Still a Life

[Arthur Deomi]

I think we all are talking about different things: most people in this thread are interested in aspects of privacy, ancestry, family 'dignity' - which, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the real 'Snapshotry', i.e. the happenstance of inadvertent taking of a picture. These are very separate topics, but somehow, for whatever reason, they have become conflated. Also, it's not about the heritage of one photographer like Vivian Maier, but about an infinite collection of unpretentious, spur-of-the-moment amateurs.

 

[Rayt]

You are preserving old photos of historic significance otherwise destroyed so I applaud your efforts. There are no copyright issues as far as I know and if I see any of my relatives in your posts I would be grateful someone has something I would treasure. I assume the fact you are selling copies might irk people and I understand this. I’d rather see these photos in a museum but maybe you will do that one day if any are interested.

 

[Arthur Deomi]

You are preserving old photos of historic significance otherwise destroyed so I applaud your efforts. There are no copyright issues as far as I know and if I see any of my relatives in your posts I would be grateful someone has something I would treasure. I assume the fact you are selling copies might irk people and I understand this. I’d rather see these photos in a museum but maybe you will do that one day if any are interested.

Thanks. But historic significance FOR ME lies only in preserving masterpieces of the photographic medium - the works that occurred in the vernacular side of photo art.

 

[Arthur Deomi]

Ask yourself how you'd feel. Most people probably wouldn't be happy about seeing their immediate family spread around like that - less upset about more distant relatives. But what is that feeling, anyway? Is it humility or embarrassment and should such feeling actually matter in this instance? You know if the photos are of your parents/siblings/children/cousins - most people who see the photos won't.

What if some relative took a wonderful, amazingly artistic photo of your mother, but nobody at the time recognized the greatness of that shot? Time flew by, and years later a collector with a keen eye for photography discovered this photo in a heap of old mementos at a flea market. He popularized it, and suddenly you found it on the internet or in a book — this overwhelmingly beautiful portrait of your mother. Would you be angry, happy, proud? Would you be upset about seeing your mom as Mona Lisa, even though it was taken from your family's old album without your knowledge?

 

[MattKing]

And what if you came upon some of the photos in your "Love" thread and saw a photo of your wife with someone who you thought was her boss, not her lover?

 

[Arthur Deomi]

From my family photo album?

 

[Arthur Deomi]

What does it have to do with me finding anonymous photos?
What would the difference be in a case where I'd found an online photo of a kissing couple - taken by a modern-day Robert Doisneau (just not staged) - and it was my wife and her boss?

 

[Don_ih]

In other words, if you don't know who is in the photos, you have no idea whether there is anyone associated with them who would be extremely angry at their dissemination.

More unlikely the older the photos are.

 

[Don_ih]

Also, it's not about the heritage of one photographer like Vivian Maier, but about an infinite collection of unpretentious, spur-of-the-moment amateurs.

But it is. If your family snapshot photos have the same artistic merit as Vivian Maier's photos and become just as desirable, the same issue will likely arise. No one recognizes the photos you sell because almost no one in the world even sees them. Consider that, if your most popular reprint sells 30000 copies, that counts as almost no one in the world seeing it. Vivian Maier's visibility is leagues beyond that.

He popularized it, and suddenly you found it on the internet or in a book — this overwhelmingly beautiful portrait of your mother. Would you be angry, happy, proud? Would you be upset about seeing your mom as Mona Lisa, even though it was taken from your family's old album without your knowledge?

I would likely not have a problem with it. But I (or some relative - whoever took the photo's descendant) would have an claim of ownership if I (or they) decided to chase it. Would that be worthwhile? In 999999 out of 1000000 cases, no.

I actually have a very pretty photo of a mother taken by her son that likely no one else has, in a pile of negatives I received when I bought a bunch of other stuff. It genuinely is a great photo. You can see the affection in her expression. The guy who took the photo (I figured out who he was) died and his family sold a bunch of his stuff. They likely didn't know that was in there. I tried to contact his sister through Facebook to give her a scan, but that didn't work. Will I sell it? No. I can make pretty good darkroom prints, but I have no interest in trying to sell anything I don't own. I own the negative. I don't own what's on it. I'd give the image away, though.

I'm not saying you shouldn't sell these photos. I think that's fine.