe it is 65 years. Another consideration is licensing. The major sports leagues retain permanent rights over the logos and uniform styles of all of their teams. Even if you purchased the rights from the photographer you would still need a license to commercially sell photos that display the logos or distinct uniform styles of any team. The next time you see a pro athlete in an ad on t.v. pay attention to the uniforms. You will see a lot of commercials with generic uniforms with similar colors to the pro uniform, but no real logos. I will not even go into orphan images, of which I own more than a few.

[Michael B]

I personally would prefer the negative. I could still make a print for my own personal use in the size that I would like to have for display.

[Jobu]

Great question Andrew.

I only have a handful of negatives (the 1904 Pirates Opening Day flag raising and game http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...highlight=1904) and am still pretty new to photos. I have to say that I definitely prefer the Type 1 photos. I don't really know what to do with the negatives that I have but I really enjoy looking at my photos. Sure, the Type 1 wasn't actually at the game, but it is still a part of history as it brought that historic moment to the millions of people who listened to, watched, or read about the game that just took place. I have never developed a photo, but I believe there is also some skill involved in that part of the process, which makes Type 1s the fullest expression of the photographer's intentions (assuming the photographers developed their own photos) and therefore a small step beyond the composition of the shot and the camera operation involved in recording the image on the negative.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Michael B

Another consideration is licensing. The major sports leagues retain permanent rights over the logos and uniform styles of all of their teams. Even if you purchased the rights from the photographer you would still need a license to commercially sell photos that display the logos or distinct uniform styles of any team.

Not to mention you would ALSO need some form of agreement with any players depicted in said image, or their estates, before selling prints in quantity. Everybody has to get their cut or you’re opening yourself up to trouble.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve B]

Now that's a difficult choice.

I'm pretty much agreed with almost everyone else. I'd like the negative as a piece of history. And I could always make a print or two for personal use. (Not sure just what I'd do if I got a really important image, that might be worth trying to get rights to. )

But yes, a negative is really hard to display, so if that's what I wanted, I'd have to go with the photo.


Steve B

[Snapolit1]

Would you rather have the Mona Lisa or the paintbrush?

The photo.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Would you rather have the Mona Lisa or the paintbrush?

The photo.

I think this is a poor analogy. You are talking about the tool versus the final product which is not the same for photography. The camera is the tool. Using your parameters, try one of these:

Would you rather have Conlon's, Bain's, Eisenstadt's or Adams' camera or an original print they created in the darkroom?

Would you rather have the artist sketch for a painting or the painting or perhaps would you rather have Rodin's original plasters for 'The Thinker' or one of the 5 original bronzes where he oversaw the casting?

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Would you rather have the Mona Lisa or the paintbrush?

Is the paintbrush authenticated?