Robert Bonomi wrote:
In article ,
lgb wrote:
We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.

Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.

I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
gainful employment.

Copyright law *is* a swamp. Most of the swamp revolves around what
is, and is not, "fair use" exemption, however. You're lucky -- that is
-not- an issue in your situation.

First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
were taken.

True, as far as that goes. *However* subsequent legislation has muddied
the waters _considerably_.

And of course that made it impossible to locate the
photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
permission ...

Unfortunately, irrelevant. "Unable to identify" and/or "unable to contact"
the copyright owner is not a defense to copyright infringement.

... even if they had been copyrighted.

Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.

The professional photographer who took them may have a different viewpoint.
wry grin

Yabbut there needs to be a limit, and it should be specified. As an
example, I've got an old photo of me that my mother used to have. It
was taken when I was 2 or 3 years old by an itinerant pro photographer
who wandered through neighborhoods and showed up at block parties,
always with a pony in train. He'd pop the kid on the pony, shoot a
flash fill photo, get an address and a couple, three bucks, and pop the
next kid on, etc. Pretty good money for the day, really, but that day
was 1940 or 1941.

He's almost certainly dead, but is certainly unlocatable. I live
hundreds of miles away now, etc.

If I wanted, say, WalMart to copy the photo, it's well enough done for
them to be a PITA about it, but the concept that it has commercial
value is slightly ludicrous.

Ah well. Olan Mills just did the photos for a directory at my wife's
church. At their prices, we get just enough for family, period.
Something else that's ludicrous is pay $150 for two or three 5x7s and a
dozen wallet sized photos. If I want more, I'll set up a background in
the shop and do it myself, duplicating the lighting and positioning.
Except my lights are better, as is my camera.