Hacker News Reader

Comment by tkems | Hacker News Reader

Another issue I've personally run into is historic and family photos. Since the person who took the photo is often the copyright holder, often times old photos with no known information can cause some issues with publishing or archiving.

A more detailed example: I was scanning some family photos (for backup/archive/family use, no publishing as of now) and noticed that several have small stickers marked with copyright notices of the small town photography company that took them. I asked my family members and they said the company is no longer in business, but I worry that those photos will never be able to be published until after well over 100 years after it was taken. How can I track down the copyright for such photos?

View on HN

If you hire a photographer to photograph you, don't you own the copyright as their employer?

Unless they took the photographs for free, the copyright notices they put on them are fraudulent.

It’s very common for portrait photographers to retain the copyright for photos they take, or at least it used to be.

From my understanding, the copyright is held by the photographer unless you have a contract stating such. I was shocked that most wedding photographers consider giving up copyright a deal breaker (unless you pay a huge amount more): https://www.reddit.com/r/WeddingPhotography/comments/10esy2i...

edit: If you are working as a employee (think W-2), it is different. Just hiring someone to take pictures (think 1099/contractor), I think is not covered under the same rules.

All creators maintain copyright in their works, unless its specifically stated that it's a work for hire, or you specifically transfer the copyright in a written document. Copyrights accrue to the creators of things, not the financiers of things. It is often the case that creators of things sell their copyright interest to financiers, so the financiers can capitalize on the exclusive rights the copyright grants.

The short answer: it depends.

The long answer: not unless transfer of copyright was explicitly part of the agreement.

Slightly longer answer:

In most cases nowadays when you hire a photographer, the photographer retains the copyright and will ask a considerable amount to transfer those rights to you. What you’re essentially are paying for is for them to take the photos (cheapest option), for them to print the photos after taking them (slightly more expensive), or for them to hand you the digital photo files (expensive).

Neither of those options transfer copyright, as copyright is in principle granted to the person who takes the photos. Wedding photographers are notorious for monetizing every aspect of the job (I say this without value judgement) for example, where you pay a fee to cover the event, a fee for printing photos and a fee for receiving digital copies (because you don’t have to pay them for printing).

I think you're overthinking this one. Unless those photos are being used commercially somewhere or you have a famous family I doubt you have to worry about anything.

if you're that concerned, crop, or use the newfangled "AI" to fill out the missing parts

So just illegally publish them anyway?

The law should provide a mechanism here, but does not.

agreed, but it doesnt, and so one acts accordingly :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com