Michael Ochs and copyright

<p>According to everything I've read, the photographer owns the copyright to his / her photo, as soon as the shutter button is pressed. I'm wondering how Mr. Ochs is able to license photos (3 million of them!), when he did not shoot them. Surely, he did not get authorization from the photographers of 3 million images! (?)</p>

<p>Can anyone explain how this works? Thanks.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ochs</p>

He acquired the photos and more importantly the necessary rights as a legitimate collector. It began as a hobby, but

beginning in 1977 and for the next 30 years it was his full-time occupation. In many cases, he acquired large collections,

often from photographers who sold their entire works or from estate sales after photographers' died.

 

When Getty bought the entire Ochs archive, in 2007, you can be sure Getty's lawyers were convinced the photos were

owned by (or otherwise legally under the control of) Ochs.

 

Photographers can enter into agreements with anyone to license specific uses of their photos or to relinquish in full their

copyrights.

<p>Thanks for the response, Benoit.<br>

Yes, I'm sure Getty's lawyers did their due diligence.<br>

So, Mr. Ochs purchased the copyrights to 3 million images? Yikes! Hey, good for him.</p>

Hello Martin. I didn't say he "purchased" the rights to all 3 millon items. I said "acquired". It is likely that a certain number

were granted without any payment.

 

"Scooping up material from estates, photographers, ex-writers, defunct publishers, other collectors, the artists themselves

and the garages of retired record company employees, Ochs has generated an irresistible mass and momentum for his

enterprise. The bigger it gets, the easier it is to get more.

 

"I use this concept which could come off as BS, but I use it to talk people out of stuff," he said. "It's the greater good

concept: 'It should be in the archives and you know it.' "

 

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-20/entertainment/ca-4305_1_michael-ochs-archives

<p>Yes, "acquired" is more accurate. Thanks for the clarification. <br>

I guess my question is this: Did he actually obtain the ownership (copyright) of the images, through payment or "a huckster's spiel", as your linked article states? Or did they just become his property because he had possession of the images for a certain period of time, with nobody else claiming them?</p>

In the U.S.:

 

Life of the photographer + 70 years for works published since 1978 or unpublished works;

 

95 years from publication for works published 1964–1977;

 

28 (if copyright not renewed) or 95 years (if renewed) from publication for works published 1923–1963;

 

Copyrights for photos prior to 1923 have expired.

 

Mere possession of a protected work NEVER voids the author's copyright.

Ochs owns (or owned) the rights to those photos. He worked in the entertainment business and knows the value of

intellectual propert and the legal pitfalls of getting tangled up in copyright fights. He has the signed paperwork, from the

creators, their former employers, or their estates.

 

Having a good "huckster's spiel" (spiel is German for story) is necessary for every every business person if they are to

succeed. You can't fault him for that.

 

3,000,000 is an impressive number but I bet most of it is either crap or duplicates. It's like mining for diamonds.

<p>I know this is two years later from the discussion, but when you go to purchase one of the photographs off of Getty (Michael Ochs Collection) you always have to find the third party to get permission. I became suspicious and found many of the photographs are in the Public Domain. You can get this information from the copyright office in Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>I know this is two years later from the discussion, but when you go to purchase one of the photographs off of Getty (Michael Ochs Collection) you always have to find the third party to get permission. I became suspicious and found many of the photographs are in the Public Domain. You can get this information from the copyright office in Washington, D.C.</p>

Hello Joyce - I have found some photo's of my Village and I run the Village website. I looked at the cost of Getty Images and was shocked just how much they cost. My website is a non-profit website so I was interested to read that you found a number of the images are 'Public Domain'. Ho would I go about find if the village photo's are indeed 'public domain'? I see you mention copyright office in Washington DC - Is there a link I could follow to find out as I am in the UK. Many thanks. Tristan. www.sheredelight.com