next »

Total Members: 1577
New This Month: 6
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0

Aaron Neville and Sara

Baby boy

3 friends

6354.jpg

[hoodman3]

I think that the lettering in the photo should be removed. I can't imagine those "stamps" can be attractive to anyone. Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Pete

[Mhayes]

Hi Pete,

I agree that the stamping is not attractive. However, the photographer had those put there to keep someone from taking the proof and copying. Even though this appears to be an old picture;  I still think that we should honor the photographer's copyright and let the stamping stay. It will be interesting to see what others on the Forum think.

Margie

[Tess (Tassie D)]

It raises the old question, when does copyright end? If the original photographer is deceased or all the negatives destroyed or lost, does copyright for families pictures still stand?
I did a proof picture a few years back for a friend. It was the only one of sisters to survive the 1967 bushfires. The studio that took it was burned, everything gone and when I restored it the original photographer had died some years back with no living relatives. I took out the proof writing as I was not altering the original, only a copy. It is probably against the law but who would you get permission from? 

[Ausimax]

Hi Margie,

This presents an interesting dilemma, this may be the only photo of that subject that survives, is the photographer still in business? Could a replacement be sourced from him? or permission to modify the photo be granted.

When I was married we had our wedding photos done by a studio, unfortunately we  could not at that time afford to purchase the photos, life and children intervene, then some years later when we could afford them the photographer was no longer in business - we lost the deposit paid and the only wedding photos we have are some  snapshots taken by a friend - who sent us the negatives some 40 years later.

It may be worth contacting the owners to see if they know where the photographer may be contacted.


Max

[Charlene5]

I have the other picture of this baby with the same stamps on it - and the first thing I did was take out the writing.   I'd estimate the photo from the 1930's.  I'm going to look around and see what I can find about the copyright issue.

MJ

I found this and from what I can figure out the copyright has expired.

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

[cmpentecost]

Hi all,

My viewpoint on this is to take out the writing info.  It's obviously an old photo, and my first thought was that perhaps most of her photos were damaged and this is what she has left.  I did speak to this lady to verify her mailing address (this photo and a few others somehow slipped thru the cracks on being restored), and she's an elderly lady who is very excited to get her photos back.

Based on the age appearance of the photos and the fact that I think the owner is elderly, I say "remove the writing".  Let's give her back the best we can do.  Also, considering the way the lettering is imprinted on the photos lends its age.  I've reviewed copyright laws regarding restorations, and it's not like we are giving her something that she will print or make money on.  We are restoring a photo that was damaged by a hurricane, and if it's all she has left...let's give her the best.  If it was a newer portrait, I might look at it differently, but this is obviously nothing new.

Christine

[mschonher]

Amen to that Christine......I'm with you on this one.....mary

[hoodman3]

Thanks for the comments. Some of the letters are in damaged areas so them will make it a bit easier to do the repairs.
Pete

[Hannie]

I'm with Chris on this one too, besides, the owner still has the original complete with lettering and all!

 

Hannie