Historic Photos Copyright Law question?
As you mention, works prior to 1923 are in the public domain. Thus, if you are able to obtain a work that was published prior to 1923, then you are free to use it without any recourse from the original copyright holder. That being said, copyright has nothing to do with the sale of the medium containing the work. For example, if you go to any big box bookstore like Barnes and Noble, you will notice many books that contain works that were published prior to 1923. Or let's say I have a first edition copy of a book published prior to 1923. I am free to sell that as well. In other words, don't confuse copyright of the expressive material (e.g., words, music, images, etc.) with the actual object containing the material (e.g., books, records, dvds, etc.). Just because copyright of the material expires doesn't mean the object containing the material automatically becomes free. There may be free ways to obtain copies of the photos you want. But a historic society can certainly charge you if you want one of their photos. Edit: In your first example, the image can be freely copied because the image is in the public domain. In your second example, copying the image, assuming it is under copyright, would be copyright infringement.
How do I get copyright of my captured photographs?
A copyright is a right which comes into existence the moment you publish something. And in case of a picture, it comes into existence the moment you capture that on your camera. This means that you don’t need to apply for copyright registration to get this right. Now the obvious question in your mind would be what is the need for registration of Copyright? The answer is that a copyright registration is useful in case of disputes. If there are disputes, one of the best ways to prove your right is Copyright Registration.In case, you wish to apply for a Copyright, you can either try yourself or take the help of a IPR Lawyer. The lawyer will guide you through the process which may become complicated in case someone files an objection to your application for registration of Copyright. The Registrar will also appoint a hearing in case there is an objection filed by a third party and you or your lawyer can satisfy the Registrar regarding the ownership of Copyright.In case you need any further clarification/guidance on this, feel free to revert on the Facebook page given below. Don’t forget to hit the like button if you like the answers there.Thanks,Sumit Nagpal Nagpal & Associates, Advocates and Solicitors
Are there any royalty free sources of historical photos or images?
Today is your lucky day! The US Library of Congress contains more than 14.7 million prints and photographic images. By far not all of them are available digitally, but a lot are. Over the last few years I spent weeks in their photographic collection online search, and I wouldn’t dare to say that I have scratched the surface. You are free to use much of their collection because the photos were taken by government employees, and many photos are available in very high resolution. Check their search on http://www.loc.gov/pictures/ and use the advanced search options to dive deeper. Warning: Not all photos are free to use, and some have lawful private owners that may not be happy if you use the photos. I would steer clear of pieces of art, for example.An easy to digest version of their online collection is their Flickr account. It contains some classics and is well-organized into sets.A classic from their collection:Destitute pea pickers in California. Mother of seven children. Age thirty-two. Nipomo, California (1936 by Dorothea Lange)While their collection contains some absolutely stunning people photography, especially from the FWA / WWII period, I mostly love the LoC Photography collection for the American landscapes.Old lead mines here have been reopened, Creede, Colorado (1942 by Andreas Feininger)Roy Fure’s Trapping Cabin, King Salmon, Alaska (1990 by Jet Lowe)Looking East from Childs Glacier to Miles Glacier, Million Dollar Bridge, Alaska (1984 by Jet Lowe)I posted some more American landscapes from the LoC on a site called Clouds & Plains.
What are some rare historical photos you wouldn't believe exist?
1.) Three soldiers look at the bodies stuffed into an oven in April of 1945.2.) Giant Air Force Camera Kodak K-24 with Aero-Ektar f2. 5, 178 mm and 5×5 lens.3.) First test tube baby - 1978. Louise joy brown is an English woman known for being first human to been born by IVF.4.) Isaac w Sprague (1841-1887) : a living skeleton. He ate as much as 2 normal sized men. He married twice and had 3 strong and healthy sons.5.) A salesman having his motorized roller skates refuelled at a gas station in 1961.6.) Japanese girls receiving shooting training in 1930.7.) Axel Axgil and Egil Axgil were Danish gays. They were the first gay couple to enter into a registered partnership in the world. And to your surprise, they adopted a surname Axgil which is a combination of their names as an expression of their commitment.8.) Family killed in earthquake around 365 A. D . Mother protecting the child, and father protecting the both. Have a close look again.9.) This is the most infamous picture of WW2. A member of the SS prepares to shoot a Jewish woman on her back,desperate to protect her child. A single bullet was sufficient for both at such range. The shooter was drunk when he did this and upon sobering up, he found this so horrific that he committed suicide.Edit 1 (on 700 upvotes) :10.) World war 2 acoustic devices for hearing incoming planes in the distance, a German product.11.) Rare pic of Bruce Lee with his son Brandon Lee.12.) Hitler comforts a frostbitten German soldier who tries to salute him on bed.13.) Long expose shot of Picasso painting in light. Photo by Gjon mili, 1949.14.) Pearl Harbor attack by Japanese, Los Angeles times, December 7,1941.EDIT 2(on 1.5k upvotes) :15.) Hardisks in 1981.16.) The world's biggest horse, Brooklyn supreme, standing 78 inch tall and weighing 3200 pounds.17.) Mobile Booking Cage - 192018.) A young girl takes a close look at a giant whale shark washed up on a botany Bay, 1965.EDIT 3 : If you want to know about a bad ass Canadian Sniper Major Leo and his incredible fearless character he portrayed in WW2, check Akshay Kapila's answer to Who is the biggest bad ass in history?Or See some mind blowing facts right here at Akshay Kapila's answer to What are some of the most mind-blowing facts?I will add more as soon as I find more.And “You don't take a photograph, you make it “Thank you for the response, Cheers.CREDITS: Wikipedia, Photos That Shook The World.
What is a "historical force"?
A force which moves along with the current of human events. An irresistible force which cannot be stopped in any significant way by a single entity. The Industrial Revolution is a historical force. So is Christianity.
How do you find the copyright owner for viral photographs?
One can not find owner until he/she has filed a copyright for his photo with the copyright office. It is always advised to have your work protected to to claim rights.Visit www.trademarkclick.com. This website offers an easy and cost efficient way for protecting your originality.
Is it legal to take a copyright protected photo of an animal or a historical building and use it as a template for building my own 3D model with further small changes in the final model that make it not similar to the original photo?
No, it is not legal. The interesting and recently relevant case to think about is the Shepard Fairey Hope poster of President Obama. He didn't do quite what you're proposing, but he did take a photograph and manipulate it in such a way that, and this is the language you might use if you did go down this road, he had added substantially or materially to the text. That is, his color simplification and tilting and other tricks added to the art itself to the extent that he had created an entirely self-sustaining piece of art. This might be considered the Warhol argument - just think of those soup cans. However, to go from soup cans to Warhol, you need to diverge substantially from not just the style and content but also the context of the original. Fairey lost an undisclosed amount of money and had to share attribution, however, because both the photo in question and the poster depicted the same subject and the same context - a portrait. No amount of manipulation would take it out of that context short of the Hope poster being, say, a poster to sell soup. The problem with your animal or building is that you intend to use them as, regardless of the fact that they'll be put into three dimensions and re-textured, animals or buildings. Assuming it's not for, say, an academic purpose, it's not fair use or satire. Fair use would apply if you were using the art (and just a bit of it) to discuss the art, satire if you manipulated the art to make a point. In Campbell versus Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., the courts defined Fair Use as an affirmative defense (like an insanity plea), where you have to prove you're doing it, but if you do, you might not be held responsible. I mention this because it means that if you were pursued legally, you would have to prove that it was fair use, and there is little reason to believe it is. This is not legal advice, and you must consult your legal counsel before making any decisions, but I do hope this advice will help you think this situation through.
Why is taking photographs forbidden in so many historical places, while it is allowed in some?
Reasons include:Flash bans don't work because so many people forget or have no idea how to turn off the flash. If you let people take photos at all, you will not be able to avoid flashes going off all the time. The problem with flashes isn't just that they are intrusive, but also that over time they can damage paintings and especially fabrics (eg. tapestries or historic costumes).People taking photos tend to take the good viewing space and stay there longer, stick their arms up in the air to make an already crowded space even more impenetrable, and while focusing on their camera are less aware of people around them who would like to have a look as well. One person doing it is a small annoyance; a lot of people doing it in front of every painting/exhibit is a giant pain in the arse. Photos taken of paintings or exhibits in a museum are highly unlikely to be well taken or interesting and will just be lost among the thousand others on their computer / phone and never looked at again. So you make the experience better for everyone by taking away something that at the end of the day is of little or no value even to the individual taking the photo. Nowhere did that hit home to me in a more infuriating way than in the Louvre, which does not ban photography. On the upside, I was able to take a photo ...... which is a bit more interesting than what everyone else was getting.At least one journalist agrees with me: Jonathan Jones: Tourist snappers are killing the Mona LisaAs you enter the Louvre, big, clear signs in several languages inform you of the museum's rules. There is to be no running, no use of mobile phones – and no flash photography. This ban could not be more clearly announced. No one can miss it. Yet in front of the Mona Lisa, one camera flash after another blasts its ugly reflection on the glass protecting the painting.I just don't understand how the Louvre can allow this destructive camera abuse. Coming to take your own photograph of the world's most reproduced painting is daft enough. But at least people should be prevented from ruining others' pleasure with this incessant electric lightshow.
Is there any important historical figure who, if you found out they had once sincerely claimed 2+2=5, wouldn’t be any less credible to you?
Well, that certainly wouldn't be Albert Einstein. I respect that man greatly, partially because of his mathematical skills. But if he once claimed that 2+2=5, I'd start doubting the whole E=mc² thing as well.
Can I use the image of a historical figure (eg. Ben Franklin) on a t-shirt without infringing on copyright laws?
Anything created before 1923 is free of copyright and in the public domain. However, there aren't any photographs of Ben Franklin from that time (as they didn't have cameras). If it is a photograph of a portrait or etching, and the photograph was taken by somebody other than you, it can get a little dicey.Depending on the historical figure it is likely that you should be able to find a public domain image of them, though.To follow up on a comment about Personality Rights. A living or a deceased person's estate does have a right to prevent you using their likeness, however this varies by state and the most permissive laws of this kind in the United States extend at most 100 years after the person's death.