How Can I Remove a Stamp From a Photo

trazix

I found a nice old photo at home from the 40's or 50's. I dont know if it is early colour print or a hand coloured photo. Any way it has a stamp on it from the studio that i would like to have removed. Does anyone here have a good knowledge on how to do this. I dont have Photoshop just Paint.net

CabanSail

How long does Copyright last?

Can easily be cloned out.

trazix

Dont know about copyright, but i'd say the photographer died long ago and the studio is long gone and there is no way to get the orignal. Anyway it' a picture of a relation and is only for personal use

Zillah

Send me the full quality image and I'll use my magic powers to make it disappear.

trazix

The file is to large to post here and i dont know how to send it to you directly. The image above is cut from the orignal image if you could tidy that up and post it back here I can paste it back into the image.

5uspect

Just PM Zillah your email address. It's easier that way, no one gets hurt...

Seriously tho it would be easier to work on the whole image, otherwise its difficult to know if your Photoshopage looks right in the whole image.

KylieWyley

copyright subsists in a work up and until 70years after the death of the author

ajsp.

I did this in less than 5 mins in photoshop.It's simple enough, even an total beginner like myself can do it.

CabanSail

Actually the company still exists Clair Pruett Photography so if you send them an email they may give you permission. Who knows, they may even have the negs still in the archive.

jaqian

CabanSail wrote: »

Actually the company still exists Clair Pruett Photography so if you send them an email they may give you permission. Who knows, they may even have the negs still in the archive.

I'm sure they would love to see one of their old photos still around and like CabanSail said might even have the negative.

Interestingly I was reading their history and they said that their first fully digital lab was in 2002. Anyone know what digital cameras were considered good enough back then for portraits? I thought everying back then was <2MP.

trazix

Good work ajsp , What method did you use in Photoshop to do this, as i said in my first post i only have Paint.net and i might be able to replecate your method in it.

ajsp.

trazix wrote: »

Good work ajsp , What method did you use in Photoshop to do this, as i said in my first post i only have Paint.net and i might be able to replecate your method in it.

Thanks trazix. I used the clone stamp tool. Press alt and click on the area you want to copy then just work your was around covering over the bits you don't want. That was about 5 mins work so it's not the best.

CPS_Photography

Hello, It's great to see one of our photographs from such a long time ago.

Indeed the copyright laws do prohibit the scanning and printing of copyrighted photographs. We would be happy to give you an estimate on a reprint of that image and or releasing the rights to it.

You can call any of our 4 offices located in PA and DE. Please visit our web site for phone numbers. www.clairpruett.com

Thank you.
Clair Pruett Studios

CPS_Photography

jaqian wrote: »

I'm sure they would love to see one of their old photos still around and like CabanSail said might even have the negative.

Interestingly I was reading their history and they said that their first fully digital lab was in 2002. Anyone know what digital cameras were considered good enough back then for portraits? I thought everying back then was <2MP.

Hey, I saw this and wanted to let you know...
Our first Digital camera was a Nikon D1X. It was the first Camera to hit the market that provided a decent 24x30 print. Of course it was about the same price as the new D3X is now which is 24mpx instead of 6.5, and it took a lot of camera knowledge, processing and prctice to make the images perfect. But with a lot of practice and testing, we figured it out and made it happen. Our Blue Bell Studio has never seen a roll of film and we opened it in July of 2002. We have of course had several cameras in the mean time and now actually shoot JPEG images because we have everything dialed in well enough to eliminate the Raw processing.

This is one of the first out door portraits I shot with it. (out side was a little trickier than the studio...)

Hope that helps...

punchdrunk

jaqian wrote: »

I'm sure they would love to see one of their old photos still around and like CabanSail said might even have the negative.

Interestingly I was reading their history and they said that their first fully digital lab was in 2002. Anyone know what digital cameras were considered good enough back then for portraits? I thought everying back then was <2MP.

Nikon D1x :pac:

trazix

I have been away for over a week and in the meantime i've had my wrist slaped by the moderator for posting a section of a copyrighted image for which i do apologise and also to CPS Photograhy I knew nothing of copyright then but I do now. The picture is just one of thousands of old photographs at home that i have scaned to computer with the intention of doing touch up work on and posted it here to try and learn the techniques that i can use on our old family photographs. I picture in question is is of a distant relation that emigrated to america from ireland long before my time and how this photo ended up in our house back in ireland i dont know. It goes to show the high quality of work that this studio puts out has made them stand the test of time. I must PM CPS Photography regarding a quote ,It will be interesting to see if their archive of negatives goes back this far

CabanSail

Copyright is a sensitive issue with Photographers, as a lot of their work gets misused, especially online. This is not an ordinary case, as the image is old, but the copyright is still valid and the owner has been identified.

The attitude of the owner seems very reasonable & it will be interesting to know how you get along.

CPS_Photography

Thank you Trazix! I just sent you a PM.
Can't wait to see it. Thanks!

thedarkroom

On the issue of copyright, here something somebody might be able to answer for me from a different perspective. I got married over twenty years ago and commissioned a photographer to cover the day for us. He took the photos, delivered the album, we paid the agreed fee and everyone was happy.
However, a year later I was approached by someone who queried the wisdom of my choice for venue for our wedding day as he would have considered the ***** to be a bit of a kip. When I asked him what he meant, he said that he saw our wedding photos in a brochure for a venue in County Wexford.
The photographer had supplied a couple of our wedding photos to a night club to use in their promotional literature without our knowledge. I didn't follow this up with the photographer (I'm a photographer myself) as I didn't want to appear difficult or picky so I just moved on but I have always been curious about the legality of this. The venue in question always had a dubious reputation (late night drinking, under age drinking, regular fighting and brawls, et. etc. and worse) and would not have been an establishment that I would ever have frequented or recommended to anyone so obviously I would not have wished to been associated with it. So when our photos appeared in the brochure it was not an association I was happy about.
Should I have pursued it and would have I been vindicated? Anyone know?

CabanSail

My understanding is that the Photograper owns the Copyright, unless there was alternate arrangements made in the contract. However, unless you have signed a Release, images in which you are able to be idenified cannot be used for Commercial purposes. A Brochure is a commercial use & so not allowed. If you had wanted to persue it you could have done so, but I am not sure what the statute of limitations is in this case.

AnCatDubh

CabanSail wrote: »

My understanding is that the Photograper owns the Copyright, unless there was alternate arrangements made in the contract. However, unless you have signed a Release, images in which you are able to be idenified cannot be used for Commercial purposes. A Brochure is a commercial use & so not allowed. If you had wanted to persue it you could have done so, but I am not sure what the statute of limitations is in this case.

I'd guess it may be possible that the contract (assuming there was one) also performs the requirement of a release (explicitly stated). I'd think in the heat of the preparations for a wedding that most people wont read / wont care / wont understand the implication of the detail of the photographer's contract (although they bloody well should). They only start worrying about it when they feel that they have parted with enough money and the photographer has had their pound of flesh.

I can't actually remember signing a contract with the photographer which did our wedding. Strange that. Maybe we did. Good thing that the final images were so bad that no one could possibly be interested in them commercially

ajsp.

Ownership of Photographs?
If A takes a photograph of B, who owns the copyright in that photograph? As a general rule, the photographer owns the copyright. This is true even if B has commissioned and paid for the photograph - as in the case of wedding photographs. If B wishes to enjoy the copyright, he must agree with A that the copyright will be transferred to him. B should make sure that the agreement and any transfer are in writing - or they may be ineffective under Irish law to transfer the copyright.
The main exception to this principle is where photographs are taken by an employee in the course of their employment - if X Ltd. employs Z as a photographer, then the photos taken by Z in the course of his work belong to X Ltd. and cannot be used by Z without their permission. This can trip up the unwary - for example, Z may be in difficulties if he wishes to use those photos as part of a portfolio of work.


ttp://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

Paulw

ajsp. wrote: »

Ownership of Photographs?
If A takes a photograph of B, who owns the copyright in that photograph? As a general rule, the photographer owns the copyright. This is true even if B has commissioned and paid for the photograph - as in the case of wedding photographs. If B wishes to enjoy the copyright, he must agree with A that the copyright will be transferred to him. B should make sure that the agreement and any transfer are in writing - or they may be ineffective under Irish law to transfer the copyright.
The main exception to this principle is where photographs are taken by an employee in the course of their employment - if X Ltd. employs Z as a photographer, then the photos taken by Z in the course of his work belong to X Ltd. and cannot be used by Z without their permission. This can trip up the unwary - for example, Z may be in difficulties if he wishes to use those photos as part of a portfolio of work.


ttp://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

A bit of further information - it will also depend on WHERE the photo is taken. Different countries have different copyright laws. As in, for example, Australia. If A takes a photo of B, while B commissioned the work (paid for it), B will in fact, own the copyright.

Just make sure you check the local laws.

CPS_Photography

In the US at least, there is a difference between the copyright, usage rights, and the subjects right of an image...

Generally speaking the photographer or the company the photographer works for, is the "owner" of the actual copyright for the image.

The "copyright" for an image basically means the legal ability to reproduce it in any way shape or form, for public or private use.

"Usage rights" typically what is transfered or sold or given to a company for an add or publication or even a bride and groom and it can be limited or unlimited. This is always done via a contract of some sort. In this case the actuall copyright is always, unless stated in a contract, owned by the originator of the image or company they were working for.
- So as a bride and groom when you buy the "Negs" or Digital files and can print from them... The photographer still retains the right to use those images for self promotion and depending on the contract for use elsewhere. This is very common and often appies to the vendors that the couple used. It's really quite rare that it would be sold to someone else. Which leads us to the rights of the person being photographed...

Rights of the Person being photographed... usually there is some sort of "model" release in a wedding or Portrait photography contract. There is often a set fee to be paid to the "model" if said "model" apears in an image used for public display for advertisment at a place other than as a sample of the photographer's work. This amount can be as little as a penny. Clearly Professional Models make money by being in adds and magazines and the like... Usually their Model Releases are much more in depth and restrict useage in certain forms and most often only agree to a specific usage for the image of them. There is a seperate contract from the photographer to the company using the image for them as well with specific usage peramiters. - The exception to this is news photojournalism. Basically there the person in the photograph has no rights...

So for the above person, you probably did sign something that stated the photographer could use those pictures. If you didn't the best you can hope for is to make them remove the image from the next round of printing. It would be unlikely that you would recieve any damages if you tried to sue them.

hope that helps...

thedarkroom

CabanSail wrote: »

My understanding is that the Photograper owns the Copyright, unless there was alternate arrangements made in the contract. However, unless you have signed a Release, images in which you are able to be idenified cannot be used for Commercial purposes. A Brochure is a commercial use & so not allowed. If you had wanted to persue it you could have done so, but I am not sure what the statute of limitations is in this case.

I kind of suspected that alright but I'm not the type to go chasing after compo, etc. I suppose I should have contacted him just to tell him I was unhappy about it and that the next person might not be so complacent about something like this. I was unhappy, though, about the implications by association that his use had inferred on me and if I had let him know he probably would think twice about doing it again.
Thanks!

CPS_Photography wrote: »

So for the above person, you probably did sign something that stated the photographer could use those pictures. If you didn't the best you can hope for is to make them remove the image from the next round of printing. It would be unlikely that you would recieve any damages if you tried to sue them.

hope that helps...

Hi, thanks to all for the replies. When we got married in '87 we did not sign any contract, it was verbal and based on trust. Unfortunately, this is not something that you can leave to chance anymore, particularly in more recent times. That's not a slur on todays photographers, it's more a comment on society in general. As regards making sure that the photo is not used again in the next round of reprinting the brochure...? Well I think there's little chance of that considering the fashion trends back then . . . a person would have to be hard stuck. Anyway, the venue is no more so it won't be an issue.
Thanks for the replies.

Paulw

CabanSail wrote: »

A Brochure is a commercial use

Are you sure about that? My understanding is that a brochure is considered advertisement (of yourself), and as such, is not a commercial use (as long as you are not portraying the subject as endorsing a product).

In most model release forms, it would state that the images can be "used for advertisement but not for commercial use", and so, a brochure would fall under advertisement rather than the commercial use area.

I guess it's all open to interpretation, which is why a model release form is useful, to specify exactly what the image can and can't be used for.

CPS_Photography

Paulw wrote: »

Are you sure about that? My understanding is that a brochure is considered advertisement (of yourself), and as such, is not a commercial use (as long as you are not portraying the subject as endorsing a product).

In most model release forms, it would state that the images can be "used for advertisement but not for commercial use", and so, a brochure would fall under advertisement rather than the commercial use area.

I guess it's all open to interpretation, which is why a model release form is useful, to specify exactly what the image can and can't be used for.

The distinction here is that it was not a brochure to display the photographer's work, it was to advertise for that venue, which the subject was not affiliated with at all. Therefore it would be considered commercial because they were "selling" their location... The fact that the venue was perticuraly controversal is even more of an issue since it could be considered defimation of character. Depending on how bad the place really was... But since there was no contract at all, the photographer was actually in the wrong by using that image. The only way out of that is if the photographer could prove that he made a reasonable effort to contact them to get their permission prior to using the image. Then the best they could have hoped for was to stop it from being produced.

thedarkroom

CPS_Photography wrote: »

The distinction here is that it was not a brochure to display the photographer's work

I would have had no problem with that, I think that is reasonable.

The only way out of that is if the photographer could prove that he made a reasonable effort to contact them to get their permission prior to using the image.

That wouldn't have been difficult, he had all the details.

Then the best they could have hoped for was to stop it from being produced.

Preferred option, we would definitely have said no.
Even if he was using the photographs to advertise the hotel that we did get married in, out of courtesy, he should approach us first.

CPS_Photography

Exactly... As for the last part, I 90% of the time ask a bride and groom before I send pictures to a venue. But in general, that is considered advertisement for the photographer because it is oftnen done in exchange for that venue's referrals. I've never had a customer say no to that or even be bothered by it. It's in our contract that we may use their photographs as samples so legally we are covered but if a customer wanted to they could ask us not to do that and we would certainly respect that. I have found that most couples are elated when we choose to use them as samples...