Selling other people's photos – ?

[Thomas Kyhn]

I've inherited a large number of photos, mainly in the form of slides, and most of them of birds. I'm considering putting them on Alamy. What is the common practice as regards photos that you own but haven't taken yourself? Do you use your own account and add the photographers name in the description, or do you use an alias, or would you a make a separate account?

[Matt Limb]

The issue is ... do you have the copyright, or the photographer's permission to sell them?

[Bryan]

and, as I understand it,  the copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the photographer in the UK and USA. 

[Robert M Estall]

I have a few photographs that fit your situation. Non professional photographers don't often pay any attention to the difference of ownership of the slide or print and the copyright, but it is not quite so simple as pulling a box of slides out from a cupboard and saying "there you go". The simplest solution is to ask if there are any other people who might object to or challenge your ownership. You might also take note that there are a lot of high quality photos of birds from specialists on Alamy. Could be very time consuming for limited return unless you have unique images.

[Niels Quist]

10 minutes ago, Robert M Estall said:

You might also take note that there are a lot of high quality photos of birds from specialists on Alamy. Could be very time consuming for limited return unless you have unique images.

 

- and that the images can pass the Alamy QC. The reportage/archival route requires images of a historical or other special interest.

 

If a real inheritance the will executor will probably be able to help you proving your rights.

 

[vpics]

If you've been left the pics in a will, I can see no reason why you couldn't sell them. I'd use a new pseudo though identifying the original photographer. 

[Cryptoprocta]

55 minutes ago, Niels Quist said:

 

- and that the images can pass the Alamy QC. The reportage/archival route requires images of a historical or other special interest.

 

If a real inheritance the will executor will probably be able to help you proving your rights.

 

Not sure how the executor would be able to do that any more than the Will itself (I say that as executor of a Will which left me many things of a copyrightable nature, but no direct mention of copyright itself).

Maybe things are different in Denmark, though.

[Joseph Clemson]

I'm not sure how much this will apply to someone in Copenhagen, but in the UK, DACS (Design and Artists Copyright Society) has a useful article on how copyright and artist's resale rights (two different things, apparently) are affected after death.

[Niels Quist]

7 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Not sure how the executor would be able to do that any more than the Will itself (I say that as executor of a Will which left me many things of a copyrightable nature, but no direct mention of copyright itself).

Maybe things are different in Denmark, though.

 

May not be so different here. But as an heir you will often have no copy of the will when things have been dealt with. But of course, any will will do. 

[Niels Quist]

5 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

I'm not sure how much this will apply to someone in Copenhagen, but in the UK, DACS (Design and Artists Copyright Society) has a useful article on how copyright and artist's resale rights (two different things, apparently) are affected after death.

 

You are right, this will be different in other countries. 

 

Found this about Denmark : https://visda.dk/tilmelding/billedkunstnernes-forhold/

 

[Nick Hatton]

I have always understood  that the owner of a slide effectively owns the copyright so if you are given or purchase slides you are by nature buying the original, different situation altogether with a print you would only be buying a copy. how could anyone possibly prove copyright if you own the original? 

[Michael Ventura]

I may be wrong but I would think the only concern is if someone challenges the copyright but if you inherited the film, then who would challenge that?  I agree with VPICS that you should create a new pseudo just for those images, perhaps with person's name.

[KevinS]

Here's what Alamy requires regarding ownership, from the contributor's contract;

 

4.2. (i) You are the Copyright Owner of the Images or have authority from the Copyright Owner to enter into the Contract and that the Copyright Owner is the sole owner free from any third party rights of the entire copyright and all other intellectual property rights throughout the World in the Image except for any rights that have previously been licensed or granted for the use of the Image/s, and that accordingly the Image/s do not infringe upon any third party copyright, trade mark, moral right or other intellectual property rights; or (ii) the Image has been supplied to you to distribute under contract for the uses for which they are proposed to be licensed; or (iii) the Image is entirely free from copyright and no attribution is required.

 

 

[Thomas Kyhn]

Thanks for your replies! On the (Danish) page Niels Quist links to, it says that when the copyright holder did not leave a will, the heirs inherit the copyright. That should settle it then.

[Robert M Estall]

In the UK, prior to 1988 the commissioning entity (usually a book or magazine publisher) owned the copyright to photographs regardless of who had physical custody of the slide or negative. This certainly was not the case in the US. I built my archive on the basis of refuting the normal practice in the UK and contracted out of the unfair normal terms. I only ever had one publisher hold their ground and we promptly parted company.. None of this would apply to amateur photography. 

[Matt Ashmore]

18 hours ago, Thomas Kyhn said:

Thanks for your replies! On the (Danish) page Niels Quist links to, it says that when the copyright holder did not leave a will, the heirs inherit the copyright. That should settle it then.

 

Yes, I guess if these photos came from a family member who passed away and you are their heir, then that would make you the new copyright owner. If this is the case, the only people who might have a problem with you publishing these images would then be family members like brothers/sisters/cousins/etc and the likes who I would assume you can get an 'OK' from.

[spacecadet]

20 hours ago, Nick Hatton said:

I have always understood  that the owner of a slide effectively owns the copyright

No. The photographer or his heir does.

[Thomas Kyhn]

5 hours ago, Matt Ashmore said:

Yes, I guess if these photos came from a family member who passed away and you are their heir, then that would make you the new copyright owner. If this is the case, the only people who might have a problem with you publishing these images would then be family members like brothers/sisters/cousins/etc and the likes who I would assume you can get an 'OK' from.

 

That is the case; they were taken by my uncle. None of his other relatives, and there aren't that many of them, had any interest in his photos, so that shouldn't be a problem.