Unless copyright laws have changed for photographs and negatives, then the article may very well be wrong. Photographs and negatives do not need to be copyrighted at the Copyright Office like books, stories, and poems do - they are automatically ceded to the photographer. However, a photographer has the right to sell the rights to a photograph in several ways. They can sell an individual or firm one-time rights to use an image for a given purpose, they sell the image for limited use, they can sell the image under exclusive rights, meaning that the buyer is the only one who can use the image for the contracted length of time, or they can sell the rights to the photo clear and outright, giving up their own right to the use of the photo.
Right now, there are too many unknowns about how the Ansel Adams negatives got to Southern California. Did a housekeeper or another individual take the plates from Adams' home years ago? Did Adams give or sell the plates to a friend or relative? Did one of his relatives get rid of the plates deeming them of little value? Unless the plates were taken from the home without authorization, it can very well be considered that the plates were given or sold and the rights transferred with them since they are the original plates.
So I am thinking this one is going to be decided in the courts and I think the surviving heirs will have a difficult time proving the current owner does not have rights to them seeing that they obviously didn't know of their existence. But even "IF" the man can rightfully sell prints, they will not be Ansel Adam prints since Ansel Adams did not make the prints. This will limit the value, but considering that Ansel Adams was the photographer of the prints, they will still sell at an incredible price.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Shepherdguy.
Article may have it all wrong?
Right now, there are too many unknowns about how the Ansel Adams negatives got to Southern California. Did a housekeeper or another individual take the plates from Adams' home years ago? Did Adams give or sell the plates to a friend or relative? Did one of his relatives get rid of the plates deeming them of little value? Unless the plates were taken from the home without authorization, it can very well be considered that the plates were given or sold and the rights transferred with them since they are the original plates.
So I am thinking this one is going to be decided in the courts and I think the surviving heirs will have a difficult time proving the current owner does not have rights to them seeing that they obviously didn't know of their existence. But even "IF" the man can rightfully sell prints, they will not be Ansel Adam prints since Ansel Adams did not make the prints. This will limit the value, but considering that Ansel Adams was the photographer of the prints, they will still sell at an incredible price.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Shepherdguy.
Submit a story now.