[HN Gopher] Who owns Mike Disfarmer's photographs?
___________________________________________________________________
Who owns Mike Disfarmer's photographs?
Author : null_object
Score : 16 points
Date : 2021-07-19 07:43 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com)
| pwned1 wrote:
| The guy's been dead for 62 years with no heirs. Now someone wants
| to cash in. This is where the original intent of copyright comes
| in... "to promote the arts and sciences." Well, since the guy who
| created the photos isn't here anymore, and hasn't been for 62
| years, let's ask ourselves how someone cashing in on this now
| promotes the arts and sciences.
| ljp_206 wrote:
| Somewhat related, Disfarmer's photos were the inspiration for the
| album 'Disfarmer' by Bill Frisell. The album is a beautiful piece
| of era-spanning Americana, almost like a concept album. It's also
| a master class in leitmotif; the art of creating and re-using
| themes. I highly recommend it to anyone fond of introspective
| music.
| blunte wrote:
| Never married, never had children, didn't leave a will. The
| courts decided who owned his works, and that's that.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Weren't they purchased from the bank after the studio was
| foreclosed on by the mayor for 5$? How can it be anyone else's
| property after that?
| [deleted]
| t0mbstone wrote:
| Maybe the argument is that the bank never had the right to sell
| the copyright in the first place?
|
| The whole story just reeks of greed to me. My personal opinion
| is that the photos should be in the public domain.
|
| America's copyright system is so broken and stupid, it's
| pathetic.
| woliveirajr wrote:
| > In 1976, an overhaul of the Copyright Act enshrined stronger
| protections. Today, artists generally receive copyrights to
| their works by default; after they die, the protections pass to
| their heirs for seventy years. During that period, whether
| you've purchased a negative for pennies at an estate sale or a
| print for millions at Christie's, simply owning a physical
| image does not entitle you to reproduce it in any form.
|
| Well, the mayor that bought it, did before such law. His rights
| to the photos should be considered according to the law that
| was "available" at the time.
| leeter wrote:
| IANAL, but the publication of the work is when the copyright
| timer starts under the '76 act IIRC. However, and this is a
| big however, because the (re)publisher is not the artist and
| the pre '76 act did not have automatic default copyright;
| there is a VERY good argument that it's either public domain
| or falls under Arkansas local copyright law (which I don't
| know anything about). I'd say the heirs have a tenuous
| federal claim at best (again, not a lawyer). But they may
| have better luck in state court due to common law rulings.
| Either way it's likely to turn into an expensive hot mess.
| Finnucane wrote:
| Ownership of the plates and ownership of the copyrights are
| separate issues. Did the bank legally own everything in the
| shop when the building was about to be torn down? If you could
| argue they didn't (and a lawyer would) then the sale to mayor
| would not be valid.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Article without paywall: https://archive.is/D7h5b
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-20 23:02 UTC)