3 ms·

Who owns Mike Disfarmer’s photographs?

18 points by null_object 5y ago

thatguy0900 5y ago
Weren't they purchased from the bank after the studio was foreclosed on by the mayor for 5$? How can it be anyone else's property after that?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- t0mbstone 5y ago
  Maybe the argument is that the bank never had the right to sell the copyright in the first place? The whole story just reeks of greed to me. My personal opinion is that the photos should be in the public domain. America's copyright system is so broken and stupid, it's pathetic.
- woliveirajr 5y ago
  > In 1976, an overhaul of the Copyright Act enshrined stronger protections. Today, artists generally receive copyrights to their works by default; after they die, the protections pass to their heirs for seventy years. During that period, whether you’ve purchased a negative for pennies at an estate sale or a print for millions at Christie’s, simply owning a physical image does not entitle you to reproduce it in any form. Well, the mayor that bought it, did before such law. His rights to the photos should be considered according to the law that was "available" at the time.
  - leeter 5y ago
    IANAL, but the publication of the work is when the copyright timer starts under the '76 act IIRC. However, and this is a big however, because the (re)publisher is not the artist and the pre '76 act did not have automatic default copyright; there is a VERY good argument that it's either public domain or falls under Arkansas local copyright law (which I don't know anything about). I'd say the heirs have a tenuous federal claim at best (again, not a lawyer). But they may have better luck in state court due to common law rulings. Either way it's likely to turn into an expensive hot mess.
- Finnucane 5y ago
  Ownership of the plates and ownership of the copyrights are separate issues. Did the bank legally own everything in the shop when the building was about to be torn down? If you could argue they didn't (and a lawyer would) then the sale to mayor would not be valid.
blunte 5y ago
Never married, never had children, didn't leave a will. The courts decided who owned his works, and that's that.
pwned1 5y ago
The guy's been dead for 62 years with no heirs. Now someone wants to cash in. This is where the original intent of copyright comes in... "to promote the arts and sciences." Well, since the guy who created the photos isn't here anymore, and hasn't been for 62 years, let's ask ourselves how someone cashing in on this now promotes the arts and sciences.
oh_sigh 5y ago
Article without paywall: https://archive.is/D7h5b https://archive.is/D7h5b
ljp_206 5y ago
Somewhat related, Disfarmer's photos were the inspiration for the album 'Disfarmer' by Bill Frisell. The album is a beautiful piece of era-spanning Americana, almost like a concept album. It's also a master class in leitmotif; the art of creating and re-using themes. I highly recommend it to anyone fond of introspective music.

18 points by null_object 5y ago

Weren't they purchased from the bank after the studio was foreclosed on by the mayor for 5$? How can it be anyone else's property after that?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
t0mbstone 5y ago
Maybe the argument is that the bank never had the right to sell the copyright in the first place? The whole story just reeks of greed to me. My personal opinion is that the photos should be in the public domain. America's copyright system is so broken and stupid, it's pathetic.
woliveirajr 5y ago
> In 1976, an overhaul of the Copyright Act enshrined stronger protections. Today, artists generally receive copyrights to their works by default; after they die, the protections pass to their heirs for seventy years. During that period, whether you’ve purchased a negative for pennies at an estate sale or a print for millions at Christie’s, simply owning a physical image does not entitle you to reproduce it in any form. Well, the mayor that bought it, did before such law. His rights to the photos should be considered according to the law that was "available" at the time.
- leeter 5y ago
  IANAL, but the publication of the work is when the copyright timer starts under the '76 act IIRC. However, and this is a big however, because the (re)publisher is not the artist and the pre '76 act did not have automatic default copyright; there is a VERY good argument that it's either public domain or falls under Arkansas local copyright law (which I don't know anything about). I'd say the heirs have a tenuous federal claim at best (again, not a lawyer). But they may have better luck in state court due to common law rulings. Either way it's likely to turn into an expensive hot mess.
Finnucane 5y ago
Ownership of the plates and ownership of the copyrights are separate issues. Did the bank legally own everything in the shop when the building was about to be torn down? If you could argue they didn't (and a lawyer would) then the sale to mayor would not be valid.

blunte 5y ago

Never married, never had children, didn't leave a will. The courts decided who owned his works, and that's that.

pwned1 5y ago

The guy's been dead for 62 years with no heirs. Now someone wants to cash in. This is where the original intent of copyright comes in... "to promote the arts and sciences." Well, since the guy who created the photos isn't here anymore, and hasn't been for 62 years, let's ask ourselves how someone cashing in on this now promotes the arts and sciences.

oh_sigh 5y ago

Article without paywall: https://archive.is/D7h5b https://archive.is/D7h5b

ljp_206 5y ago

Somewhat related, Disfarmer's photos were the inspiration for the album 'Disfarmer' by Bill Frisell. The album is a beautiful piece of era-spanning Americana, almost like a concept album. It's also a master class in leitmotif; the art of creating and re-using themes. I highly recommend it to anyone fond of introspective music.