Question about copyright

[Vafann]

I don´t know if this is the right place to ask about this, but I couldn´t find a forum place for this particular question.

I have just gotten an old scrapbook from my mother, it must be at least 50-55 years old. When she was young she would cut out pictures of movie stars and things from newspapers and magazines and glue them into it.

Now I want to scan them, they are really cool, and then use them for photoshop projects. What I´m wondering is if there could be a chance that these still have some kind of copyright or something on them?

I don´t want to work on something then find out that I can´t use it. Since they have been published in really old newspapers, they should be ok to use shouldn´t they? / Vafann

 

[JgraphNet]

Tricky one there, Vafann, and to make it even more trickier there's a difference between Swedish copyright laws and ditto in other countries. I would think it's the copyright laws that exists in the country where you as the artist live in that applies to you.
You just have to try to find as much info on the subject as you can and try to sort it out from there, unless people from diverse countries can contribute with knowledge...

 

[Vafann]

Thank you JGN, what I´ve found so far is confusing, I´ll have to keep looking. What I´ve found says that here in Sweden, a work of art of some kind is protected until 70 years after the artists death. But it also says that a photograph that doesn´t count as a photographic work of art is protected for 50 years since it was made. I suppose that the copyright or liscense on the pictures I want to use were given to the newspaper that printed them, but I don´t know....ugh....

I on the other hand just bought a photoshop magazine where they suggest that you look around different antique shops and things for old magazines to use and cut pictures out of and use as projects, I think it would be strange if they suggested something like that if it wasn´t ok, they chould know these things one would think. sigh... / Vafann

 

[JgraphNet]

Don't think the copyright was given to the newspaper. Some kind of license - like "publishing rights" on one ocation - yes.
Yeah, I know it's a difficult situation and it all also depends of what kind of publishing you intend to do. If the work is to be considered as personal or if it's for for a larger audience. I don't think you intend to do printed matter in the range of thousands of copies, so we can at least rule printing licens out.

 

[SeniorS]

I asked my boss that question and he said that copyright belongs to photo author if it wasn't special order from magazine to that photgraph in that case copyright goes to magazine.
So if you use it for commercial purpose then probably you violate copyright but chance that you get caught using 50year old photo isn't big i think.
About how old should be material to be 100% legal to use, don't know.

Here what wiki said (that is copied about United Kindom):

"Copyright can subsist in an original photograph, i.e. a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film.[12] Whilst photographs are classified as artistic works, the subsistence of copyright does not depend on artistic merit.[12] The owner of the copyright in the photograph is the photographer – the person who creates it,[13] by default.[14] However, where a photograph is taken by an employee in the course of employment, the first owner of the copyright is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.[15]
Copyright which subsists in a photograph protects not merely the photographer from direct copying of his work, but also from indirect copying to reproduce his work, where a substantial part of his work has been copied.
Copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies.[16] A consequence of this lengthy period of existence of the copyright is that many family photographs which have no market value, but significant emotional value, remain subject to copyright, even when the original photographer cannot be traced, has given up photography, or died (a problem known as copyright orphan). In the absence of a licence, it will be an infringement of copyright in the photographs to copy them.[17] As such, scanning old family photographs to a digital file for personal use is prima facie an infringement of copyright."

check yourself out Photography and the law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia