Reproduce 20x24 Photograph

[brofkand]

OK, so I have a photograph (it is 20x24) of my great grandmother that was taken by Olan Mills in 1989. It is mounted on canvas with a clear-coat to look like brush strokes. I want to make an exact replica of the original for my grandfather, but I probably won't try to reproduce the brush strokes. It's tacky to me.

First of all, can I legally reproduce the image? If so, what would be the best way to do so. I know how to glue the photograph to the canvas, my only speed bumps right now are my rights to reproduce the image and the best way to do it.

I have access to a locally owned camera shop in Charlotte, NC, so I could use them (I'm assuming they could copy something that big). Or, would it be possible to just hang up the portrait, and using a tripod and a prime lens (and a 3-way flash arrangement to obliterate shadows)?

I would like to clean up the image quite a bit before re-printing (leaving the original as it is); it's been hanging in a home that was heavily smoked in for many many years, so there is a LOT of tar build-up on the image and canvas.

 

[garysamson]

Why not go back to Olan Mills and have a new print made if that is at all possible. The image is most likely protected by copyright laws and you would need permission to have it copied. For the very best reproduction a view camera should be used with polarizing filters on both the lights and the lens. The lights should be set at a 45 degree angle to the artwork and evenly illuminate the work. Good luck.

 

[viridari]

+1

Photographer owns the copyright to that photograph. It wouldn't be legal or ethical for you to duplicate it. Olan Mills may very well still have the negatives.

 

[brofkand]

I'm not planning on doing anything illegal. I wouldn't like it if someone illegally reproduced one of my images.

It seemed like I read or heard somewhere that Olan Mills photographs could be legally reproduced without permission after a certain number of years had passed. It could very well have been false, I don't know.

 

[Ian Grant]

Not sure about the US, but Olan Mills went bankrupt in the UK. The business was bought by another company that may have some bearing on the Copyright issue.

In the case of companies like Olan Mills the copyright normally belongs to the company, not the Photographer. The company may only keep the negatives for a few years, and so waive copyright after a period of time to allow copies to be made.

In fact Olan Mills do have a policy, and you can pay for a Copyright release to allow legal copies of images more than two years old. That seems to indicatenegatives/image files are only retained for two years.

Ian

 

[2F/2F]

You can do whatever the heck you want with it, including copying it for your use! Obviously you would get the best quality from the original neg., and I would contact them if you want a print of the greatest quality, but you can get a fine copy off of that print. For your use, the copyright issue is no issue at all. Olan Mills is not even going to know, let alone do anything to you. The biggest issue is the quality issue: The fact that it is on canvas, that it has that godforsaken fake brushstroke stuff, and that it is covered with cigarette smoke deposits. These textures will show up in any copy that you make. Minimizing them will be the biggest obstacle here.

The size will also be an issue. It pretty much dictates that you must photograph the print to copy it, instead of scanning it.

I would try cleaning up a test area on the side of the canvas before trying it on the whole surface. Assuming it is an RA print mounted to canvas and then clearcoated with a synthetic resin, it should clean up just fine with a dilute form of some sort of household cleaner. However, be sure to test first, as I have no specific knowledge of what material is used for these sorts of clearcoats. If it was actual lacquer, you don't want to get it wet.

To copy the pic yourself, I would recommend Fuji or Kodak ISO 64 tungsten-balanced film; the bigger the better. It is available in every standard U.S. size up to 8x10 (except 5x7 and perhaps 220). After getting the transparency back, you have it scanned to the size your printer recommends, make any desired adjustments, and send it to the printer.

If 3200K hot lights are not available, one ghetto technique that I have found works quite well to shoot copies of large paintings is to take the pix in a darkened room with the curtains drawn, or with the lighting arranged in any way that is even and indirect. Having the painting backlit by windows, with a white wall behind you is the best, as all light hitting the painting is bounced off of that wall, and you have a decent idea of the color temp. The problem is that you need to rent a color meter for this, and you need a full compliment of CC filters, since color temps are all over the place depending on the colors of the curtains and the paint. You can sort of fudge the correct filtration if you have a digital camera that shoots raw and a laptop handy, but you still need the CC filters.

 

[ic-racer]

First of all, can I legally reproduce the image?

Yes!

 

[brofkand]

Yes!

Do you have any proof that I can reproduce the image? If so, I'll take it to the camera shop tomorrow and have the print made.

 

[2F/2F]

Do you have any proof that I can reproduce the image? If so, I'll take it to the camera shop tomorrow and have the print made.

Jesus H. Christ, just do it. This is not the place to ask anyhow.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I have never understood the idea of the photographer retaining reproduction rights for a photograph made to order. If it was a work for hire then whoever did the hiring owns the work. Though it seems in the wedding trade the photographs are under priced with expectation of re-print orders - to my mind it would be better if the work were priced honestly and the rights to the image the property of the hiring party.

Obviously, the _photographer_ who worked for Olan Mills has no right to the image...and frankly he shouldn't. And neither should Olan Mills.

 

[michaelbsc]

Do you have any proof that I can reproduce the image? If so, I'll take it to the camera shop tomorrow and have the print made.

You probably can't sell the image, but you're a pretty bad grandchild if you're trying to sell it to your grandfather. Besides that, other than your family, who would buy it, unless your grandmother coincidentally happens to be someone famous? I loved my granny, but if I lost her picture in a bus station in Kansas I'm sure it would end up in the trash can eventually.

Like 2F/2F says, no one cares. Period. *NO ONE* And as Nicholas says, it was work for hire, not an artistic production, so if the super-copyright police are tapping your phone lines and bust the door down when they find out, then you've got a reasonable defense in the tribunal. (Just don't look at the lights during the tortured confession attempt and you'll be OK. Trust me. I'm a secret agent in my delusions.)

 

[Ian Grant]

Copying the image infringes copyright full stop. It's not a case of no-one caring, in this case Olan Mills have an official policy and will allow legal copying for a small fee.

In reality no-one cares or can police it if you copy images yourself and make new prints, however Professional labs or small minilabs normally have strict policy on copying images unless you can provide proof you own the copyright or sign a waiver absolving them of any wrong doing.

Would you like someone making copies of one of your prints and making money by do it, this is no different.

Ian

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Obviously, the _photographer_ who worked for Olan Mills has no right to the image...and frankly he shouldn't. And neither should Olan Mills.

That's funny, because unless you made arraingements to purchase the rights to the image from them, Olan Mills most certainly still owns the copyright.

When I was married, I purchased 10 negs from the company I hired to take the photos (they kept the other negs and the rights to the other negs). I now own those 10 images and I can do as I wish with them.

 

[wogster]

You probably can't sell the image, but you're a pretty bad grandchild if you're trying to sell it to your grandfather. Besides that, other than your family, who would buy it, unless your grandmother coincidentally happens to be someone famous? I loved my granny, but if I lost her picture in a bus station in Kansas I'm sure it would end up in the trash can eventually.

Like 2F/2F says, no one cares. Period. *NO ONE* And as Nicholas says, it was work for hire, not an artistic production, so if the super-copyright police are tapping your phone lines and bust the door down when they find out, then you've got a reasonable defense in the tribunal. (Just don't look at the lights during the tortured confession attempt and you'll be OK. Trust me. I'm a secret agent in my delusions.)

Okay, lets look at it from the other direction, suppose you have a portrait studio business, which consists mostly of little old ladies wanting portraits done for their grandchildren. If one of those people wants a copy done, would you rather they come back to you for the copy, or go to some lab and get a copy print done. Would you rather they at least ask your permission before copying it?

Copy right is just that, a right to copy, it's granted and protected by law, while those laws vary slightly by country, most Western countries signed an agreement called the Berne Convention, which means that a copyright granted by one signatory country is legally binding in all signatory countries.

If the copyright holder is willing to grant a right to copy to others, that is their business, and there are a number of ways to do that, Creative Commons is one, a right for a fee is another, and a "go ahead I don't care" is still another. Best if asking for permission to copy, is to make sure all correspondence is written, and keep a paper copy of it in a safe place.

 

[ic-racer]

Come on guys, this is not a commercial interest (at least as described in the OP) No one will be breaking the law.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html