Can an heir inherit rights that did not yet exist during the originator's lifetime?
The originator is dead, so they can't hold those rights. Is it really inheritance? If those rights legally fall to the estate, then it doesn't matter whether they existed at the time of the person's life. A better question is whether a school should be allowed to own an estate in full, if those rights should ever fall to an estate at all, etc.
The time to make money on this picture has passed. >67 years have past. The photographer is long dead. Einstein is long dead.
Too often the rights to ancient material ends up in the hands of a large corporation. A big company makes money for an eternity. This is not benefiting small, poor creators.
Well I took your bait and tried to figure out some other face more famous than Einsteins. I only managed to come up with one: Trump. Think of what you want of him, dude's got mad brand recognition.
Gandhi maybe? Although niche stuff for the intellectual elite on the world stage, India has ~1,4B population and I presume everybody knows him there. Interestingly, Indians seem to be putting more energy into being pissed at Gandhi for not becoming prime minister, than into being thankful for the liberation stuff
No one really knows how he looked. As no one made a picture of him, when he was still alive.
Or *if* he lived. We don't really know for sure how much of the Jesus legend is based on a single individual. Many of the Jesus stories can be traced back much earlier, and of course there is no contemporary source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Einstein died 1955. So: yes a hire can inherit rights.
However the rights to a picture have nothing to do with the hire or the time passed the guy depicted died.
If I photograph you: I have the "copyright".
I can not exercise that right without your consent: because it is YOU on the picture.
If I die, my hire has the right to use the picture for something around 100 years, again, depending on your previous consent.
It's not that easy. Speaking under the laws and conventions in the U.S., there are several distinctions, all of which play into what you can do and what you cannot do with a photograph you've taken. Was it in a public or private space? If it was private, were you invited? Did the people in the private setting have the knowledge that they may be photographed? Did they ask you to stop photographing them or did they pose for your photo? Then it comes to what you actually want to do with the photograph.
Can an heir inherit rights that did not yet exist during the originator's lifetime?
The originator is dead, so they can't hold those rights. Is it really inheritance? If those rights legally fall to the estate, then it doesn't matter whether they existed at the time of the person's life. A better question is whether a school should be allowed to own an estate in full, if those rights should ever fall to an estate at all, etc.
The time to make money on this picture has passed. >67 years have past. The photographer is long dead. Einstein is long dead.
Too often the rights to ancient material ends up in the hands of a large corporation. A big company makes money for an eternity. This is not benefiting small, poor creators.
Gandhi maybe? Although niche stuff for the intellectual elite on the world stage, India has ~1,4B population and I presume everybody knows him there. Interestingly, Indians seem to be putting more energy into being pissed at Gandhi for not becoming prime minister, than into being thankful for the liberation stuff
No one really knows how he looked. As no one made a picture of him, when he was still alive.
Or *if* he lived. We don't really know for sure how much of the Jesus legend is based on a single individual. Many of the Jesus stories can be traced back much earlier, and of course there is no contemporary source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Einstein died 1955. So: yes a hire can inherit rights. However the rights to a picture have nothing to do with the hire or the time passed the guy depicted died.
If I photograph you: I have the "copyright". I can not exercise that right without your consent: because it is YOU on the picture. If I die, my hire has the right to use the picture for something around 100 years, again, depending on your previous consent.
It's not that easy. Speaking under the laws and conventions in the U.S., there are several distinctions, all of which play into what you can do and what you cannot do with a photograph you've taken. Was it in a public or private space? If it was private, were you invited? Did the people in the private setting have the knowledge that they may be photographed? Did they ask you to stop photographing them or did they pose for your photo? Then it comes to what you actually want to do with the photograph.