Another issue I've personally run into is historic and family photos. Since the person who took the photo is often the copyright holder, often times old photos with no known information can cause some issues with publishing or archiving.

A more detailed example: I was scanning some family photos (for backup/archive/family use, no publishing as of now) and noticed that several have small stickers marked with copyright notices of the small town photography company that took them. I asked my family members and they said the company is no longer in business, but I worry that those photos will never be able to be published until after well over 100 years after it was taken. How can I track down the copyright for such photos?

if you're that concerned, crop, or use the newfangled "AI" to fill out the missing parts

So just illegally publish them anyway?

The law should provide a mechanism here, but does not.

agreed, but it doesnt, and so one acts accordingly :)

If you hire a photographer to photograph you, don't you own the copyright as their employer?

Unless they took the photographs for free, the copyright notices they put on them are fraudulent.

It’s very common for portrait photographers to retain the copyright for photos they take, or at least it used to be.

From my understanding, the copyright is held by the photographer unless you have a contract stating such. I was shocked that most wedding photographers consider giving up copyright a deal breaker (unless you pay a huge amount more): https://www.reddit.com/r/WeddingPhotography/comments/10esy2i...

edit: If you are working as a employee (think W-2), it is different. Just hiring someone to take pictures (think 1099/contractor), I think is not covered under the same rules.

All creators maintain copyright in their works, unless its specifically stated that it's a work for hire, or you specifically transfer the copyright in a written document. Copyrights accrue to the creators of things, not the financiers of things. It is often the case that creators of things sell their copyright interest to financiers, so the financiers can capitalize on the exclusive rights the copyright grants.

The short answer: it depends.

The long answer: not unless transfer of copyright was explicitly part of the agreement.

Slightly longer answer:

In most cases nowadays when you hire a photographer, the photographer retains the copyright and will ask a considerable amount to transfer those rights to you. What you’re essentially are paying for is for them to take the photos (cheapest option), for them to print the photos after taking them (slightly more expensive), or for them to hand you the digital photo files (expensive).

Neither of those options transfer copyright, as copyright is in principle granted to the person who takes the photos. Wedding photographers are notorious for monetizing every aspect of the job (I say this without value judgement) for example, where you pay a fee to cover the event, a fee for printing photos and a fee for receiving digital copies (because you don’t have to pay them for printing).

I think you're overthinking this one. Unless those photos are being used commercially somewhere or you have a famous family I doubt you have to worry about anything.

I know someone who did a translation for a game, a "doujin" Japanese visual novel. He got in touch with the author in order to license the game, and that went well. He then considered doing another game by the same author.

Problem for the next game was the music. The original author commissioned about a dozen of artists, problem is, he didn't own the rights, only a licence for having the music in the original game. So the translator had to find a way to get in touch with all of the rights-holders and negotiate a license for the translation with each one. Because he is just one man, it was simply too much work and he abandoned the project.

It is actually a rather common situation. It may result in cancelled projects, changing the music with a varying level of success or just removing it altogether.

My understanding is this is why some old TV shows aren’t streaming despite interest.

“WKRP in Cincinnati” has so much music in the episodes that the licensing costs to stream it today would be prohibitive.

Some shows have aired with the music replaced. I recently re-watched Neon Genesis Evangelion, and the iconic closing music (Fly Me to the Moon) was replaced with something else entirely.

We have entered 1984 where history is mutable.

Dawson's Creek is the canonical example for me.

The music was such a part of the show. Now it seems impossible to get the original series as it aired at the time.

Even the pirates have failed me in this instance.

>We have entered 1984 where history is mutable.

It's terrible. I worry about the same thing for children playing online games nowadays as well.

Once the servers inevitably go offline, they will never be able to replay their childhood games.

This is our cultural heritage, our shared memory. Gone.

May you dm me the novel? I'm curious if I've had a chance to read it!

It was a french translation of the visual novel "Higurashi no Naku Koro ni" by 07th Expansion. The other one that didn't complete was "Umineko no Naku Koro ni".

That's the one: https://www.senscritique.com/contact/Saffran_Prod/507351

Note that an English translation of both games exist under the name "When they Cry", available on Steam, among others. It is actually a reedition of the game and not translated by the same person.

I’d expect that if the maker undertook a thorough and well-documented search for the rights holder; then just made it anyway, they’d legally be covered

1) It might be hard for the rights holder to assert their copyright at a later stage, if they lack the evidence to do so at the outset 2) any damages awarded might be mitigated by the attempts to search for the rights holder, especially if the ‘true’ owner was contacted at some stage. Seems more likely they’d be compensatory as opposed to punitive

I know this isn’t the prevailing legal practice, but as a lawyer, the lack of a willingness to be bold in these legal situations has always surprised me

Perhaps the tail risk of being slapped down is just too large

I’ve always wondered about a business model of searching for such works, undertaking a bona-fide effort to find the owner, and then just selling it as your own if one can’t be identified. (Perhaps with a war chest kept in reserve for the rare instances licensing fees are demanded later). ‘Copyright squatting’ if you will

You willing to have your clients rely on your advice as counsel to do that?

Riskier legal plays have been made

>I’d expect that if the maker undertook a thorough and well-documented search for the rights holder; then just made it anyway, they’d legally be covered

In a sane, rational world that would probably be the case. Too bad we don't live on one!

We need orphan work legislation to clarify the law in this area

We really do.

>I’d expect that if the maker undertook a thorough and well-documented search for the rights holder; then just made it anyway, they’d legally be covered

You're an attorney and don't know that copyright infringement is a strict liability offense?

In ‘orphan work’ situations as long as a person had made a good faith effort to locate the copyright owner, and therefore isn’t infringing someone’s copyright wilfully; criminal liability won’t apply. The worst you’ll realistically face is an after the fact civil suit

Lol who on earth is talking about criminal prosecution of copyright? Copyright is a strict liability civil offense.

think there’s a misunderstanding. in my jurisdiction we use the word offence to refer to criminal actions. If the penalty is only civil, then this bolsters the case for being bold toward omens treatment of orphan works

But we are talking about US copyright law - that's what the article is about, and there's no real issue with criminal enforcement of copyright. What jurisdiction are you in? It doesn't bolster anything because in the US copyright infringement is strict liability and civil enforcement of copyright actions are frequent. The greater point anyway was that it's odd for you to offer this legal advice while simultaneously not being aware that copyright infringement is strict liability. Now you are also saying you didn't think about the civil context at all. Bizarre.

Practically all of Activision's PS2 era catalog falls under this banner. We only recently got re-releases of their Star Trek stuff and a lot of their Marvel/movie tie-in games are MIA.