 |
Copyright, Photographs, and Wittgenstein |
|
 |
| |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
Re: Copyright, Photographs, and Wittgenstein (Score: 2, Informative) by bryan_taylor on Thursday, October 24 @ 19:02:43 EDT (User Info | Send a Message) | I think Mr. Carver would do well to probe the validity of the Copyright. I find it surprising that this archive would actually own these copyrights. First off, he should at a minimum ask for a copy of the documentation transfering copyright ownership to the Wittgenstein Archives. The Archives are not the original author, and would have become the copyright owner only if they received a signed transfer of copyright ownership from the author. This would be the photographer or the company that employed him.
In particular, the mere fact that the Wittgenstein Archives own the original prints and/or the negatives is not sufficent to establish that they own the copyright.
Then there is the question of whether the copyright has expired. This must be resolved on a photo by photo basis. You need to know the photographer, when they died, and if/when the photos were first published. Looking at the dates when Wittgenstein lived, it is entirely possible the answer may depend on the outcome of Eldred.
Any photos that were taken by a private photographer who died before 1932 are public domain, under the life+70 rule. If Eldred wins, the date in question would be 1952 under the life+50 rule. Also, if the photographer is unknown, then it is impossible for the Archive to prove that they own the copyrights.
It is also possible that the photos became public domain before 1976, especially if they were not renewed. To figure this out, you need to know when the originals were first published. I think the copyright term was 28 years with a 28 year renewal, so if a work was first published in 1940, but never renewed, then it became public domain in 1968. Even though the 1976 law changed to "life+50", it did so only for works which were not in the public domain at that time. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
|