Old 1940s negatives in rough shape

[J Stolarski]

I've looked at the guidelines for first submittal. More geared towards digital. Have old negatives from the 40s

I was thinking about putting on Alamy. Is QC less stringent on some dust marks or scratches showing up in the 100%

views ? Many of the shots, although  large, 2.5 inch by 4.5 inch medium format film,  are not sharp at 100%. The camera was most likely not

of very good optical quality, or photog wasn't of good quality.

 Scanned at 300 dpi with a Perfection v600, which does really nice scans if the negatives are flat. These are stubbornly lateral

curved, so it has been a nightmare of frustration, trying to scan them.

[spacecadet]

If they are of historical interest, rather than just old, you can apply for archival privileges and they will bypass QC. But do think twice if they're as bad as you say unless they're really interesting.

https://www.alamy.com/registration/archive_upload_apply.aspx

Many contributors use DSLRs to copy film.

Edited July 17, 2020 by spacecadet

[geogphotos]

Do you own the copyright?  From what you say it seems that you are not sure who took these pictures. 

[Dave Richards]

18 hours ago, J Stolarski said:

I've looked at the guidelines for first submittal. More geared towards digital. Have old negatives from the 40s

I was thinking about putting on Alamy. Is QC less stringent on some dust marks or scratches showing up in the 100%

views ? Many of the shots, although  large, 2.5 inch by 4.5 inch medium format film,  are not sharp at 100%. The camera was most likely not

of very good optical quality, or photog wasn't of good quality.

 Scanned at 300 dpi with a Perfection v600, which does really nice scans if the negatives are flat. These are stubbornly lateral

curved, so it has been a nightmare of frustration, trying to scan them.

Just a suggestion, for your first submission it may be better for you to just take and submit three good quality photo's taken with a suitable DSLR, rather than risk a rejection on questionable scans. The pictures can be of anything within reason, as long as they meet Alamy QC requirements.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Dave Richards
grammar

[spacecadet]

15 minutes ago, Dave Richards said:

Just a suggestion, for your first submission it may be better for you to just take and submit three good quality photo's taken with a suitable DSLR, rather than risk a rejection on questionable scans. The pictures can be of anything within reason, as long as they meet Alamy QC requirements.

This is necessary of course for general stock submissions.

But it won't help with submitting archival images that, by OP's own admission, can't pass QC. For that OP needs archival privileges.

Edited July 17, 2020 by spacecadet

[J Stolarski]

Sorry for late replying. I thought I had set up notifications to my email for the forum, will have to get that solved.

Anyway, I spent a long time fixing three of the scans, and it is showing that I have two blue stars, and didn't receive an email that there was an issue.

Still not sure if the QC submission passed or not. Has been at least three weeks.

Probably should have read about doing submittals with a decent digital, which I don't own. Only have film cameras.

 

Followed thread, missed marking that at the top. Used to be common in some forums, that if you started a thread you got notifications automatically by default.

Edited August 4, 2020 by J Stolarski
added following

[J Stolarski]

On 17/07/2020 at 07:52, geogphotos said:

Do you own the copyright?  From what you say it seems that you are not sure who took these pictures. 

I don't own the copyright. These are from the 40's , 1932 being the cutoff. Can't be copyrighted by me. Did read on the Alamy, that the images then need to be classified as editorial use only.

I've done some reading. Didn't realize  a lot about shooting people or property.

The negatives I purchased at an antique store. I can reach out to the seller and see if I can find out the estate that sold them , and see about getting a release.

If I can't use them then that's fine. Rather not get litigated against.

 

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, J Stolarski said:

I don't own the copyright. These are from the 40's , 1932 being the cutoff. Can't be copyrighted by me. Did read on the Alamy, that the images then need to be classified as editorial use only.

I've done some reading. Didn't realize  a lot about shooting people or property.

The negatives I purchased at an antique store. I can reach out to the seller and see if I can find out the estate that sold them , and see about getting a release.

If I can't use them then that's fine. Rather not get litigated against.

 

 

 

Unfortunately - and I really mean that about the situation you find yourself in - the Alamy contract states that we can only upload images for which we own the copyright or when there is no copyright ie) public domain. 

 

I bought some excellent slides last week at a local auction. Beforehand I spent time talking to the auctioneer about this whole business. He really didn't seem interested but did agree that he would pass a letter on to the seller for me - but from his manner I am not convinced that it won't have ended up in the rubbish bin. So now the slides are separated from the copyright holder and nobody can publish them ( without a lot of bother and expense dealing with the IPO)!

 

So much is being lost because of this copyright problem creating Orphan Works which are very difficult to publish.

 

Something needs to change. I would think that if the owners cared about the images and cared about copyright they wouldn't send them to an auction to be sold off to a stranger. It would be much more straightforward if the default position was that copyright transferred with the original slides/negs/Raws. 

 

The chance of litigation must be tiny if you don't use pictures of people/property but just general views that could have been taken by anybody. But the contract is clear in what it says. 

 

Having said all that I see a certain famous agency with images from the 1950s and 1960s with the description 'photographer unknown'. Which begs the question how can they possibly have copyright? 

Edited August 4, 2020 by geogphotos

[J Stolarski]

At least I'm getting the forum notifications, so something is going right.

I think I'm beginning to remember why I've hesitated for 40 years in actually contracting with an agency.

I did get involved in some film productions years ago, and didn't have to deal with anything more complicated

than showing up , shooting, and handing off the prints.

Didn't think about model releases at the time or even property releases.

Now, you have a whole class of professional litigators, crawling overtop everybody else, in search of something to sue for.

Sadly indeed, for those of us that rescue these negatives cast off by families by the trunk load.

I come across a lot of old pictures, undeveloped rolls, prints on a fairly regular basis.

Mostly, scan and sell on auction sometimes, and keep some just for enjoyment.

I agree with you about the orphan works. Due to the all the recorded images being lost, there is no telling, what has hit the landfills...

because the previous owners found them and couldn't sell them or monetize them.

There is a Paris film producer that bought some of a lot of about 200 Kodak red borders that I bought at the flea market.

He is archiving the slides to preserve the images for posterity, which is pretty neat.

For the rest of us I think the cut off from 1932 should be amended to a later date.

Not sure with this time of pandemic that this would be a priority for those that deal with the laws concerning copyright.

Off topic, I guess since I got two stars, I might consider doing some specific photography, generic in nature, and at least follow through getting my account

on here.

Just one other question, do the  2 stars mean I can post images, or am I still having to resubmit three images for approval ?

Tried to submit the url to one of the 40's scans on flickr, but the forum doesn't allow me to. Anyhow, my profile handle  here is me actually, and you can see a few

of them I uploaded to there, in 1940 old negatives album.

[geogphotos]

UK does have a system of licensing Orphan Works, it was introduced in 2014.  There is a register of all the images that have been licensed. Most of the licensees are public sector organisations such as libraries and museums. I also understand that they use a straight stock agency calculator based on Getty pricing ( which is a work of pure fiction in the real world). For a museum to use an image that they own, they have to apply and jump through all the diligent search hoops, then pay a fee.

 

So we have a government funded museum paying a fee to a government funded Intellectual Property department which itself is funded by government. And since the government has cut funding to museums and libraries they do not have the funds to pay these exorbitant fees leaving the government to pay out even more to fund the  existence of the licensing authority. 

 

I don't know the figures for recent years but in the first year of operation around 300  licenses in total for all categories were issued under this scheme. Less than one a day. 

 

Just looked and for Visual Stills the register has just over 700 images listed in 6 years ( 2014-2020) and some of those are for applications that have been withdrawn ( one from Manchester United for an aerial of Old Trafford I noticed was withdrawn).

 

Not exactly working very well is it?

Edited August 4, 2020 by geogphotos

[J Stolarski]

Lately with this pandemic thing, the government, businesses, society in general isn't working well.

I am going to research contacting the copyright office as well, and see about clarification.

Maybe call my state senator as well...which in past has been a waste of tiem.

Don't worry things are just as goofed up here, if you haven't noticed.

Now I think I'm remembering why Inever bothered doing stock :(.

Sent an email to Alamy help for clarification, I guess, it's been covered in other threads.

I would think they have a legal staff that could give us heads up, yet again.

Google copyright use , and this isn't the only forum on the topic of use.

[MizBrown]

7 hours ago, J Stolarski said:

Lately with this pandemic thing, the government, businesses, society in general isn't working well.

I am going to research contacting the copyright office as well, and see about clarification.

Maybe call my state senator as well...which in past has been a waste of tiem.

Don't worry things are just as goofed up here, if you haven't noticed.

Now I think I'm remembering why Inever bothered doing stock :(.

Sent an email to Alamy help for clarification, I guess, it's been covered in other threads.

I would think they have a legal staff that could give us heads up, yet again.

Google copyright use , and this isn't the only forum on the topic of use.

They'd have to be out of copyright, beyond the time frame for copyright today (photographs, by my reading, seem to have a shorter copyright term).   You'd have to label them from public domain and submit them as archival. 

 

It's entirely possible to scan medium format on a good flat bed scanner (someone made frame holders for the Epsom scanners which might work even better) and have those pass.  Use your own work.    I've had some film scans pass quality control, and one other contributor has had multiple licenses of one of her photos of a sloth that was a scan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention

Edited August 5, 2020 by MizBrown
make more sense.

[geogphotos]

9 hours ago, MizBrown said:

They'd have to be out of copyright, beyond the time frame for copyright today (photographs, by my reading, seem to have a shorter copyright term).   You'd have to label them from public domain and submit them as archival. 

 

It's entirely possible to scan medium format on a good flat bed scanner (someone made frame holders for the Epsom scanners which might work even better) and have those pass.  Use your own work.    I've had some film scans pass quality control, and one other contributor has had multiple licenses of one of her photos of a sloth that was a scan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention

 

 

Not sure about other countries but in UK copyright in still photographs lasts 70 years after the date of the photographer's death. It passes along with any other property to the beneficiaries of the estate. The problem is that most people have no understanding or knowledge of this.

 

If they had the awareness they would know that signing a copyright transfer letter would add value to the sale of the slides/negs and was in their best interest - assuming that they do not want to keep the material. Unfortunately those people working in this sector such as auctioneers and house clearance companies, also it seems probate solicitors, have little knowledge of copyright either. 

 

As a result of this lack of understanding and the less than effective operation of the Orphan Works scheme more and more 'orphans' are being created all the time. 

Edited August 5, 2020 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

20 hours ago, geogphotos said:

a certain famous agency with images from the 1950s and 1960s with the description 'photographer unknown'.

If they're orginally from a newspaper or news agency, as the photograper's employer they owned the copyright and presumably signed it over to the current agency. This is still the case of course.

At least self-employed photographers now own their copyright- in the photographs I took before the 1988 CDPA it still belongs to the clients.

The only image I have here that I didn't take belonged to my late father, and I assume my mother isn't going to sue me.

Edited August 5, 2020 by spacecadet

[geogphotos]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

If they're orginally from a newspaper or news agency, as the photograper's employer they owned the copyright and presumably signed it over to the current agency. This is still the case of course.

At least self-employed photographers now own their copyright- in the photographs I took before the 1988 CDPA it still belongs to the clients.

The only image I have here that I didn't take belonged to my late father, and I assume my mother isn't going to sue me.

 

I am not referring to images from a newspaper but to a famous UK history collection. But what you say may be the case.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by geogphotos

[geogphotos]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

If they're orginally from a newspaper or news agency, as the photograper's employer they owned the copyright and presumably signed it over to the current agency. This is still the case of course.

At least self-employed photographers now own their copyright- in the photographs I took before the 1988 CDPA it still belongs to the clients.

The only image I have here that I didn't take belonged to my late father, and I assume my mother isn't going to sue me.

 

 

And perhaps that is the policy to follow? Alamy want to cover themselves but do they really care? How many times did contributors ( okay it was only me! )  point out that they had RF images with property and people that stated there was no property or people. You'd get a polite reply saying that they would look into it but nothing EVER changed.  This was long before the Frankenstein monster of RF Editorial.

 

Probably what the Alamy contract says is different from the reality. ie) if you get caught it is down to you.

Edited August 5, 2020 by geogphotos

[J Stolarski]

1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

And perhaps that is the policy to follow? Alamy want to cover themselves but do they really care? How many times did contributors ( okay it was only me! )  point out that they had RF images with property and people that stated there was no property or people. You'd get a polite reply saying that they would look into it but nothing EVER changed.  This was long before the Frankenstein monster of RF Editorial.

 

Probably what the Alamy contract says is different from the reality. ie) if you get caught it is down to you.

I think your last line is what I'm reading from  Alamy  contributor documentation.

They don't ask for property or people releases , but cover by saying when you agree to site rules, that you have releases on hand.

It is on the contributor to see that you are in compliance.

All is not lost. Some of the old shots would make nice wall decor atmospheric retro decoration.

Submitting here, for archival, is another option, and selling them again at auction is another option.

Using the images on a website is acceptable, even if it's a photographer promotion website, or as a retoucher to showcase one's skills.

Selling for stock purposes is a nice option. but not the only option.