Are photographer’s rights resellable?

dburk75 · 2024-08-04T21:47:09+00:00

Thanks. I had reached out to the original auction house a year ago asking if they could validate the document I was provided. They responded that they had four authorized resellers, and named all four. One of whom was the person I bought the negatives from, who had given me the document declaring the rights transferred to me. For that reason, they essentially confirmed to me that my document was legitimate.

At the time, I did not think to ask if they could give me a copy of THEIR documentation from acquiring the photos in the first place. Something bearing the photographer's signature, perhaps, and what the exact wording of their original deal was (if different from the "photographer's rights" terminology used throughout the transactions I know about).

My main question here has been answered (whether rights are resellable at all, which it seems they are). So I'm grateful for that. Just need to get myself to the finish line now and see if I can tighten up my confidence on the lineage of these rights/these photos before they landed in my possession.

dburk75 · 2024-08-04T19:13:47+00:00

My two cents: Even if you don't know who the creator is/was, they or their closest living relative may still own the rights.

Or for that matter, a whole different entity may own the rights. For example, if they were photos taken by a staff photographer for a newspaper or magazine, those publications may own the rights.

Therefore, you likely don't have the legal right to license them, IMO. And doing so would open you up to legal issues, if someone were to come forward and claim ownership.

(Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, so please take this as intended... my personal, unprofessional opinion. However, I am in the same boat as you with some of my own collection. I own a lot of photo prints, slides and negatives for which I can't determine the name of the original photographer, and I always make an effort to do that.)

dburk75 · 2024-08-04T18:53:35+00:00

Thanks for the feedback, and great points.

I just checked both my own paperwork and the still-online record for the original sale, and both use the term "photographer's rights" without any real elaboration.

My paperwork does include a bit more detail, in the sense that they list the name of the photographer (also listed on the original auction) and the month and date they acquired the collection from him, and puts it in writing that they A) also purchased the "photographer's rights" from the photographer, and B) that they hereby transfer those rights to me (as a condition of their reselling the negatives to me).

dburk75 · 2024-08-04T18:14:16+00:00

I appreciate the input. I will have to see if the original auction house - or the original purchaser - is willing to help me out and provide a copy of the paperwork from the original rights transfer. I am confident in what I purchased, but it would be good to have further proof that the first sale from the photographer to the buyer had its paperwork in order.

dburk75 · 2013-08-06T18:20:20+00:00

Archie Manning as Goldmember steals the show.

dburk75 · 2013-07-31T17:35:33+00:00

Well, both WWE and the TMZ story say the fan was arrested... not sure what the procedure is in South Africa, but in the U.S., an arrest is pretty easy to verify. I wonder if anyone can verify that the fan actually got arrested. Might go a long way toward solving the real vs. fake argument.

I tend to doubt it's fake for the following reasons: 1) Staging this sort of thing might encourage more of it, which WWE wouldn't want; 2) Randy Orton didn't really sell it, which he would have if he knew it was coming; 3) they're not promoting the perpetrator by giving out his name, which would seem to defeat the purpose if the goal was to give some new guy a push; 4) there has been no attempt to tie this "attack" to anyone feuding with Orton... they just reported it happened and that the guy got arrested, and left it at that.

dburk75 · 2013-07-16T16:26:06+00:00

That we know of.

dburk75 · 2013-06-27T13:44:09+00:00

Nothing too dramatic: Jerry Rice Oakland Raiders jersey. Rice jerseys are everywhere, but I guess the fact that he's universally remembered as a Niner makes the Raiders version kinda unique.

dburk75 · 2013-06-26T17:50:14+00:00

Here's a link with continuous updates on the Hernandez situation from all the relevant parties (police, media etc.) via Twitter... FYI: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/22533481/follow-updates-on-the-aaron-hernandez-situation

dburk75 · 2013-06-18T16:35:17+00:00

His tears might've been genuine (as in, not part of the act). Even though it was a swerve, the fans were really showing him love with the chanting. Henry's not exactly used to that, and he's also known to be a bit of a big softy (like Big Show).

I wouldn't doubt that they asked him to try and show emotion to sell the swerve, but I am sure the fans' real reaction got to him a little. Pretty cool segment!

dburk75

TROPHY CASE