downloading from a stranger's Flickr gallery - is this NYT piece right?

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>My point in the previous posts was to keep the image relaxed at 72 ppi and it will be as crisp as it is going to get</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> This is completely wrong, as Craig points out. An image sized to 800x600 will be exactly the same at 1ppi, 72ppi, and one billion ppi. PPI is an instruction to a device that outputs in inches. Monitors output in pixels.</p>

[frank_korotney]

<p>I'm going off on a tangent, but here goes. I'm new to digitizing (new refurbished Epson V700). I have a large collection of old glass plate negatives (hundreds of exquisitely beautiful images, , 4 x 5, 5 x 7, 8 x 10, culled from thousands). I want to scan them, improve them, and sell them. I've purchased these negatives over the last 20 years from antique dealers, auctions, garage sales, flea markets, etc. I dont have much proof of purchase. I do not have any agreements. Do descendents have right to sue over my use of these images, even though I have no idea who these people in the images are, although I'm sure most are dead, but not necessarily so? Is there a statute of limitation? I've seen many images on the internet of old scenes with unknown and known people, examples being, Abraham Lincoln, personalities, stars, nobodies (like me). I have wet printed many images to 20 in. x 24 in. paper and donated them to many museums, and they are currently on display in many places. I have had requests for 8 in. x 10 in. prints, which I refuse, because I'm sure they would be quickly copied and then be out of my control. I havent posted any images on the internet. I paid for the negatives, I work them, and I want to make a profit. Am I at legal risk in doing so? Thank you for any help. BTW, I also want to digitize for free the local museum's large collection of local negatives so they can print them and make money. Currntly, these negatives are languishing in boxes and cabinets, no use to anyone.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>If the image has entered the public domain - basically it's reached the end of copyright protection - there should be no problems. You can look to the Library of Congress website on copyright and it goes into detail on the duration of copyright terms.</p>

<p>You could potentially have problems if the subject (person) of the image is alive and/or identifiable and the "use" is infringes their or their estate's rights. The law varies somewhat from state to state. An individual has "publicity" rights and in some states, that right is a valuable commercial property and the estates have asserted the right to control use of the image. This is evolving law. The use is important because if protected expressive use (like art, education, editorial (news), uses, there is probably no issue. Here are a couple of links to begin thinking from.</p>

<p>http://library.findlaw.com/1998/Feb/1/130405.html</p>

<p>http://www.fineartregistry.com/articles/art-legalities/celebrity-likeness-art.php</p>

[grider_carlson]

<p>Charles C.</p>

<p>Just to let you know, I'd tried setting a site up with the right click protection thing before, I than set about trying to grab my own image. It's really not that hard, alls you have to do is highlight the image with the left-click and than either use the keyboard or the edit up top to copy it. Now I don't know if this would work on images displayed using flash but if the photos are just seperate objects, yes, they can still be grabbed sadly... So low resolution and watermarks are always the way to go to be as safe as possible, don't be lulled into a false sense of security by the right click protection.</p>

<p>Peace.</p>