Any situation where one might find variances on the later Roger?

Bear in mind also that basically what you would own copyright to in the derivative work would be the changes you made.  The underlying original work would remain in the public domain; so if anyone backed out your changes, they would have a public domain image.

For instance, suppose you put colors on the black and white originals.  You would own the copyright to the colored version, but someone who converts it back to black and white reduces it back to a public domain image.

I would argue that restoration, if it makes a very significant difference to the image, would qualify as a derivative work.  Whether a court would uphold that or not is another matter - they may or may not. 

In your situation, if you haven't done it already, I would immediately register the restorations with the copyright office.  You can throw in a thousand or so of your own images at the same time, so the cost is very low (total $50 for all of them.)  Then tell him that they images are registered, that you own the copyright, and he publishes them at his own risk.

If you get them registered (arrives at the copyright office before he goes to publication) with the new print run, you can ask statutory damages and attorney's fees.

Let him know that.

Actually suing him for that is another matter - I've done it, and it's expensive.  But it makes for a damned good threat.

Museums do not own the copyright to ancient works that they own.  However, they may own copyright to photographs of them, depending on the situation.

If there is an independent publisher involved in this endeavor, I'd let him know that the limited usage license you originally granted was for only that original publication; any subsequent publication exceeds the terms of that license, and that you will so notify the publisher if your requests are not granted.  He may want to bluster it through, since he will have ego involved.  The publisher will be a lot more interested in not violating a copyright claim, especially since they have enough money to make suing them worthwhile.

cherrystone wrote:

I understand they don't own copyright, but a lot of their stuff certainly doesn't seem to fall into public domain.

I would guess it does.  Specific circumstances may make that untrue, but as a general rule I believe it to be true.

cherrystone wrote:

I used to order many copies of old photographs from the Burton Historical collection. I almost had to give them a thumbprint of my first born, a strand of DNA and swear on my life I would never do sell or copy those images myself. Personal use only.

See below.

cherrystone wrote:

And really in the case of my stuff, what is public domain when they sit stored on my premises? They have to get thru me first.

That is precisely the point of the way Burton acted.  "Public domain" does not mean that anyone has the right to break into your house, steal pictures and publish them.  You have physical ownership of the images, and have every right to keep them in a desk drawer and never show them to anyone.  The term "Public domain" simply means that neither you nor anyone else has a right to restrict others from publishing them - assuming those others have legal access to them in the first place.

What Burton did was replace copyright law with contract law.  In agreeing not to publish the images, you entered into a contract with Burton, and could be sued in state court or small claims court for violation of that contract. 

cherrystone wrote:

So lets say I did authorize limited publishing of an original copy without much restoration. Does that mean anyone could legally copy that from the publication, or even a webpage for that matter?

Probably, yes.

My mom's the director of education at the Florida Museum of Art, I can ask her to check with their legal people about the rights on work past original copyright.

SLE Photography wrote:

My mom's the director of education at the Florida Museum of Art, I can ask her to check with their legal people about the rights on work past original copyright.

?

Mom says in some cases of the artist of his heirs or a foundation that owns the rights to work in a collection holds them, then they apply... but in many cases the museum owns/controls the rights.  Her museum allows no photography at all.  I sent her a link to look over the thread & she'll email me with some specific points.