old photo repair

emc2

Hi guys,

I have an old picture that I'd like to get repair. It was taken in the 50's and has been folded and a little tattered. I just wondering if anyone could point me in the right direction as to where I'd get this repaired and what it would cost?

Thanks for your help.
EMC2

smelltheglove

Theres a place in the Old Mill in Clondalkin that does it, prices depend ont he damage really. Plenty of us here could do it too so if you want it done and emailed just ask.

woytek_tzn

I'm not too bad in that kind of services:rolleyes: I've done few for private persons.

Perfect fit

Ive done a few ill give it a go if you want, pm me if interested

Fionn

you could post it up and let everyone have a crack at it

emc2

Thanks for the info guys.

I have had a couple of PM's about this too. I am going to scan it tomorrow so if anyone want to have a go at repairing it let drop me a pm and I'll send you a link to it once I have it scanned.

It's in a pretty bad state so it could be an interesting challenge!

smelltheglove

Yeah look forward to it, I like a nice challenge every once in a while, I've done a few dodgy ones too so should be fun to see what others come up with too.

KarmaGarda

Make sure you post the "winner" too so that they can gloat and hurl abuse at the others

smelltheglove

KarmaGarda wrote: »

Make sure you post the "winner" too so that they can gloat and hurl abuse at the others

Oooooh the game is ON!

Morrisseeee

Oh I love a challenge ! whats the prize ?

Nozebleed

http://www.photolabs.ie/


this is the place you want...they're in the city centre. just off South Circular Rd.

CabanSail

We could move this thread over into the Photo Challenge Forum if you like?

It would make an interesting challenge to see who can restore the same photo the best. This would be with the emc2 as there seem quite a few here would like to give it a go.

kumate_champ07

emc2 wrote: »

Thanks for the info guys.

I have had a couple of PM's about this too. I am going to scan it tomorrow so if anyone want to have a go at repairing it let drop me a pm and I'll send you a link to it once I have it scanned.

It's in a pretty bad state so it could be an interesting challenge!

what scanner are you using? theres a special spray you can buy for cleaning old prints,negatives and slides. it gets rid of dirt and stains without harming the emulsion, its around 15euro on ebay. I can get the name if you want

emc2

Thanks for all the interest in this, I had a slight issue with my scanner but I am going to borrow one. I'll have the picture ready tomorrow for you guys.

emc2

HI guys,

I have scanned the photo so if anyone wants a go just send me a pm for the link. I have no problem with posting a before and after picture or having this in the photo challenge forum.

thanks again for your help and interest.

bullpost

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

what scanner are you using? theres a special spray you can buy for cleaning old prints,negatives and slides. it gets rid of dirt and stains without harming the emulsion, its around 15euro on ebay. I can get the name if you want

I'd be interested in that as I need to scan a load of old stuff over the winter - Is this it (PEC-12)?

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-pec-12-photographic-emulsion-cleaner-spray-118ml-/p1018636

restaurants

emc2 wrote: »

Hi guys,

I have an old picture that I'd like to get repair. It was taken in the 50's and has been folded and a little tattered. I just wondering if anyone could point me in the right direction as to where I'd get this repaired and what it would cost?

Thanks for your help.
EMC2

Most professional photographers have a contact for doing this.
Some of the work is amazing.

charybdis

What? No bleating about copyright and "photographer's rights"? If the photograph in question was taken in the 50's I doubt it belongs to the OP and it certainly hasn't been 70 years since the death of the photographer.

KarmaGarda

So who won!!

melekalikimaka

charybdis wrote: »

What? No bleating about copyright and "photographer's rights"? If the photograph in question was taken in the 50's I doubt it belongs to the OP and it certainly hasn't been 70 years since the death of the photographer.

is there a copyright issue?

Captain Flaps

Just post it in here and we'll all have a crack at it

Hell, I'd do it just for the practice, no charge.

charybdis

melekalikimaka wrote: »

is there a copyright issue?

Well, the OP is trying to modify and reproduce a work that I strongly suspect they are not the author of, and assuming they haven't been granted license to do so, they are breaching copyright.

Of course nobody here actually cares about it in this case as they've decided their ragged defence of copyright law is only to be used where convenient for them.

Again, double standards.

KarmaGarda

charybdis wrote: »

Well, the OP is trying to modify and reproduce a work that I strongly suspect they are not the author of, and assuming they haven't been granted license to do so, they are breaching copyright.

Of course nobody here actually cares about it in this case as they've decided their ragged defence of copyright law is only to be used where convenient for them.

Again, double standards.

I'm interested to know how you've come to the conclusion there's a copyright issue?

charybdis

KarmaGarda wrote: »

I'm interested to know how you've come to the conclusion there's a copyright issue?

I have explained it already:

charybdis wrote: »

If the photograph in question was taken in the 50's I doubt it belongs to the OP and it certainly hasn't been 70 years since the death of the photographer.

charybdis wrote: »

Well, the OP is trying to modify and reproduce a work that I strongly suspect they are not the author of, and assuming they haven't been granted license to do so, they are breaching copyright.

The issue only exists if the OP isn't the author of the work or doesn't have license to modify and reproduce it.

What about this is not clear?

Captain Flaps

I think you're all jumping to conclusions. You're all assuming that the photographer might be taking issue with this modification of his work. A few points on this:

• Firstly, if this was taken in the '50s, I think it's quite likely (if not certain) that the original photographer is dead
• If not, it's probably fairly safe to assume the original photographer is NOT well versed in the level of digital manipulation required to repair a badly damaged print
• While the 70 years law should be upheld in pretty much all cases, there has to be logical, practical exceptions. Is the OP supposed to track down the photographer's spouse/kids and ask permission?
• If so, do you really think that person is going to want to deal with the repair?
• It's quite likely that the photo is an old family photo belonging to the OP. I think in this case, as it's personal (private use) where the original photographer is probably not in a position to do anything about it should the OP try and contact him, the OP is entitled to restore the original work to as close to its original condition as possible. I think that the original photographer would agree.

I'm a working photographer, I make money from both photo jobs and prints. It's not like the OP is changing the original work, or doing anything commercial with it (I'm making that assumption, do please correct me if I'm wrong). I would have no problem with anyone doing the above, and to be honest I think that if you disagree with the above you're a bit of a spa.

KarmaGarda

charybdis wrote: »

What about this is not clear?

How you've jumped from how it "was taken in the 50s" to "assuming they haven't been granted license to do so, they are breaching copyright".

You've made a lot of presumptions without even asking the OP of the origin of the photograph, if it's a family hierloom, if it isn't copyrighted, if the OP is in fact 70/80 years of age, if someone has asked them to look into repairing as a gift to somebody else.

Quite a lot of conclusions being jumped to in my opinion without just cause. I think you should clarify the facts before making the comments, that's all.

Just my opinion.

KarmaGarda

Captain Flaps wrote: »

I think you're all jumping to conclusions.

In fairness, I think there's only 1 person jumping to conclusions :pac:

charybdis

KarmaGarda wrote: »

How you've jumped from how it "was taken in the 50s" to "assuming they haven't been granted license to do so, they are breaching copyright".

You've made a lot of presumptions without even asking the OP of the origin of the photograph, if it's a family hierloom, if it isn't copyrighted, if the OP is in fact 70/80 years of age, if someone has asked them to look into repairing as a gift to somebody else.

Quite a lot of conclusions being jumped to in my opinion without just cause. I think you should clarify the facts before making the comments, that's all.

Just my opinion.

I have repeatedly made clear that I am only saying this on the assumptions that the OP is not the author of the work and doesn't have explicit permission to modify and reproduce it.

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Firstly, if this was taken in the '50s, I think it's quite likely (if not certain) that the original photographer is dead

Yep, very possible. Copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of the author, so even if they died on the 1st of January 1950 the photograph would still be under copyright.

Captain Flaps wrote: »

If not, it's probably fairly safe to assume the original photographer is NOT well versed in the level of digital manipulation required to repair a badly damaged print

I, too, would assume so.

Captain Flaps wrote: »

While the 70 years law should be upheld in pretty much all cases, there has to be logical, practical exceptions. Is the OP supposed to track down the photographer's spouse/kids and ask permission?

Legally, yes. There are no legal provisions for orphan works.

Captain Flaps wrote: »

If so, do you really think that person is going to want to deal with the repair?

I don't know, but it's their legal right to do so. Do you think that should be ignored because it is inconvenient?

Captain Flaps wrote: »

It's quite likely that the photo is an old family photo belonging to the OP. I think in this case, as it's personal (private use) where the original photographer is probably not in a position to do anything about it should the OP try and contact him, the OP is entitled to restore the original work to as close to its original condition as possible. I think that the original photographer would agree.

If he does not have license to use the image it doesn't matter if it's for private use as there is no legal provision for fair use and the OP is very much not entitled to restore the original work to as close to its original condition is possible. If the photographer agrees, he can make so legally clear.

KarmaGarda wrote: »

In fairness, I think there's only 1 person jumping to conclusions :pac:

Captain Flaps wrote: »

I'm a working photographer, I make money from both photo jobs and prints. It's not like the OP is changing the original work, or doing anything commercial with it (I'm making that assumption, do please correct me if I'm wrong). I would have no problem with anyone doing the above, and to be honest I think that if you disagree with the above you're a bit of a spa.

Ad hominem attacks aside, I agree, I think what is legally required in this case is absurd, but it is the law and people here have tirelessly defended the current system of copyright law when it was convenient for them to do so.

sineadw

charybdis wrote: »

Well, the OP is trying to modify and reproduce a work that I strongly suspect they are not the author of, and assuming they haven't been granted license to do so, they are breaching copyright.

How on EARTH do you get that? It's in all likelihood a family photo (they're the only ones from the 50s in my collection anyway!).

:rolleyes:

@OP how'd you get on?

Ghost Train

Would have presumed the same as Sinead, would have thought it was an old family photo the op owned, and was getting it restored for there own use

Would also say that restoring a photo or painting you owned would probably not effect any copyright of the work of the artist

charybdis

sineadw wrote: »

How on EARTH do you get that? It's in all likelihood a family photo (they're the only ones from the 50s in my collection anyway!).

:rolleyes:

@OP how'd you get on?

Have you considered the possibility that it's a family photograph taken by someone who isn't part of the family, for example, a professional photographer? There was much consternation here recently about the possibility of parents reprinting studio portraits of their children without permission. Many wedding photographers are routinely concerned about the possibility of their photographs being reproduced by their clients without permission. That's how I "get that".

Ghost Train wrote: »

Would have presumed the same as Sinead, would have thought it was an old family photo the op owned, and was getting it restored for there own use

Would also say that restoring a photo or painting you owned would probably not effect any copyright of the work of the artist

The problem lies in the definition of "owned". The author controls the copyright for their work, but can grant license for its use. "Ownership" is not as simple as you might think, does a married couple "own" the photographs in their wedding album?

melekalikimaka

Hahaha this is madness

smelltheglove

I can see exactly where charybdis is coming from entirely, however I dont exactly agree with it in the sense that this is a phot taken 60 years ago that most likely has sentimental value, I would say it is very very hard to track down the poriginal photographer, if it was a photographer although the op may not even know who took the picture be it a photographer or a family member.

If I was the photographer honestly, I would let it slide, I would be happy that someone valued an image I created so much that they would want to restore it after damage ebing caused to it. Only today i got a call back for a canvas on a wedding a while back and to me it is utter flattery that someone retains value in any of my work, mind that is just me....

KarmaGarda

KarmaGarda

Well, I'm in neck deep for aiding and abetting in regards to this crime, so would love to know the result :pac:

How did you get on emc2?

charybdis

Just to be clear: I think the OP should be able to do whatever is needed to be done to restore the photograph, but there is a distinct possibility that those actions would breach copyright. My argument was based around an expression of incredulity at this board's members willingness to make arbitrary distinctions about when certain laws, that they've defended and made clear they support, should apply. If the OP does not have remit to modify and reproduce the photograph, it is legally no different to what many here have termed "stealing".

I hope the OP is able to achieve his aims, but even if he is legitimately able to carry out the actions necessary, my argument stands.

KarmaGarda

charybdis wrote: »

Just to be clear: I think the OP should be able to do whatever is needed to be done to restore the photograph, but there is a distinct possibility that those actions would breach copyright. My argument was based around an expression of incredulity at this board's members willingness to make arbitrary distinctions about when certain laws, that they've defended and made clear they support, should apply. If the OP does not have remit to modify and reproduce the photograph, it is legally no different to what many here have termed "stealing".

I hope the OP is able to achieve his aims, but even if he is legitimately able to carry out the actions necessary, my argument stands.

I think the difference here is we're presuming innocent until proven guilty. Most of us are passionate about the afore mentioned copyrights, but if the rest are like me, they have presumed that the OP isn't breaching any copyright laws.

charybdis

KarmaGarda wrote: »

I think the difference here is we're presuming innocent until proven guilty. Most of us are passionate about the afore mentioned copyrights, but if the rest are like me, they have presumed that the OP isn't breaching any copyright laws.

Why? He's almost certainly not the creator of the work and there has been no suggest he has license to modify and reproduce it. This is textbook copyright infringement, the kind you're passionate about.

KarmaGarda

I'm going to leave it there, I'm in far too good of a mood to argue/debate tonight .

Back on topic, how many made an attempt on the photo recovery btw?

kumate_champ07

bullpost wrote: »

I'd be interested in that as I need to scan a load of old stuff over the winter - Is this it (PEC-12)?

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-pec-12-photographic-emulsion-cleaner-spray-118ml-/p1018636

sorry for the late reply, yep thats the stuff I was talkin about

AnCatDubh

I've had a speed read of the entire thread.

There is no information (from what i've read) other than the assumption that the photograph is (or isn't) in the licence / copyright of the OP.

Hence to be pedantic about it - everyone is right (and all the better coz that surely means no one can disagree with me? )

I'm actually with charybdis if the case is such that the image isn't in the licence / copyright of the OP and i'm with the rest of the bunch if the photograph is in the licence / copyright of the OP. I suspect you all are.

The thing is we presently don't know. Without knowing we can ask;

a) Can anyone defend doing alterations in the knowledge that the thing is in copyright/licence of someone else?

b) Can anyone fault doing alterations in the knowledge that the thing is out of copyright or licence transferred?

These appear to be the polar opposites that people are debating and we are missing the bit in the middle that says which is true.

I was horrified in recent times where I was in a photography lab store which would happily do a scan of an image which was clearly and identifiably in someone else's copyright. It simply wasn't right. There may be another side of the story where often the photographers terms and conditions are unjust but buyer beware / be aware.

I missed the start of this thread first time around but have in the past shut down threads once clarification with thread OP's established that copyright isn't with them for what it is that they wish to do. I guess that we probably should have in this instance, however assumptions are being made in either direction.

(You do know you should never assume because it makes an ASS out of U and ME)

KarmaGarda

Might be about time the OP gave a bit of input in regards to the progression of the thread

Fionn

I couldn't download his photograph so i've no idea what it was or if it had a copyright issue. Perhaps the OP took photograph or maybe it was a family snap or the original photographer isn't contactable any more.

The other question, is restoration a breach of copyright as opposed to alteration?
Personally if theres a fold through an old photograph and the original photographer cant/wont do it is gone etc. I've no problem with that.

As regards the copyright of photographs, it is beginning to be somewhat of a grey area these days, some photographers from what i've seen recently, give clients the originals, now while they retain copyright they allow the clients usage rights to print the originals and duplicate them etc. also copyright differs from country to country, so things are changing there - it's not as cut and dried as it used to be when it was all film.

Some photographic restoration service crowds will put the onus on the client, e.g. 'The customer is totally liable for any breach of copyright. It is an offence to ......................'.

Lets see what the OP has to say about it, before things get too hysterical

KarmaGarda

Fionn wrote: »

I couldn't download his photograph so i've no idea what it was or if it had a copyright issue.

Just so you know, the photograph was PMd to anyone who wished to give it a go. Not sure if the OP didn't want it public on the forum, or just didn't update the thread once the photograph had been scanned.

emc2

Hi Guys,

Sorry I haven't been on-line much in the last few days and I didn't realise why a storm this had created.

Just to clear up it is a family photograph, the owner of the photograph has no idea who took it (as the owner is in the photo) but the likelyhood is that the person was either a friend/family member and/or is dead at this stage.
I have been given permission by the photograph owner to get it altered for them.

Ok hope that clears things up a bit. Anyway thanks very much to those who have so far completed this, I've been very impressed with the efforts. I am going to leave it for a couple of days more as a few people have got back to me to say it's currently in progress. If you fancy a go, just drop me a pm.

Thanks again and apologies for any issue I may have caused hopefully I have cleared them up.

Thanks
Emc2

Trojan911

Fionn wrote: »

I couldn't download his photograph so i've no idea what it was or if it had a copyright issue.

I can't either. It is telling me the download limit has exceeded it's ten downloads.

Captain Flaps

charybdis wrote: »

Just to be clear: I think the OP should be able to do whatever is needed to be done to restore the photograph, but there is a distinct possibility that those actions would breach copyright. My argument was based around an expression of incredulity at this board's members willingness to make arbitrary distinctions about when certain laws, that they've defended and made clear they support, should apply. If the OP does not have remit to modify and reproduce the photograph, it is legally no different to what many here have termed "stealing".

I hope the OP is able to achieve his aims, but even if he is legitimately able to carry out the actions necessary, my argument stands.

Finally, some sense. Firstly, I've studied copyright law specific to images so don't try and preach to me about it. Secondly, I'm not disagreeing with you on any particular point. You're right about the 70 year thing, you're right when you say that the photo is the property of the photographer and not the subject, and you're right when you say that the OP has no legal right to alter the print.

HOWEVER.

You're jumping to conclusions everywhere. The OP never stated this was a commissioned work, in which case it may have been taken by a family member who can turn over the rights to such work any time they choose, if they choose. You're also acting like one of those annoying pedants who argues against logic and what could really be interpreted as an extension of fair use. I'd hate to think pictures I'd taken were being dumped because the person was 'respecting' my copyright on private work years after my death.

So yeah, you're right in everything you say. LEGALLY you're making sense. <snip> I bet you only cross the road at pedestrian crossings too :P

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I was horrified in recent times where I was in a photography lab store which would happily do a scan of an image which was clearly and identifiably in someone else's copyright. It simply wasn't right. There may be another side of the story where often the photographers terms and conditions are unjust but buyer beware / be aware.

Yeah, that annoys me too. I work part time in a photo lab and while I refuse to scan debs/wedding/studio photos, I know others there don't.

emc2 wrote: »

Just to clear up it is a family photograph, the owner of the photograph has no idea who took it (as the owner is in the photo) but the likelyhood is that the person was either a friend/family member and/or is dead at this stage.
I have been given permission by the photograph owner to get it altered for them.

emc2, the 'owner' is the original photographer. Your relative/the subject in the picture is actually just the holder of a license to have a copy of the print under copyright law. The only condition under which they'd be the legal owner of the photo is if the original photographer had signed over the negatives and the rights to them, which is entirely possible but pretty unlikely. Personally I think you're totally entitled to get it restored if you want, but you do need to be clear that it could well be a breach of the original copyright. That's the issue some are having.

emc2

Trojan911 wrote: »

I can't either. It is telling me the download limit has exceeded it's ten downloads.

Sorry guys I'll have a look at this when I get home and send you on a new link if needed.

charybdis

So basically, despite repeated snide suggestions that what I am saying is somehow unreasonable, I am 100% correct; my assumptions are also correct and obvious, and yet nobody has suggested anyone is "stealing".

I hope the OP gets the photograph restored, but I think it's been proven beyond doubt that there are many hypocrites here who will gladly tout a piece of legislation when it suits them and ignore and deny the legislation's relevance when it doesn't.

kumate_champ07

charybdis wrote: »

So basically, despite repeated snide suggestions that what I am saying is somehow unreasonable, I am 100% correct; my assumptions are also correct and obvious, and yet nobody has suggested anyone is "stealing".

I hope the OP gets the photograph restored, but I think it's been proven beyond doubt that there are many hypocrites here who will gladly tout a piece of legislation when it suits them and ignore and deny the legislation's relevance when it doesn't.

theres a big difference between doing 80mph in a 40mph zone and 41mph in a 40mph zone, but both are technically illegal

Ghost Train

charybdis wrote: »

So basically, despite repeated snide suggestions that what I am saying is somehow unreasonable, I am 100% correct; my assumptions are also correct and obvious, and yet nobody has suggested anyone is "stealing".

I hope the OP gets the photograph restored, but I think it's been proven beyond doubt that there are many hypocrites here who will gladly tout a piece of legislation when it suits them and ignore and deny the legislation's relevance when it doesn't.

How are you 100% correct?

Your still assuming its a commissioned work or something?

The OP has said it is a family photograph... as opposed to a studio or professional photograph. The person who took it was most likely friend or family.

If somebody (random stranger) takes a photo of me and my family for me with my camera, I don't have to ask them permission to develop it or print it. I'm not saying this is the case here but without more details how can you say this isn't the case here?