The quote by Eindhove is my comment, hence my reply: If you´re walking in my photographic studio and hire me for a nice family shot then it´s also "work for hire" same when you order me to shot your daughters wedding. Though the copyright belongs to the photographer. That´s where they live from, that you come and order a few prints. And in nearly every case of a professional photographer there´s a copyright note on the backside so that they can not go to the next shop and order a print from the print.Vikki wrote:[...]If the photographer took the photo as "work for hire" as Christian says in Marcus' quote above--that is, if the photographer was being paid--then the copyright belongs to the agency who was paying the photographer. [...]eindhoven wrote:No one can sell the copyright of any photo, even if he/she wish to do so. Nor is the copyright handed over to any person who buy a print of the negative / file. They copyright is allways in the photographers property. It´s only possible to sell the right of use.
Another example. A company hired me to shot photos of different pets (birds, rabbits,...) for new labels on their pet food. They had to pay me for material, work and addtitional for the constricted use of those photos.
I don´t think that the bigger part on Ebay & Co where one sells some prints of WWII has been shot by photographers working for any news agency.
Otherwise I don´t think that many WWII photographers bequeathed the copyright of their photos to their heir. Most of them where simple men and where happy if they had a camera what was a treasure at the time.
But - there´s allways the chance that one did, and that´s the "problem". As Eindhoven the people unfamiliar with law and copyright knows only about the "50 years time limit".