Copyright is an interesting issue. Duration of copyright is discussed at: http://www.copyrightguru.com/copyright_duration_table.html In the article I saw on the subject, the implication was that at least one of the images corresponded to an image that had been published. If true, then that one is in public domain. If the copyright still pertains to some of the images, then the current owner need only retain the negatives for a set number of years and then copyright expires. There seems to be no question as to the ownership of the negatives - so the Adams Foundation cannot now create a new copyright registration because they will not be able to supply a copy for the registration process. This is one of those very interesting intellectual property issues that comes up from time to time. Assuming the estimate of the value at $200M is even close, then it should just be a matter of the Foundation and the current owner negotiating and appropriate settlement. They both have incentive to do so. The Foundation to get $$$$ right now and the current owner to get $$$ before he dies. Cheers, James -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Dyer-Bennet Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:13 PM To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: what a find On Wed, July 28, 2010 11:22, Karl Shah-Jenner wrote: > gosh! > > http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/picture-this-45-garage-sale-purch ase-worth-200-million/story-e6frfmd9-1225897918042 I'm hearing it asserted online that the family (um, I mean Adams' family) is denying that these are his work; but I can't find any reference to that more authoritative than random people in mailing lists. There's certainly no mention of it on the major Adams web sites, or in articles Google News finds me. Unfortunately, both claims and denials may have more to do with jockeying over money than with trying to determine if the pictures are really by Adams. If the pictures are in fact by Adams, and haven't been published before, it seems like they're still in copyright, and the copyright would be owned by his heirs (or somewhere the copyrights were formally transferred to; copyrights cannot be transferred "informally"), which would seem to interfere with publication by others. However, if the family is actually denying these are Adams' work, then presumably they can't claim copyright ownership.... -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
