Copyright on a Victorian photo

[Sarnian]

Hi,

 

I recently bought at auction a Victorian (c.1870) photograph of Alice Liddell ("Alice" from 'Alice in Wonderland'). Apart from enjoying being the custodian of it there would seem to be an opportunity to recoup some of my outlay by possibly receiving image rights payments. As the photo is from c.1870 and the photographer is unknown does the possibility exist for me to hold the copyright of the image? Is posting it on Alamy enough to obtain copyright or should I get it copyrighted by a copyright lawyer? 

 

Many thanks for any assistance.

 

Mark

[Pav]

Hi Sarnian,

 

The most restrictive IP legislations set the time distance from the death of the creator to the moment of transferring the work to pubic domain as 70 years. It depends on the location, but keeping that 70 years would save you all the headaches. That's why Rachmaninoff is listed as a co-author of 'All by myself'

Hope that helps you.

 

Pav

[spacecadet]

As you probably know, you don't acquire any rights when you buy a print. You can put the image on Alamy, as it is out of copyright, but so can anyone else, so unless it is particularly unique there's no reason for someone to pay for a licence if they can find it elsewhere on the internet. They may do so for convenience, however.

A scan of a small print is unlikely to pass QC so you will need to apply for archival access.

Edited July 21, 2023 by spacecadet

[Sarnian]

13 hours ago, spacecadet said:

 unless it is particularly unique there's no reason for someone to pay for a licence if they can find it elsewhere on the internet.

It's an original, previously unknown photograph of Alice Liddell so that probably ticks the uniqueness box. The only other image of it on the web is a low quality image on the auction house website. I have a Fuji GFX100S so I can take a 102MP image of it - i.e. more than enough resolution to pass QC.

 

Decisions, decisions (or "Curiouser and curiouser"!). 🐇

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

here's how you might flip it into your own copyright:
(this has not been tested by me)

a. take a close up of print being held by two hands

b. hands are mostly cropped but clearly evident

c. make sure hands do not block any part of photo or border

d. someone could license YOUR photo & crop out hands completely

e. voila -- they have JUST the Victorian photo

[Rebecca Ore]

Public domain can't be copyrighted.  You might be allowed to use the photo in a composite but once you release the photo alone in the wild, anyone can copy it and anyone can sell their copy.   The literary way to get around this is to label translations "After Mayakovsky," not "translated from Mayakovsky."   We own the physical copy, but not the copyright to the work.   Translations have to be licensed if still under copyright (lots of Russian samazdat publishers were out and out pirates, but we were supposed to honor the heroism).   It's possible by buy the rights to the work from heirs who don't want to hassle selling the works themselves, but providence unknown plus over 80 years puts that in the public domain.    My publisher's art person did a composite cover for my short story collection, but paid for and are giving credit for each of the bits. 

[geogphotos]

7 hours ago, Sarnian said:

It's an original, previously unknown photograph of Alice Liddell so that probably ticks the uniqueness box. The only other image of it on the web is a low quality image on the auction house website. I have a Fuji GFX100S so I can take a 102MP image of it - i.e. more than enough resolution to pass QC.

 

Decisions, decisions (or "Curiouser and curiouser"!). 🐇

 

You might be better off not making a high res image available for others to then download and use. 

 

What about selling prints through an POD art photography site - something that others can't do.

[zxzoomy]

RE. copyright on pics in UK in general: https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2370&p=6692&hilit=old+postcards#p6692

[spacecadet]

17 hours ago, Sarnian said:

I have a Fuji GFX100S so I can take a 102MP image of it - i.e. more than enough resolution to pass QC.

QC only look at the image quality, not the resolution. Your limiting factor is the sharpness of the print. Unless it's a large- format contact print it's unlikely to pass. Archival doesn't go through QC; I have a number of copies of 30s prints, none bigger than whole-plate, that would certainly not pass QC.

[spacecadet]

9 hours ago, zxzoomy said:

RE. copyright on pics in UK in general: https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2370&p=6692&hilit=old+postcards#p6692

I was completely unaware of the existence of publication right. There is no precedent on it so it seems to be very rarely exercised.

OP, if you're in the UK or EU, and you are certain it is unpublished, on the face of it publication right belonged to the auction house from the moment they published the catalogue. You could ask them to assign it to you- it's not their stock in trade, they're an auction house.

Edited July 22, 2023 by spacecadet