Ethics of printing someone else's negatives

capitalK

capitalK

Warrior Poet :P
Local time
1:51 AM
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
1,230
Just thought I'd start a discussion about some negs I have. They were bought at a thrift store about 10 or 12 years ago, stashed inside metal yellow Kodak tins. From the best I can tell the negs are from the late 40's and early 50's.

I'm not saying I am going to print from them, this is more of a "what if" scenario.

Being in my 30's I obviously can't claim the photos as my own... nor would I. Could I claim the prints as my own or is the artist the photographer him/herself? Are they considered found art? Should they just sit in the cans to rot with no one but myself to enjoy them?

Any thoughts on the matter are appreciated.
 
If you've made 'reasonable' and unsuccessful attempts to identify the original photographer, and have documented how you cam by them in case you're one day challenged (especially if they contain images of people) then you should be able to print them and if displayed with an appropriate acknowledgment there should be no problem.
But you should never claim them as your own original work.
 
Good question...

I have been given quite a few old B&W negatives(4X4?) that were found in a garage, these appear to be from the '30's or so and from a road trip around the Southeast of Australia. I also was given a good number of chromes including some B&W chromes from the 70's, again the photographer unknown.

Not sure what I will ever do with these old negative and transparencies, but there is some really good stuff that one I will probably print or at least publish on-line just as a historical reference of various places around Australia.
 
You might find some images that would give you a hint of who the photographer might have been. Probably not, though. Because of the copyright regulations back then, I think it's safe to say that you own the rights to the images, plus they were discarded by the photographer. Just don't claim them as your own work. I think you'd be safe in exhibiting or otherwise publishing them as long as you credit them to "Photograpoher Unknown".
 
If the images are any good, or if they are of historical value, of simply if it pleases you, there is no reason not to print them. Of course you could claim the printing as yours, as long as you make it clear that you are not the author of the images. The bigger question of whether it is found art or not may depend on whether it is "art" at all, and I ain't going there. You certainly found it, even if you paid for it at a flea market. If you want to get technical, you can worry about copyright, which varies from country to country. The "what if" scenario you might think about is "what if" you find something in the images that might lead you to the identity of the photographer. Do you follow the clues and try to find out who took the photos?

I have spend the last 10 years (off an on) working on a project like this which will be published in book form, but in my case the photographs did have historical and artistic merit. It took me years to find the photographer's surviving family in a small European city, and to get their permission (more like their "blessing") to publish.
 
Last edited:
Al Kaplan said:
You might find some images that would give you a hint of who the photographer might have been. Probably not, though. Because of the copyright regulations back then, I think it's safe to say that you own the rights to the images, plus they were discarded by the photographer. Just don't claim them as your own work. I think you'd be safe in exhibiting or otherwise publishing them as long as you credit them to "Photograpoher Unknown".
Click to expand...

I agree with Al.
 
I probably could piece together hints to an identity but the negs were purchased 12 years ago and 400 miles away from where I am now. They were discarded once so I'm not sure the family would want them even if I contacted someone.

The photography is definitely vernacular and probably could not be considered art, maybe the print would be?
 
ethically -- claim the printing as your own and the fotos by anonymous. Anything less would be unethical and inappropriate.
 
I've several collections of slides and negatives from unknown sources (bought second hand) plus a massive archive of prints and negatives of London-based photographers 'Studio Briggs' (long out of business).

I've displayed prints and 'PowerPoint' displays using the material explaining the sources of the material and have been pleased by the responses of people to the displays.

I think it is well worth printing out and exploring the photography of former ages for people to enjoy and be intrigued by.

Any chances of posting some of the pictures in due course?

Regards

Andrew More
 
First, there is no assumption the work was abandoned by the photographer, you have no idea how the items got to the thrift shop.

Second, your intentions seem reasonable, so I do not see someone coming after you however you use the negatives. I would think the copyright would remain with the photographer, but I also think some others should certainly know more about "fair use" than I, and what ownership of the negatives actually means legally.

IMO, your best attempts at attribution should be sufficient indication of reasonable intent.

There was a new bill that would allow use of "abandoned" images, but I heard it was not passed.

Evidently a record company thinks I "abandoned" a photograph when I gave a print to the artist, and I guess I can claim I shot an album cover, but my name is no where in sight. Steve Goodman tragically died young of cancer, and I am not planning on doing more than the unanswered letter I sent when I spotted the photo on his tribute album. ;-)

Another web site is full of my unattributed photos, but again, not worth it to stir up a storm with a non profit, though I have asked a number of times for attribution.

I guess I get no respect. ;-)

Probably would be fine if someone like you found my negatives down the pike a bit. How many N's in Anonymous, if you change your name to Anonymous are you still anonymous?

Regards, John
 
Last edited:
JohnTF said:
Another web site is full of my unattributed photos, but again, not worth it to stir up a storm with a non profit, though I have asked a number of times for attribution.

I guess I get no respect. ;-)
Click to expand...

They may be a non-profit, but that doesn't give them license to steal. This has happened to me a number of times. In once case it was a non-profit that promoted views that were pretty much opposite of my own. In every case, I went after them and got my work off their website. Sometimes this required a bit of detective work.
 
Nothing wrong with printing someone else's negatives, as long as you don't mis-represent the photographer. (Interpret that how you wish, but use care.)
 
Pablito said:
They may be a non-profit, but that doesn't give them license to steal. This has happened to me a number of times. In once case it was a non-profit that promoted views that were pretty much opposite of my own. In every case, I went after them and got my work off their website. Sometimes this required a bit of detective work.
Click to expand...

I probably should not grouse about it, a friend was in charge of it, but had someone else set the site up. I have asked him for years to change the credit, and he agreed, but never did it. They gave me some expense money, but was for prints, and they later scanned them for the site. Dealing with friends is a sticky situation, but it is disappointing when you point out some courtesy and legal issues and it falls on deaf ears.

I spent more on a 50mm lens to shoot the exhibit than they paid me of course.

They republished poor copies of some work I gave them for the first edition of their textbook, in the second edition, without asking. I guess they are getting used to getting things for nothing.

Third edition, they finally asked for permission, and gave credit.

They really do not understand that they do not own the copyrights. Still a bit sore about it. Any more dealings are more than a verbal agreement.

Regards, John
 
capitalK said:
I'm not saying I am going to print from them, this is more of a "what if" scenario.

Being in my 30's I obviously can't claim the photos as my own... nor would I. Could I claim the prints as my own or is the artist the photographer him/herself? Are they considered found art? Should they just sit in the cans to rot with no one but myself to enjoy them?

Any thoughts on the matter are appreciated.
Click to expand...

Printing (I'm talking about darkroom printing) is a different artistic endeavor than producing a negative, IMHO.

Because you can create so many different prints from a negative that don't look anything similar to one another. This is where artistic interpretation comes into play.

So, to me, it's perfectly legitimate to credit yourself for the print, but also prefix it by "Photo by unknown" or "Photo by anonymous" when situation arises where you have to give account on the origin of the photo or print.
 
andrewmore said:
Any chances of posting some of the pictures in due course?
Click to expand...

I may scan them soon. They are good for kitsch value. One B&W that looks like it's from the 50's has a man in a suit standing proudly with one hand resting on his new television. There's a boxing match on the set.

Some others has views of what looks like post-war Chicago.
 
Surely you would hang photographs by other photographers in your house, right?

It's irrelevant that you printed them - it's still a photograph by someone else and hence I don't see the issue with printing them (atleast for personal use) as long as attribution is given and not mis-represented.
 
Interesting, the Cleveland Press went out of business. Their photographs were sent to Cleveland State University, and became public domain, and as the library is publicly funded, anyone can use it.

I know of a people who have used them in various projects, publication of books, probably elsewhere as well.

My late uncle cataloged and donated his studio's negatives and prints to an institute in Mexico City a few years before he died. You have to use their computers to access the collection.

In the first case, many years of work is now public domain, the second, access is very controlled.

Two approaches.

Regards, John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom