rights to use of vintage photographs?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

If you use an image from the Library of Congress site, they tell you what are the rights. As they are the LOC, they know better than anyone. Most of their old photos, including of Cobb and Honus Wagner, can be reprinted by average Joes.

A lot of it depends on how you use the image. If you are writing an informational article about 1953 Topps, you can reprint a picture of the card you are talking about. That's known as fair use-- you're acting as journalist. If you are auctioning or selling an item, you can picture what you are selling. Mastro and REA catalogs are filled with pics of Ruth and Cobb and Joe Namath-- all stuff for sale. However, if you are making and selling home made 1953 Topps Mickey Mantle T-shirts at the ball park, you might get into trouble-- both from Topps and the Mantle estate. If you are reprinting photos of a living famous Sports Illustrated photographer on the front page of your website and the photographer finds out, he may complain. If you put an unauthorized photo of Cal Ripken with Orioles emblem on the cover of your mass-market book, you may have a complaint. If you write a Beckett informational article about Ripkens' rookie cards, picturing a 1982 Fleer Ripken is fair use. And, of course, you can picture the Ripken card on eBay when you sell.

With photos that are really old, say 1800s, there is no problem. Copyrights have run out on these. Put as many Joseph Hall photos on your website as you desire. You can probably market a King Kelly T-shirt and no one will complain. I think you can make a magazine filled with Old Judge images. If you are using old T206 images or old Ty Cobb photos on your non-commercial informational website, I doubt anyone will complain.

I don't think anyone cares what you use on your business card. Someone with copyright has to care and complain for there to be a complaint. If you make Ty Cobb T-shirts for sale, someone from the Cobb estate might complain. If you make Ty Cobb themed personal business car ds, I doubt anyone will care. If you start selling your business cards on eBay as memorabilia, then someone might care.

From a practical standpoint, there has to be a copyrights holder who complains for there to be a complaint. If no rights holder has a problem with what you are doing, there can't be a complaint. If you write a nice review of the new Upper Deck product, not only will Upper Deck not complain they may appreceate the publicity. Not only do you have a journalistic write to write an article about the cards, but Upper Deck will be glad you did. If you reprint an 1870s cabinet card of a common MLB player, I doubt there will be a rights holder who will complain. In fact, there probably is no rights holder to complain. No complaint from a rights holder means there is no complaint.

Thinking about what photos you can and cannot reprint before you reprint them is good, and something some people don't do. For many photos you will know you have fair use and will go ahead (auction catalog, 1800s photos, informational card article, etc). With some photos you may wonder and ask around. That's the right way to do it. With modern photos, I have asked the photographers if I cold reprint their images-- and, guess what, they sometimes say yes. I asked a famous Vogue magazine photographer if I could use three of his photos for a book I was writing. Not only did he say yes and emailed me high quality images scanned from the original negatives, but thanked me for wanting to include his old images in a book.