File:Father of the bride 1950 promo.jpg
From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
No higher resolution available.
Father_of_the_bride_1950_promo.jpg (434 × 500 pixels, file size: 88 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
Summary
- <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Taylor" class="extiw" title="en:Elizabeth Taylor">Elizabeth Taylor</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Tracy" class="extiw" title="en:Spencer Tracy">Spencer Tracy</a> in a promotional image for the 1950 film <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_the_Bride_(1950_film)" class="extiw" title="en:Father of the Bride (1950 film)">Father of the Bride</a>.
- Such images were taken on set during filming, or as part of an organized photo-shoot, by a studio photographer. They were then disseminated to the media and the public to promote the film (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_still" class="extiw" title="en:Film still">Film still</a>).
Public domain explanation
- It is unlikely that this image was secured with copyright protection, as stated by film induustry expert Gerald Mast in Film Study and the Copyright Law (1989) p. 87:
-
- "According to the old copyright act, such production stills were not automatically copyrighted as part of the film and required separate copyrights as photographic stills ... Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible."
- If there is any chance that the photograph was copyrighted, under the terms of the 1909 Copyright Act (which was law until 1978) it would have had to be renewed 28 years after publication. The movie had its copyright renewed in 1977, but searching for <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.archive.org/stream/1977worksofartja331711libr#page/n9/mode/2up">artwork renewals</a> in this year find no trace of this image. If it was renewed in 1978 it would be documented on the <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First">US Copyright Office website</a>. Again, there is no evidence that any images related to the film had their copyright renewed.
Licensing
Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
File history
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
| Date/Time | Thumbnail | Dimensions | User | Comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| current | 09:23, 4 January 2017 | | 434 × 500 (88 KB) | 127.0.0.1 (talk) | <ul> <li> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Taylor" class="extiw" title="en:Elizabeth Taylor">Elizabeth Taylor</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Tracy" class="extiw" title="en:Spencer Tracy">Spencer Tracy</a> in a promotional image for the 1950 film <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_the_Bride_(1950_film)" class="extiw" title="en:Father of the Bride (1950 film)">Father of the Bride</a></i>.</li> <li>Such images were taken on set during filming, or as part of an organized photo-shoot, by a studio photographer. They were then disseminated to the media and the public to promote the film (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_still" class="extiw" title="en:Film still">Film still</a>).</li> </ul> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Public_domain_explanation">Public domain explanation</span></h3> <ul><li>It is unlikely that this image was secured with copyright protection, as stated by film induustry expert Gerald Mast in <i>Film Study and the Copyright Law</i> (1989) p. 87:</li></ul> <dl><dd><dl><dd>"According to the old copyright act, such production stills were not automatically copyrighted as part of the film and required separate copyrights as photographic stills ... Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible." </dd></dl></dd></dl> <ul><li>If there is any chance that the photograph <i>was</i> copyrighted, under the terms of the 1909 Copyright Act (which was law until 1978) it would have had to be renewed 28 years after publication. The movie had its copyright renewed in 1977, but searching for <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.archive.org/stream/1977worksofartja331711libr#page/n9/mode/2up">artwork renewals</a> in this year find no trace of this image. If it was renewed in 1978 it would be documented on the <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First">US Copyright Office website</a>. Again, there is no evidence that any images related to the film had their copyright renewed.</li></ul> |
- You cannot overwrite this file.
File usage
The following 2 pages link to this file:
