I completely agree that something needs to be done on this front. I have pictures of myself from 5-6 years old that are decaying and would like to get copies made, but nobody will do the work because they are afraid of getting sued by the company who owns the copywright. Even if the company is out of business they still own it! The only recourse is to make digital copies for yourself and keep the photos that way.

It's not unreasonable to tell them that you are the photographer if the photographer is inconveniently unavailable, and they are pictures of you or your family.

This is why you question a photographer VERY carefully before you sign a contract. (And before he packs up and leaves town.) Many wedding photographers these days give you a CD with all of your photos, and then you can make whatever copies and prints you want. They "sign off," as it were, on the copyright.

Yes, scan it or take a digital picture of it for your personal use. Jumping through such hoops is uncalled for in the digital world. That is what I do when I want a copy of a picture, I take a digital picture using my digital camera and print it on my color printer. Just do it and enjoy the rest of the day.

Taking a digital picture of a photo isn't a great solution. The quality of the photo is often degraded, even if you use a high quality digital camera. Also, it is possible that you are violating the photographer's copyright by making a digital copy of his copyrighted work.

The best solution is to work out the copyright issues with the photograper when you hire them for the job. As stated previously, most photograpers will will be happy to give or sell digital copies of the photos. In the cases where the photographer is no longer available, either by not being around or not answering, as what happened in the article, there is no simple answer.

This is an excellent example of the need for copyright reform. People who have a legitimate use of the copyrighted material (be it photos, books, software, etc.)are left without any options when a company that owns the copyright goes out of business and their photos/books wear out or software licenses run out.

There are statue of limitations of how long the photographer owns the copyrights to the photos. I have a document packed away somewhere because of going through this very same situation. do you research on the internet on the subject and you'll find the same laws. I had old Olan Mills photos of my grandmother I needed to copy for all my siblings. She's been decease over 25 years and the photos being over a certain number of years qualified. Sorry I can't help further.

In regards to how long a photographer owns a copyright, it depends upon when the photograph was taken... My understanding is this, the author of a work retains the copyright for their lifetime plus 70 years, if that work was created after 1978.

Scanning or taking digital pictures of a copyrighted photograph is still violating copyright law.

I am a professional (25 yrs)...I've been told that copyrights expire after 15 yrs.
If someone scans in their home scanner one of my photos....I can't control that. Most businesses will not touch my photos for copying in my surrounding area, and I receive requests for copyright releases often which I decline. If they want to order..they can see me.
In this case the photographer probably has a reason for ignoring the client, and only the client knows the reason. If the photographer is at fault, chances are he has already destroyed the negatives or file if nothing but "proofs" were delivered, and he expected more from the client according to the contract. The enlargements are due the client, but I have a feeling there's more to this case than we know about. IF the photographer doesn't respond shortly, I'd buy the best scanner out there & enlarge the ones I want. Silence from the photographer (who's probably wishing the client would go away) is almost an unsigned release to tackle the job yourself. I'm betting the photographer no longer can produce because his files are no longer in place. I'd love to hear his side of the story.

The Federal Copyright Protection includes the photographer maintaining their interest in the portrait for 50 years past the resolution of their business or their death (if not specifically included in their will) whichever expires first. I am glad to hear that many businesses are observing this federal law and adhering to it. And, YES, the part time employee at the kiosks ARE able to recognize professional portraits! Not only is the paper marked but the lighting in the eyes of the subjects! Not to mention the nature of the portrait and the posing! Anyone presuming these employees have not been properly trained in this area is foolish!
THIS IS A FEDERAL LAW AND THEY MUST TAKE IT SERIOUSLY!!!
I would have to agree with Don in his statement that there is probably much more to the story! The client more than likely violated the contractural agreement in some way and is trying to sidestep federal law which is legally, ethically and morally incomprehensible!!! If this is not the case, then what is stopping the client from pursuing this legally and including their incurred legal fees?

If you think the photographer is in the wrong, take him/her to Small Claims Court. You can use the money judgment (if you are in the right) to negotiate what you want, ie, a copyright release.

Many major photography corporations have a copyright release procedure under specific circumstances. The death of someone in the portrait, age of portrait, negatives no longer on file etc. Olan Mills is 10 years, Lifetouch is 5 years, PCA (Wal-Mart studios) is 3 years, CPI (Sears) is 3 years, American Studios is 3 years. With digital images, these times are usually double to triple, because of the lack of storage issues. In the event of death of the subject, most companies will require a newpaper obituary or death certificate. The good news to all that, is that the client can process a reorder for that same length of time. Inevitably, the quality is better and the paper is professional versus the paper available on the open market.

As a photographer, I appreciate the copyright laws because of the protection they offer a photographer. I had a client do exactly what many of the previous posts had suggested... they scanned in pictures, and then reproduced them. But the reproductions were used for their engagement announcements and wedding invitations. Not only was it a violation of copyright, but I didn't want anyone to know I'd taken the pictures because the reproductions were so poor.

For some photographers, keeping the copyright isn't only about getting money out of clients. Quality of reprints, and what potential clients see in your work is a big issue. If I print the pictures, I can control how they are printed, the type of paper, and the overall quality of what my clients receive. If they're printed at a kiosk in Wal-Mart, the quality is nowhere near the same.

The real question is why didn't the photographer in this story talk to Des News if there is more to the story? Instead he looks like someone who just doesn't want to deal with this person. Doesn't it seem a little odd that he never responded to the newspaper's inquiry? They sent him a letter--he could have given his side of the story. I mean if the woman did something wrong wouldn't she be afraid of what he'd tell the paper? I hope he reads this and calls the paper and fixes this if he is at fault.

Right now it's not so much a question of what's right or wrong legally it's a question of what the decent thing to do is- the answer is to communicate. Communication is a necessary part of owning a business and providing a service to the public. Hudson needs to respond so they can to work this out.

Dwane Hudson took my wedding pictures almost 8 years ago. I googled his name to see if I could find his number (surprisingly it wasn't anywhere on my wedding album or proofs) because I wanted to enlarge a bridal picture. I was surprised to see he isn't in business anymore and to hear of this person's experience with Hudson. I wonder what I am supposed to do as well. I want to make an enlargement of a proof but he is no longer in business. I wish digital had been as common 8 years ago as it is today for wedding pictures. This type of situation leaves a lot of people in a bad position.