John wrote: > Still, if these are old photos that have been in the family for years & > years, I don't think you're going to have any real problem with someone > suing you for infringement. > > It got me thinking about some family photos I'm currently digitizing > for myself & my three sibs, along with some other photos ... > > My grandmother had a photography studio in Durham, NC from 1900 to > approximately 1930. I have some of her old photos & a few of her > negatives. > > I'm pretty sure my father gave away many of her negatives to a local > photographer in Durham after she passed away in 1959. I have seen > several of her photos published as historic images of Durham with that > photographer taking credit for them. > > At this late date I don't really care if he keeps the negatives, or > that he profits from publishing them, but it does piss me off that he's > taking credit as the author of her work.
All noted. This is a recurring thing with me finding out about how people view family photographs. I think we can assume that everyone here has an interest in them, keeping them and preserving them for future generations. Yet so many don't. One of my friends inherited quite a large collection of pictures from family, and my jaw dropped when he told me that 'the past is the past' and he had binned them. Another had let his family photos go with a house clearance company. Is it just me that finds that bizarre at the least? It's certainly infuriating that someone has passed off the work as his own in your case, but at least they have survived. Malcolm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
