I was reading a blog the other day about someone going to a major retailer to have old (like from their grandparents) photos scanned. When they went to pick them up, the photo department said they were unable to scan the photos because they were professionally taken and, therefore, copyrighted. All their scans had been deleted and they were returning the photos to them. They were told that if they could secure written permission from the photographer, they could then go ahead and scan them.
These photos were from the early part of the 20th century. They appeared to have been taken by a professional photographer, however, there were no markings on them indicating who took them. But, because they were professionally taken (which, pretty much every photo was at that time since there was no such thing as a point and shoot or a Polaroid camera).
Seriously? It's not like they were stamped "OLAN MILLS" on the back. The photographer was as dead as the grandparents in the photo.
In my own case, the small home-based photographer who took our wedding photos in 1987 went out of business about 10 years ago. I was able to buy the negatives that they could find. But, honestly, they couldn't find very many. So, even though the photographer is out of business, I am stuck never being able to commercially scan or print my wedding photos. I couldn't even find the man if I wanted to. He had a little studio in a converted garage.
Copyright law on photographs can be the life of the photographer plus 70 years. That pretty much means most photos fall under a copyright.
Can we not let reason prevail when it comes to copyrights and photos? Does anyone REALLY think it's possible to hunt down the relatives of a man who took a wedding photo of your grandparents in 1929 to secure permission from his estate to scan and print the photos? If someone brings in professional photos of their family to have scanned and the kids are standing there looking the same as they do in the photos they had taken 2 weeks ago, then I can see requiring a release. But, even then, it's hard to tell. I have a Sony Alpha and took photos of a friend's daughter's wedding a few years ago. I wasn't their professional photographer, but many of my photos looked just as professional. When they went to order copies for the reception, they were questioned at Walgreens. I had to call and tell them I was just a regular person with a camera and that I had emailed those photos to Walgreens to be printed. It's hard to tell what's professionally done and what's just someone's snap shots anymore unless the photo is marked or it's clearly done in a studio setting. So much "professional" photography is done in a casual setting anymore - it often ALL looks like snap shots. For instance, the photo above was from my parents' 50th Wedding Anniversary a year ago. It was my camera on a tripod and a friend pushing the button.
Home scanning has made it harder to enforce this law. And even then, what if I want to scan school photos and have them printed on a digital scrapbook page or in a photobook? Will the company do that if it's for personal use? The digital age has blurred the lines and muddied the waters. How, if I'm a digital scrapper, am I to get my professional photos in my family photo books if I can't have them scanned and printed?
When it comes to photos, especially old ones, we really need to let reason rule the day. We all know what the law is, but sometimes we need to engage our heads, too. We need consumers to be honest and photographers and photo shops to be reasonable so that everyone can use the images that are so precious to us and future generations.
