possession of negatives means possession of rights?
- April 10, 2006 @ 1:49pmjwbkmn says:Again calling on the collective wisdom here:
My director recalls being told that since/if we have possession of photographic negatives - by donation - we also have control of the copyright of the images. What we have is a set of historic house photos that make up a city survey from the 1980's. We are pretty sure it was commissioned by the city; we are the public library. The photographer/surveyor donated copies of the images and the negatives to the library. Does this mean that we can allow an author to use them in a book?
That is the specific case in hand, but I am wondering if, in general, a donation of the negatives implies a donation of coyright. We have a lot of unprocessed negatives, and slides, which are of unknown provenance - so I will watch the ongoing consensus on orphan works closely.
The best answer would no doubt be to consult the accession records and deeds of gift, but I am not writing from one of those perfect worlds in which careful and consistent records management has been practiced for the past century. But hey, what's life without challenges? - April 10, 2006 @ 2:47pmJMiller says:Ownership of the item does not imply ownership of a copyright. Just like you can own a book or a photograph without owning the copyright, you can own a negative of an image without owning the copyright. If it was the photographer who donated the negatives, then there is probably some sort of transfer of copyright or permission for use (althought that use may be limited...) that went along with the donation. You might not have authority to grant the author permission to use the images in a book, but the author could determine whether his or her use might be considered fair use.
-JMiller - April 10, 2006 @ 3:16pmMFakouri says:Hello.
Here is another response to repeat/add to JMiller’s comments.
I am a reference librarian. I am neither a lawyer nor someone who deals with gifts to libraries. What I do know about your situation, though, is that ownership of a physical object does not equal ownership of copyright.
Copyright belongs to the person (or people) who fix an original work in a tangible form. In this case, it belongs to the photographers. *If* the photographs of the city survey were works for hire, however, the copyright owner is the entity that commissioned them (the city).
At this point, ownership becomes blurred. To the best of my knowledge, some states retain copyright ownership of state works; some do not. I don’t know about ownership of works commissioned by cities. (Can somebody out there offer solid information about this?)
Here’s a little more information that may be of use:
1. This chart explains when things fall into the public domain.
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm
2. Copyright can be transferred. More information is available here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17_10_2.html
The points you mention at the end of your message are good ones. It is good you’re following discussions of orphan works. It would also be clean and simple to have copyright ownership addressed in the written records concerning the gifts. But what, indeed, is life without challenge?
JMiller brings up fair use. That is something else the book author may consider. Perhaps someone else will write in with more information.
Best regards,
MFakouri - April 11, 2006 @ 6:45amjwbkmn says:This is probably a new topic, especially as it does not refer to the survey photos whose origin is post-1977 and known. What I'm wondering now is if a donation to a library of an otherwise unpublished photo is itself a form of publication: that is "made available to the public on an unrestricted basis." (I copied that from Nolo - I hope that's fair use!)
If that's not stretching the concept past the breaking point, than the bulk of our image collection, according to Hirtle's chart, would be public domain. If not, then little if any is since I would have to class them as "unpublished anonymous," and we're back into the Bog of Fair Use and Island of Orphan Works (apologies to Bunyan and Rankin-Bass).
So, is donation to a library of an unpublished work, with no restrictions on access, a form of publication? Could, at least, a case be made? - April 11, 2006 @ 12:58pmCOvalle says:I would venture that these would not be considered published. This is something I've asked about in the past- publication generally needs to have the intent of the rights holder to make something actually published, from what I gather. Donating materials to a library or archive does not automatically mean that the work is published. Since they're anonymous donations, the donor giving the library the physical item just means that the library has the physical item, but doesn't imply any kind of publication. Anyone else have a different take?
[quote]This is probably a new topic, especially as it does not refer to the survey photos whose origin is post-1977 and known. What I'm wondering now is if a donation to a library of an otherwise unpublished photo is itself a form of publication: that is "made available to the public on an unrestricted basis." (I copied that from Nolo - I hope that's fair use!)
If that's not stretching the concept past the breaking point, than the bulk of our image collection, according to Hirtle's chart, would be public domain. If not, then little if any is since I would have to class them as "unpublished anonymous," and we're back into the Bog of Fair Use and Island of Orphan Works (apologies to Bunyan and Rankin-Bass).
So, is donation to a library of an unpublished work, with no restrictions on access, a form of publication? Could, at least, a case be made?[/quote]
Posting to the forum is only available to users who are logged in.