[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

ownership



While I am not a lawyer, here are some thoughts from a professional
photographer turning archivist:

> Since the photographer took the images on a "for hire" basis for the
architect, I have always thought that the person or firm hiring the
photographer was the owner of the images in the way that whatever we
create at work is property of our employer.<

Do you know for sure that the photographer worked on a "for-hire" basis? 
For-hire means that the photographer contracted to shoot pictures as if
s/he were an employee, rather than as a sub-contractor, or outside vendor. 
Except in the case of staff photographers, working for-hire is not a common
practice in photography, especially today.  In fact, unless specifically
stated otherwise, the assumption is that the photographer is the owner of
the image.  The fact that the photographs are
stamped as property of the architectural firm does not necessarily mean the
firm  "owns" the photographs, just that the prints are their property.  

>Some of the images list the photographer, some don't.  Of the ones that
do list the photographer, one has a stamp stating that the negatives are
held by the studio.  The last image created was done in 1953.<

It's unusual, at least today, for a company contracting photography on a
work-for-hire basis to then leave the negatives or original transparency
with the studio.  Generally, when negatives are held by a studio, they
still own the copyright.  Unless there is a contract saying differently,
the copyright, and ownership, stays in the hands of the photographer. 
Without documentation, It's near impossible to guess what rights may have
been purchased.  

>If the firm goes out of business and their items are purchased by
someone else, does the purchaser really have legal right to give the
items away or sell them?<

I believe that IF the work was done for-hire, then the photographs are
owned by the the firm and whomever purchases the materials from the firm is
then the legal owner.  However, if the work was NOT done for-hire, then the
copyright still rests with the photographer unless they are quite old and
are now in the public domain (creator's life plus 50years?).  Issues of
copyright and ownership are often less concerned with who possesses a print
that what is being done with it, i.e. if the photographs are given to a
repository, there is probably less issue with using the materials for
research than if a researcher wants to publish the material.  (I'm sure
that very loose defense will not fly well with the legal department!)

Have you tried to contact any of the named photographers?  They may or may
not still be in business but it's worth a try.

Keep in mind that I'm applying current law and practice to the situation --
I wasn't around in the fifties!  There are a few professional organizations
who might advise you further and there are certainly other photographers
around who were working then!

Good luck.  

Margaret Graham
MLS student, Drexel University
Philadelphia

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>