Sold old Negatives, Can I Still Post Online Pictures?

What are the rights of a purchaser of a negative assuming there are no usage or copyright agreements?

 

I have never sold negatives (or transparencies or digital files) WITHOUT that transaction including Usage Rights (and sometimes) Copyright.

 

That's a question I have never thought of - and my (non legal expert, but business) opinion that most countries' copyright laws would have a similar view and that is: assuming [the] copyright [period] had not been exhausted, I think that the simple answer is you would only have physical "Ownership" and not much else.

 

The way I understand most copyright law, you would not even "legally" be allowed to use the negative to make a print, even if that print were to be for your own personal viewing.

 

It seems to me to be a bit pointless buying a negative (or transparency or digital image file) without "usage rights". I suppose with a transparency it could be framed and used as a piece of private display, the same could be done with a negative.

 

WW

Slightly off the main topic - but:

 

 

 

What is your estimate of ALL the COSTS to your business (including your TIME at market rates to proceed with: "every other possibility" and "sued for copyright infringement" . . .

 

i.e. my simple question is: Was it worth it to have those "big clients"?

 

My point being, (and general comment):

 

There comes a tipping point where having "big clients" as customers will actually be taking money from a business's NET Profit, rather than adding to it.

 

Turnover is one thing and it is always nice to have an extra (example only) $200,000 turnover per year on a 2,000,000 T/O Business by taking on a "big client". On the face of it, a 10% increase in turnover seems fantastic.

 

But: if without that "big client" the NET profit is running at 17% and with the extra 200,000 T/O the Net drops to (example only) 15%, then, effectively the business PAID 10,000 after tax cash, just to have that "big client".

 

Mathematics here:

 

2,000,000 @ 17% = 340,000 Net Profit

2,200,000 @ 15% = 330,000 Net Profit

 

WW

When you're starting out you take anything you can get. Also I was able to sue for costs & so on. No, in the long run I much preferred smaller customers, but the volume of progress work & standby fees for 24/7 doing damage work was too good to turn down. At the end of the day I was out of the hole with about 2/3rds of what I'd have gotten if they had actually paid on time. It was a reduction in losses. Any cash I can get back liquid is an advantage in my mind.

When you're starting out you take anything you can get. Also I was able to sue for costs & so on. No, in the long run I much preferred smaller customers, but the volume of progress work & standby fees for 24/7 doing damage work was too good to turn down. At the end of the day I was out of the hole with about 2/3rds of what I'd have gotten if they had actually paid on time. It was a reduction in losses. Any cash I can get back liquid is an advantage in my mind.

 

Thank you.

 

That’s a very articulate answer and a logical set of counters to the proposals that I questioned.

 

That is a list of quite valuable considerations for any who are proposing a business venture: and it would bode well for beginners in business to read and research further on these matters.

 

One variable (which needs to be considered on a location by location basis and also a client by client basis, is the COSTS that would be involved in process of suing. (For example: Noted that you stated you were able to sue for COSTS.)

 

WW

I do not see any indication that their is any copyright at all. Maybe there might be an implied copyright but I do need t see that either. From what I read here in this actual case, good luck finding an attorney who would take the case or if you want is it worth putting the cash up front? Just a bunch of boiled vegetables. I see no reason why you can not sleep well tonight.

I do not see any indication that their is any copyright at all. Maybe there might be an implied copyright but I do need t see that either. From what I read here in this actual case, good luck finding an attorney who would take the case or if you want is it worth putting the cash up front? Just a bunch of boiled vegetables. I see no reason why you can not sleep well tonight.

 

Could you please explain WHY you think that there is not any indication of copyright?

 

Points to address -

 

> In most countries, Copyright would NOT be beyond the expiration date

> In most situations the Photographer WOULD hold the Copyright

> In most countries, Copyright is forms part of the Deceased’s Estate and it is assumed the OP inherited same

> The OP stated that she did not transact the Copyright when she sold the negatives

 

*

 

On the points of 'boiled vegetables' and 'sleeping well' - I agree: hence my ‘storm in a teacup’ reference.

WW

Could you please explain WHY you think that there is not any indication of copyright?

 

Points to address -

 

> In most countries, Copyright would NOT be beyond the expiration date

> In most situations the Photographer WOULD hold the Copyright

> In most countries, Copyright is forms part of the Deceased’s Estate and it is assumed the OP inherited same

> The OP stated that she did not transact the Copyright when she sold the negatives

 

*

 

On the points of 'boiled vegetables' and 'sleeping well' - I agree: hence my ‘storm in a teacup’ reference.

WW

From what I read it sounded like it was a casual sale. She stated that she "told" this particular buyer that they could use the photographs .... so long as they credited her father (I obviously do not know the intention but from the brevity of the facts I would imagine that she wanted it for her father's memory.

 

Again their are very few facts so I am speculating based on what she did tell us and anyone.has lisence to do that.. copyright might never have even been discussed. Since she used the word "told" it may have been just finalized as a handshake. I personally question that there were any copyrights issued and that was what I was addressing. Of course copyrights belong to the photographer if he did it on his own. so if there are any copyrights they would belong to her father and if not specifically passed on in the will it would a slam dunk that she had rights to them anyway ( so I did miss speak about implied.)

 

From what I I read in her post, if it was just casual sale as I think it probably was (and I know almost nothing about the law) it would be best for the other party to keep quiet. Her posting photos were benign and had no impact on the third party. However in the absence of of good contract she could argue or counter sue that she owns the copyright and revisit the terms of how these photos could be used.

 

If the third party had intent to use the images commercially then they should have had the sense to have a specific iron bound contract addressing copyright and I am sure the OP would remember this or either one one have cited the contract and there would be no need for her to post.

 

The third party, if they pursue this may find they payed a lot of money that gave them nothing. I would rather be in her position because she has a lot more to gain than loose

Edited July 23, 2017 by donald_miller|5

Thank you.

 

That’s a very articulate answer and a logical set of counters to the proposals that I questioned.

 

That is a list of quite valuable considerations for any who are proposing a business venture: and it would bode well for beginners in business to read and research further on these matters.

 

One variable (which needs to be considered on a location by location basis and also a client by client basis, is the COSTS that would be involved in process of suing. (For example: Noted that you stated you were able to sue for COSTS.)

 

WW

True. The deciding factor here was the suing for costs as well as the copyright infringement. Without the client paying for those it would have been a losing proposition financially even if I'd won, The amount sued for was a multiple of the actual billing cost as well, another standard of any contracts. This would have been true, particularly as the client's head office was in Brazil & I was in the U.K. at the time.

True. The deciding factor here was the suing for costs as well as the copyright infringement. ... This would have been true, particularly as the client's head office was in Brazil & I was in the U.K. at the time.

 

We're getting off topic, but so much infringement, particularly online, involves offenders hiding in hard-to-sue countries, if not lawless countries. I'm amazed at the professionalism of site development of some of the most flagrant offenders, in Pakistan, Ukraine and parts of Asia. You don't have a reasonable chance to recover legal costs.

 

In the USA, if your Register your copyrights, then the statutory damages, including legal fees, are substantial. A $50 or $500 potential sale can turn into $5,000, claim, or more. To those in the US, Register your copyrights!

 

Sorry to perpetuate the OT discussion, but it didn't seem like a new thread was needed.

Donald, thanks.

 

Your expansion and clarification makes sense to me now.

 

*

 

It would be nice, when the OP revisits, for her to clarify a few points too: we are kind of having a private caucus at the moment - not that that is un-useful of itself.

 

WW .

Quite possibly the OP sold some negatives but also kept copies (probably digital copies) of those negatives.

 

It occurs to me that she sold the negatives with USEAGE RIGHTS provided that there was attribution to her Father as the Photographer, but she did not transfer the Copyright of the negatives to the buyer.

 

Subsequently, the OP published some of the images from the copies of the negatives that she sold and the purchaser of those negatives is upset by the publications of those images.

 

Maybe the Original Poster can confirm or correct my interpretation of her opening post.

 

WW

 

There's the legal issues and the ethical ones.

 

Maybe the buyer got the short end of the stick. It could be they got what they deserved. I get the feeling they were trying to profit by selling prints of other peoples' work without understanding all the legal issues involved. That plan was undercut when she posted the pictures (hi-res?) online and presumably anybody could make prints for the cost of printing them.

 

I might feel bad for the buyer depending on how much they paid and I might also feel bad for them if she's selling prints herself, but she's not doing that. And further there appears to be nothing in their transaction to suggest that she was relinquishing any of her rights to do anything she wants with the images.

 

Did the buyer pay what amounted to a fair price for what they thought were exclusive rights to the photos? Then perhaps the seller needs to do something to make this right (ethically speaking). Legally it doesn't sound like she owes them anything.

 

I know I might be reading a lot more into what happened than really did, but it seems the buyer was a John Maloof wannabe. They're buying old negatives that they hope they can sell for substantially more. If not the negatives themselves, then at least some prints. It's a profit by not doing much scheme. They aren't adding any value. I have a hard time being sympathetic when those schemes don't pan out.

Edited August 8, 2017 by tomspielman