Right to publish

<p>Judging by the OP's website, which says:-</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>... is a small, artist-owned (i.e., by me) and run company in New York City dedicated to creating and reproducing original prints of my photographs, both black and white and color, as well as greeting cards based on these prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm guessing our initial assumption was correct, ie. it was the OP's photo.<br>

<br /></p>

<p>Bettie Page material appears to be in the public domain. The reason is that the photographs were generally considered "pornographic" at the time and the copyrights were never renewed. </p>

<p>Copyright isn't normally something that you have to renew - you either have it or you don't. Unless, of course there is some historical aspect which means the copyright is determined by old law which has some interesting quirk.</p>

<p>If the taking of the photos was either a criminal offence or possibly if they are/were considered immoral, that might mean there is no copyright in the photos.</p>

<p>Public domain either means that copyright has expired eg. 70 years after the death of the author, or that the author has surrendered copyright. But if taking the photos was criminal in the first place, there wouldn't be copyright in them - not ifo the author anyway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Copyright isn't normally something that you have to renew - you either have it or you don't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Under US copyright law prior to the DMCA, you most certainly DID have to renew a copyright. You also had to file for it originally. The copyright term varied under different versions of the law but it was something like 28 years.</p>

<p>Under the DMCA, all creative work is copyright to the author at the time of origination. The copyright term is now 99 years IIRC.</p>

<p>Further info at the Copyright Office website www.copyright.gov</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Copyright isn't normally something that you have to renew - you either have it or you don't. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. Please read up on copyright before posting. Here is what applies:</p>

 

 

 

 

 

<ul>

<li><strong>Published from 1923 to 1963</strong> - When published with a copyright notice © or "Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]" - copyright protection lasts 28 years and could be renewed for an additional 67 years for a total of 95 years. If not renewed, now in public domain.

 

</li>

<li><strong>Published from 1923 to 1963</strong> - When published with no notice - now in public domain</li>

</ul>

 

 

 

 

<p>From all the data available, one or the other situation applies to photos and videos of Page.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. Please read up on copyright before posting</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is it with people on this forum? - some people seem unable to read posts and are just plain rude at the same time. I said "Unless, of course there is some historical aspect which means the copyright is determined by old law". The copyright renewal procedure appears to be old law - for images published from 1923 to 1963, apparently.</p>

<p>Please try to engage brain before posting.</p>

<p>To get to an answer, if we assume the OP is the copyright holder, and assume the OP doesn't have a release of any kind, and assuming no commercial endorsements could be inferred, may the OP publish, for instance, a poster of Sir Paul?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It doesn't directly answer the question, but there is a description of US law issues <a href="http://www.photosecrets.com/photography-law-publicity.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.photosecrets.com/photography-law-publicity.html">here</a>. The author is writing mainly about commercial advertising use where the celebrity is endorsing products (such use clearly needs a release), or where privacy has been breached. The author doesn't address the issue of making and selling your own posters (which are not endorsing anything, but you could say they're commercial insofar as you are selling them).</p>

<p>A poster is a kind of print. If you take a photo of a celebrity, would you be able to sell prints of the celebrity? Yes, because it's art and comes under the 'fair use' doctrine. If you make a poster, you might argue it's still art and still a kind of print. According to the description in that link "The test is if the public is misled in a relevant way, creating a false or misleading impression that a celebrity recommends, approves, licenses, endorses, or has some assocation with certain products or services for sale." Hopefully, your poster is just a poster, without any endorsements on it.</p>

<p>From the link, it seems there are subtle differences between the laws in different states, so what is OK in one state might not be in another.</p>

<p>In the UK, publishing a poster would be fine without a model release. Using the picture in advertising usually wouldn't be (though depending on the advert). There are also privacy laws in the UK, so it could be dodgy if you were showing a private moment anyway.</p>

<p>I am not an attorney, but as a former newspaper and magazine editor and journalism professor have taught and depended on a knowledge of basic media law. There are two legal areas of concern. First is who has copyright ownership and whether someone is infringing on someone else's ownership. The photographer clearly owns copyright to his or her image unless doing work for hire. Second is appropriation of someone else's likeness or name for commercial purposes, which is a tort. There is a time limit on that, just as there is for copyright. E.g., Elvis Presley's estate still has a say in licensing and profiting from his likeness but won't forever.<br>

Clear tort violations would be using a celebrity likeness with the suggestion of endorsement of a product or marketing action figures or coffee cups with the likeness on them or something similar. Generally, allowable uses include parody (the idea being to protect free speech) or editorial purposes (publication of a celebrity's photo in a newspaper or magazine) and to some extent fine art. The latter is the trickiest. Look, for example, at the efforts of the Marilyn Monroe estate to keep photographers from profiting from her images without permission (and a share of profits). If in question, consult a local attorney specializing in intellectual property. If I remember correctly, photographers have been able to sell limited fine art prints in galleries but not publish posters or books using her likeness without permission. However, it's been awhile since I read up on this. The local PPA or ASMP chapter might have an attorney to recommend.</p>

<p>Thank you for posting that M.N.</p>

<p>A lot of this could be cleared up with some more details provided from the OP. The general vagueness of his few posts does leave me wondering... it's certainly sparked a heated debate here.</p>

<p>M.N. is right. The OP may have been vague but many of the responses were incorrect.</p>

<p>Read the copyright laws. They are reasonably clear as to copyright ownership, extensions, renewals, etc.. With someone like Betty Page, because her period of public celebrity isn't all that recent so date of the photograph may well be important, the issue can turn on if it was ever published (in the legal sense) or not, and if it was registered, if registered was it renewed, etc. This isn't just some historical quirk. The laws did change over time and there is a period where copyright on published items could have been lost where an unpublished item from that time would be protected. </p>

<p>Owning an item doesn't mean you own copyright in the item. Owning the negative or a print does not mean you own copyright in the image. Two separate items that could be owned by different people or the same person.</p>

<p>Betty Page is (well, was) a celebrity. When it comes to the right of publicity (and in some ways privacy - which are likely but not necessarily outside of the scope of the question), a person's celebrity status may very well change the way the law operates. It's not at all unusual for a celebrity to make a living off the use of their image so use of a person's image in some ways may very well be protected differently than that of a non-celeb (just as a celeb may have more trouble asserting "privacy" claims because they have made themselves a matter of legitimate public interest). As the laws, and the ability of an estate to control the use of a deceased celebrity's likeness, vary from state to state, the particular use of the image and the place that use is being made do have legal impact. </p>

<p>One should seek legal assistance or at least review qualified sources of information to decide if legal help is needed. Forums are often not a good place to get accurate legal advice.</p>

<p>Craig, it's pretty well-known (at least in the circles I sometimes travel in) that Page's photos are currently in the public domain, i.e., the copyrights expired. Photos can be put out by anyone. There is no estate with claims to her copyrights.</p>

<p>Couldn't argue the idea that her images are in the public domain. (Most of the people I know probably don't even know who she was). Just that the copyrights might be owned by a photographer's estate (if the image hadn't been published/registered and then lapsed into the public domain). That's going to depend on the particular picture's history. The "publicity" side of things might come from her estate, if there was one. My points were more to the general sense that one may not want to assume that just because the person in the picture is dead, that there may not be some details that need to looked into. </p>

<p>It's just that some of the picky little details may make a difference. I can think of a couple of celebrity related legal battles over use of their images, and recall a while back a fan of a certain movie star having trouble on his fan site because he not only hosted images, he was (now isn't) selling a screen-saver put together from images from a variety of sources.</p>

<p>Here's another real situation. I used to attend concerts with cameras, Nikon slr's with large lenses, before they were banned. There was nothing hidden in what I was doing. I shot slides of these events for my own satisfaction.<br>

For instance, I have a set of slides of Led Zeppelin in concert from 1972. The photos are very much in demand from friends and others. I make large prints, some of which I give away and others I sell. <br>

Is selling these photos that I took and own, legitimate?</p>

<p>Bob - I think that depends on the terms of the ticket. I believe that tickets now have statements that taking photographs is banned so if you do take pictures and sell them then it is effectively a breach of contract. Whether it is a breach of copyright is a different matter. But if the ticket did not have those conditions then you may be OK.</p>

<p>Just thinking - if a paprazzi (whatever the singular is) takes a picture of a celebrity at a private function I am not aware of any reason that they cannot make money by selling those pictures to a newspaper. Whether that is different to making and selling posters of that same picture would be an interesting point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A poster is a kind of print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As far as the law is concerned a poster is a print. Size and printing method is irrelevant.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As far as the law is concerned a poster is a print. Size and printing method is irrelevant</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In which case, there's no legal problem with exploiting the image as a poster. I was thinking though that if the poster run is big and has no 'art' pretensions, and is a purely commercial exploitation of the subject's fame, there may be a risk that it doesn't come within the artistic fair use exemption. Whereas a limited edition print is more likely to be considered 'art' and therefore OK under fair use.</p>

 

<p><em><strong></strong></em>As I understand it, the general rule of thumb is that if the person is the prominent subject, then a release (written permission with signature of the subject) would be needed to publish that image. If the person is in a crowd, or is not clearly distinguishable, then a release may not be needed to publish. For copyright in the U.S., a release would not be necessary as the photograph taken is considered <em>intellectual property of the photographer</em> from the moment of its inception<em>. </em><em><strong>Disclaimer:</strong> </em>I'm a photographer, <strong><em>not</em></strong> an attorney<em>...</em> For clarification check out Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images from Bert Krages (available at Amazon.com).</p>

<p>Bob - You'd possibly be in breach of contract (in regards to the ticket) - although back in 72 - I'm guessing that they didn't print that on the tickets and didn't see a huge market for photos of bands. You own the copyright to those images (from the Zep. concert. Period. You shot the photos, you weren't hired, paid or contracted to do them for someone else - they are yours. Usage is another question. If you were to try to "Mass produce" a poster or t-shirt -</p>

<p>Hurdle #1 would be use of the name "Led Zeppelin" - putting the name on the image would be a quick way to get a call from the band's lawyers. Yes - Led Zeppelin still has lawyers - even though the band itself hasn't existed for 30 years - save for the occasional reunion.</p>

<p>Hurdle #2 - if you are mass producing the article - it would be tough if not impossible to defend it as "Fine Art". If on the other hand you produce a print now and then for a friend or in a limited set - you are probably ok.</p>

<p>Mike - paprazzi are (in theory) shooting for "News" / "Editorial" value - therefore - they can sell the photos to tabloids with very few consequences or restrictions. The real question becomes - where were they standing when they shot the photo? If they are on Private Property - then it gets messy - if they are on public land - then it's probably okay - the only time that it would not be is if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy - meaning that I can't stand on a public street and shoot pictures of my neighbors sitting at their dining room table through their window. Dave</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As far as the law is concerned a poster is a print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I seem to recall reading a case where a poster was deemed commercial use and it was troubling to me as it really is just a cheaper version of a art style print. I'll see if I can track it down.</p>

<p>Wow- reading through this thread is exactly the reason I usually only read rather than post/reply. :\<br>

I'd be checking with the good folks at Curtis Management (now CMG Worldwide) as they're the firm who handles Bettie Page's intellectual property.<br>

<a href="http://www.cmgworldwide.com/">http://www.cmgworldwide.com/</a><br>

<a href="http://www.bettiepage.com/">http://www.bettiepage.com/</a><br>

If all of her images are in the public domain, then they'd be the appropriate first place to check in my opinion. I've dealt with them in the past and have found them to be very responsive.<br>

<a href="../photo/8370758">http://www.photo.net/photo/8370758</a><br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>A poster is a cheap print but it may be that the law turns on whether the use is expressive, as in "art," or "editorial," as in news or documentation, or the use falls out of the fairly broad protections of the First Amendment. For example, putting the "print" on a mug or t-shirt might mean it's a commercial exploitation of the individual's likeness. So where a poster falls in that spectrum might be arguable. That can then turn on who it is and/ or how valuable the commercial run is as to whether there is a legal problem. The laws aren't the same everywhere and not static. A slightly different set of circumstances and a slightly different jury or judge might find something just different enough to make a change to what had been thought to be a solid precedent.</p>

<p>I haven't found the case but did see some books written by lawyers concerning photography law which discussed poster use essentially in the way Craig discusses. Other learned sources used the word "informative" to differentiate between close calls or art/editorial and commercial/trade likening the latter to the mugs, t-shirts, buttons ect. I still find it vexing since it seems to come down to volume and perception. The same image in a poster could be be commercial then but one sold in a gallery isn't. How informative or expressive is one but not the other?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As I understand it, the general rule of thumb is that if the person is the prominent subject, then a release (written permission with signature of the subject) would be needed to publish that image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Surely there is no actual law which requires a release?<br>

I was under the impression that a release was an advisory thing to protect the photographer/publisher in the event of any action where he had to prove he had permission to use the image.<br>

Obviously image libraries tend to cover themselves by insisting on such things but I'm sure it's not a legal requirement.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Surely there is no actual law which requires a release? I was under the impression that a release was an advisory thing to protect the photographer/publisher in the event of any action where he had to prove he had permission to use the image.<br />Obviously image libraries tend to cover themselves by insisting on such things but I'm sure it's not a legal requirement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"<em>Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in <a title="Civil liability" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liability">civil liability</a> for whoever publishes the photograph."</em></p>

<p>See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release</a></p>