Photograph copyright question

[Valmy]

I know we have discussed the crazy copyright laws in the US before so I thought I would ask here.

Ok so I have all these old family photographs from 19th century Maryland.   They are filled with men with incredible 19th century facial hair and women with glamorous and impractical 19th century hoop skirts and gaudy Victorian furniture.  They have been passed down for generations and I have always been quite fond of them.

But I have noticed that scans of these photos are showing up on the internet from other people's collections.  What is bizarre is that there will be a picture of some long dead relative of mine with the caption like this:

© Photo used with permission of The Maryland Historical Society (or whomever)

This blows me away.  Some of the people in these photos have been dead for over 140 years, and so surely has the photographer.  Is it actually possible that somebody else owns the rights to these photos that I have hanging on the walls of my house?   I hope it is just people being paranoid and covering their bases.  It just seems so ridiculous.

[PRC]

The people who posted the photo may have gained a digital copy or scanned copy from The Maryland Historical Society.  The acknowledgement might just be a nod to the fact they gained their copy from that source.

This anecdote is Canadian, but I recently bought a similarly aged oversize print for exhibition from the Glenbow Museum in Calgary and they requested that I acknowledge they provided the copy during said exhibition. 

[Valmy]

The people who posted the photo may have gained a digital copy or scanned copy from The Maryland Historical Society.  The acknowledgement might just be a nod to the fact they gained their copy from that source.

This anecdote is Canadian, but I recently bought a similarly aged oversize print for exhibition from the Glenbow Museum in Calgary and they requested that I acknowledge they provided the copy during said exhibition. 

Now if it was just an acknowledgment I could see that.  It is the little © icon that is puzzling me.  Generally that means copyright.

[mongers]

The people who posted the photo may have gained a digital copy or scanned copy from The Maryland Historical Society.  The acknowledgement might just be a nod to the fact they gained their copy from that source.

This anecdote is Canadian, but I recently bought a similarly aged oversize print for exhibition from the Glenbow Museum in Calgary and they requested that I acknowledge they provided the copy during said exhibition. 

Now if it was just an acknowledgment I could see that.  It is the little © icon that is puzzling me.  Generally that means copyright.

Perhaps the digitization creates a new 'work of art', particularly if the original image has been modified by digitally restoration work ? 

[Syt]

I know that some museums justify the copyright of their digital images that way - the painting itself (say, by Rembrandt) is not copyrighted, but the photograph of it is.

[CountDeMoney]

Call them and just ask.

http://www.mdhs.org/museum/rights-reproductions

Last I checked, the Maryland Historical Society does not have a tactical team, nor the ability to conduct drone attacks.  As far as Texas, anyway.

[Scipio]

The people who posted the photo may have gained a digital copy or scanned copy from The Maryland Historical Society.  The acknowledgement might just be a nod to the fact they gained their copy from that source.

This anecdote is Canadian, but I recently bought a similarly aged oversize print for exhibition from the Glenbow Museum in Calgary and they requested that I acknowledge they provided the copy during said exhibition. 

Now if it was just an acknowledgment I could see that.  It is the little © icon that is puzzling me.  Generally that means copyright.

Perhaps the digitization creates a new 'work of art', particularly if the original image has been modified by digitally restoration work ?

Mongers is correct.  This is an area of copyright law and trademark law I have recently been researching, due to client design questions.  Digital modification of an owned, original discrete reproduction that is in the public domain conveys a copyright in the modified image only. It's a highly complicated, nuanced, and undeveloped area of the law, but generally, this appears to be accepted by the circuit courts.  I'm not sure that the Supremes have been as broad in their interpretation, but on balance, I would expect this interpretation to be validated.

[Josquius]

Is it the mere act of digitising which creates a new copyright or do they have to do some sort of enhancment/alteration?

[CountDeMoney]

Is it the mere act of digitising which creates a new copyright or do they have to do some sort of enhancment/alteration?

It's more about the creation of an image a new medium than it is a reproduction of one.  Similar to how a screenplay based on a book is a wholly different media creation from the book itself.

[Rasputin]

Generally speaking 25 years after the death of the creator of the original work it's in the public domain. Once someone adds some original creative twist to it there may be some protection on the new modified work but these are very thin copyright claims and in most cases would not get protection. It really depends heavily on the facts of a specific case. If all I did was scan the original photo I'll have no protection. If I run it through photoshop and give them all zz top style beards guitars and funny captions which image I then put on a birthday card that birthday card image is likely protectable.

[ulmont]

Generally speaking 25 years after the death of the creator of the original work it's in the public domain.

I think you meant to say 70 years.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/302

[The Minsky Moment]

What Rasputin said.

A lot of museums are in the habit of slapping copyright notices on any reproductions of their collections whether or not the reproduction is protectible or not.  It is kind of understandable because the rules are not entirely clear about where the line is drawn.

[Rasputin]

Generally speaking 25 years after the death of the creator of the original work it's in the public domain.

I think you meant to say 70 years.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/302

It actually depends in part on when the work was created but you are correct for a work created today.

[Valmy]

Thanks guys that was really helpful 

[Brazen]

Generally speaking 25 years after the death of the creator of the original work it's in the public domain.

I think you meant to say 70 years.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/302

It actually depends in part on when the work was created but you are correct for a work created today.

Currently 50 years in the UK, but from 1 November it will be 70 years in accordance with an EU directive, although this hasn't been ratified by Parliament yet.