Dear All,
I know there are many topics on copyright here, but there is one question that I have not seen asked or answered. I realise I may have missed it and/or am being dumb.
I have a postcard that is over 70 years old, some are 90 or 100 years old. I therefore assume no copyright exists on them. However, I know that the original negatives are held by a museum. Now to reproduce the postcard in say a publication the museum say that you have to pay a fee. So is this the case? My understanding was that if I got the photograph from them then yes I would have to pay but that if I used a postcard that is over 70 years old and I used that rather than getting a copy from the museum then I would not have to pay.
I did pay for the last one I used, but am hoping someone with some experience can clarify the situation.
Regards,
Nick
Expired Copyright
Moderator: MichaelDay
Re: Expired Copyright
Nick
This is one of many aspects of copyright that takes us in ever-decreasing circles, as I've found on a Great War forum to which I belong. If I was in your shoes I wouldn't worry, but then I'm inclined to be pragmatic about these things. There can be just a couple of prints of a century-old postcard or there can be hundreds,and in nearly all cases establishing who the copyright holder is and where (s)he is is almost impossible. Several museums and libraries that I know have prints of quite common postcards and claim copyright on those copies, though usually it's the case that they want to charge you a fee for reproducing them. They don't have any claim on other copies and I don't think the fact that they hold the negatives is relevant.
And I don't think they could be bothered to challenge anyone who reproduces another copy, even if they found out.
As I've probably said before here, I know of one person who is protective of copyright of postcards that his grandfather published, though I suspect his legal rights will be expiring soon, if they haven't already done so, under the "70-years-after-death" rule.
Moonraker
This is one of many aspects of copyright that takes us in ever-decreasing circles, as I've found on a Great War forum to which I belong. If I was in your shoes I wouldn't worry, but then I'm inclined to be pragmatic about these things. There can be just a couple of prints of a century-old postcard or there can be hundreds,and in nearly all cases establishing who the copyright holder is and where (s)he is is almost impossible. Several museums and libraries that I know have prints of quite common postcards and claim copyright on those copies, though usually it's the case that they want to charge you a fee for reproducing them. They don't have any claim on other copies and I don't think the fact that they hold the negatives is relevant.
And I don't think they could be bothered to challenge anyone who reproduces another copy, even if they found out.
As I've probably said before here, I know of one person who is protective of copyright of postcards that his grandfather published, though I suspect his legal rights will be expiring soon, if they haven't already done so, under the "70-years-after-death" rule.
Moonraker
Re: Expired Copyright
Dear Moonraker,
Thank you for the reply. This is one reason I truly hate copyright, it is never clear cut. The museum I know has the original negatives, I know that for a fact. I am just a little paranoid, I know another author who didn't worry too much, he got caught and had to pay. Mind you that was a well known company and the photographs were at that time still within copyright.
I have had several people tell me if MUSEUM A has the negatives or originals, and the postcard/photograph is older than 70 years, and you have a copy/postcard that did not come from from say MUSEUM A, then you can use it without paying a reproduction fee. My worry is that they could not tell me where that information came from. I don't want to pay high reproduction fees if I do not have to, but at the same time I want to be on the safe side and know for sure.
Anyway, thanks for the reply.
Regards,
Nick
Thank you for the reply. This is one reason I truly hate copyright, it is never clear cut. The museum I know has the original negatives, I know that for a fact. I am just a little paranoid, I know another author who didn't worry too much, he got caught and had to pay. Mind you that was a well known company and the photographs were at that time still within copyright.
I have had several people tell me if MUSEUM A has the negatives or originals, and the postcard/photograph is older than 70 years, and you have a copy/postcard that did not come from from say MUSEUM A, then you can use it without paying a reproduction fee. My worry is that they could not tell me where that information came from. I don't want to pay high reproduction fees if I do not have to, but at the same time I want to be on the safe side and know for sure.
Anyway, thanks for the reply.
Regards,
Nick
Re: Expired Copyright
Some people conscientiously check if a company that published a postcard 100 years ago is still in business - or if there's a traceable descendant of the individual who did so - which can be a bit of a chore if one is publishing a book with 85 old postcards reproduced, as I've just done. Others make a token effort. Yet others don't bother. But I've never heard of anyone checking if the negatives (or glass plates) still exist for copyright reasons. Pragmatically, what are the chances of a person or organisation claiming copyright finding out that a print has been reproduced?
(In my case the book was very localised, so the grandson of one photographer would have found out. I approached him for consent, which he gladly gave, and he even ran off quality prints from granddad's plates for me.)
Moonraker
(In my case the book was very localised, so the grandson of one photographer would have found out. I approached him for consent, which he gladly gave, and he even ran off quality prints from granddad's plates for me.)
Moonraker