Collecting vintage Silver Gelatin Prints.

[TonyCali2026]

Let me start by saying I don’t know anything about collecting photography except for a recent auction purchase.
I purchased 2 silver Gelatin prints from the 1950’s
Photographer : Andre De Dienes
Subject: Actress Anita Ekberg
Both stamped on the back:
Photographers name and address
“Photograph us on loan for one reproduction right only. To be returned after use”

What exactly did I purchase? The sole photo that no one else owns? Or one of many?

 

[jvo]

the photo was produced by the photographer for single usage, say, printed in a magazine, or an ad. It was then supposed to be returned to the photographer or agent so it wouldn't be used again. The one-time use is indicative of how much the photographer got paid. There could have been hundreds of these made and sent to every magazine, agency, movie studio, or newspaper in the country, only 1, or something in-between - the first being most likely. More research might show whether it's collectible.

I'm not a lawyer, but the restrictions certainly applied to the original recipient of the photograph. I don't know whether they would pass to you. The photographer does show up in a search - is there trust/foundation acting to preserve his work and would want to enforce the restrictions? They may have clearer answers to your questions but you may also be opening a can of worms. If the photograph and photographer are really significant or you paid a lot or bought for investment you may want to do that. If you like the photograph and bought it because you like it and know her as an actress of note, I'd put it on the wall enjoy it and pursue it no further.

 

[MarkS]

It's probable that many prints were made, and it's unknowable how many survive.
It's also likely that the copyright still holds, at least you should assume that.
You're welcome to own and display the print, but you cannot reproduce it, or sell its use. You can sell the print as an object, but the reproduction rights to the image likely belong to the creator.
Copyright law in the USA is complex, but that's a good starting point.
Have a look at asmp.org for more clarity.

 

[Don_ih]

George Zimbel had a drawn out argument about a copy of this photo

that he gave to the New York Times on a reproduction loan. They eventually returned it to him. It was likely pretty common to send prints with the understanding that the ownership of the print itself still resided with the photographer/printer/agency. So, looks like you have a stolen print.

 

[MattKing]

So, looks like you have a stolen print.

Or perhaps a "converted" print .
In other words, you could be sued for doing something with it.