I would think that you "Own" the photos and could do with them as you please. Not a legal opinion though, just mine. :-)

I'm not sure about that - while you may own the photograph and use it for personal purposes it's another matter to include it in a publication without written permission from the estate.

Are you working with an editor or agent? They should be able to give you more information.

I doubt it. You'll be profiting off the book that the photos are in. It's the same as if I sent you one of my photos as a gift then you turned around and published it in a book that you are selling. I would imagine I would still retain all rights to the photo.

Nope. Giving you a photograph is much different than giving you publishing rights to the photo.

No.

You own a print of a photograph, autographed.

But you didn't take or print the photo, and neither did the subject, i.e. Isaac Hayes. He bought those photos from the photographer.

The photographer still owns the rights to the photo.

Thanks for the info everyone. Just trying to do everything legally.

SamKaren
your resident DJ

You cannot copy the photo or republish it unless the copyright owner (the photographer or his/her employee, or some other person the IP rights have been assigned to) gives permission.

Well at least I have permission from JP Richardson and Robin Cowsill. So far I have the Big Bopper and The Cowsills...

SamKaren
your resident DJ

You've done a lot of work on this project - I hope you get permission from all the rest!

If you had a print of my picture, you don't own my picture. You own a copy of it. The owner of the picture is the person whose camera took the shot.

Check copyright rules. I think you can unceover these using google. I've heard that for some materials, you'd be safe after the media is over 70 yrs old, but this is hearsay.

For those autographed photos that you were given, I think you need permission to use these for publication/profit.

Again, I too am not a lawyer (although I've never lost a court case I've handled either!), but when I was in photography quite heavily was when the copyright law hoopla started gaining momentum. Generally the person taking the photo has the rights to it unless doing it for someone else, and the subject has rights to their image and likeness, however if the photo was taken in public, the subject loses a lot of control of their image. Then there's another monkey wrench thrown in. If it's being used for profit, that brings in other issues. You can't for instance take a picture of a celebrity using a Blackberry and use it for commercial purposes such as a television ad or something, nor suggest any type of endorsement.

He may well own the rights to the photo since he probably had it taken, paid someone to do it, then the photographer relinquishes rights to it in most cases since s/he is under the employment of the subject. It's always best to get a model release whether you need one or not. That may be all you'd need but you should of course seek advice on it. FWIW when I was doing photography I had a clause in my contract that I could keep and use the photos for promotional purposes.

Try looking at the back of the photo. That old should still have some kind of markings on the back as to the photographer who took the pic. Contact them. They will probably have the rights to the photo. If not, try to contact the estate. If that doesn't work, DO NOT USE THE PHOTO. If you do, it will get you in trouble. DD is a professional photographer, DB is a graphic artist. they have to think about copy rights all the time.

Tami

Don't worry...I am contacting everyone I can think of for permission. But thanks for answering my question.

heard from 3 more today and just waiting for a final yes or no from:

Jim Croce's wife
Stuart Sutcliff's family
Brian Coles son

SamKaren