I've been digitizing and colourizing some old photos. I've been considering selling some of them on Alamy (or similar) but I suspect the better ones were taken by professional photographers. What do you think? Would it be too much of a liberty?
If they're someone else's photos, they're not yours to edit let alone sell.
Would Alamy touch them without knowing you held the copyright?
SimonHendy said
If they're someone else's photos, they're not yours to edit let alone sell.
Would Alamy touch them without knowing you held the copyright?
Maybe I didn't make it clear that they are not photos I found online or in some public place but were taken for family members and I own the physical photos. In most cases, I'm pretty sure there are no other copies anywhere. It's also possible that they were not taken by a professional photographer but by another family member.
Legally? You need to acquaint yourself with the legal concepts of copyright and 'fair use'. And be prepared to back down or lawyer up - and possibly shell out - if the photographer or their family come after you.
Morally and artistically? In a very few cases I feel old photographs take on new meaning or relevance when "colorised" or given similar treatment. A very, very few. In all other cases I'd really rather people didn't tinker with artefacts from the past. The usual retort is "but the original is still out there" but my own experience suggests that a gradual process of replacement occurs.
Short version - if you didn't take the picture or the original photographer hasn't given you a licence to use the images in that way then you are in the wrong. Owning the physical photos doesn't give you carte blanche to do as you please. Doing it for your own personal enjoyment is one thing, but as soon as you put it into the public domain & particularly commercialising it you cross the line.
The laws around found photos are laws of copyright. You own the print, you may own the negative, you do not own the copyright, which may or may not have expired.
In many cases the copyright of photographs like these in the UK actually has expired, due to some weird quirks of changing copyright laws; it's not as simple as life plus XX years. In fact, for some period of time it is "date of capture plus fifty years".
See the link below, which caveats that photos taken for publications (work for hire) in this sort of window of time are likely still in copyright to the publication.
So there's a good chance that the photograph above would be in the public domain already, were it not for the fact that it looks rather professional and is probably in the archive of some publication. Though again the article above suggests that there may be overriding precedents from earlier Acts.
Good links on that page to details of earlier Acts.
Personally I am with Photowallah on colourisation. I think it doesn't add much, and in some situations (for example, colourising photographs of non-white people) it can distort history in a way that is complex and troublesome.
Edited by Unfocussed Mike
There's a guy on twitter I follow who colourises images...
https://ko-fi.com/babelcolour
Not 100% sure of the copyright of those he does do, but if as you say, the copyright isn't an issue as you are the owner, then why not - test the water and see what happens
Edited by BigBaldTone
Edited by BigBaldTone
Colourisation absolutely has a place in history. Particularly ww1 and ww2 if you have relatives that served and grew up in those eras it brings it to life.
You just have to watch ww1 in colour to realise that. Life then and now wasn't black and white it was full colour in many many ways
Edited by Allesandro B
Edited by Allesandro B
Out of interest, what are your colour references?
Do you have archive materials to indicate colours or are they your own interpretation?
B
It's important to understand that even if you own a physical artwork, you don't automatically own the copyright for the artwork. Whether you buy a painting, photographic negative or print, you don't have any right to make copies of it - unless you have that in writing. This was a real money maker for wedding photographers for example - even though you hired them to shoot the wedding, you couldn't print more copies of the photos you bought, you had to buy additional prints from the photographer.
BigBaldTone I'm tempted to test the waters.
I've had my own copyright photos used without permission and found that there was little I could do - at best I got the photos removed from the website they were on but never received compensation.
Buddygb that photo was my own interpretation/ guess.
If the photo features army uniforms or anything similar I do a bit of googling to try to find out what to do.
