Civil War Photographic Sources

Stumbled upon this while reading Albert Castel's "Decison in the West" book. His photographs
are from the book "Review of Reviews: A Photographic History of the Civil War"
Volumes I through X can be found here :
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000605194
V1= Volume 1
V10= Volume 10
For V1 : jump to page 20 to see the first photo.
 
Last edited:
An appraiser told me that I should do nothing to preserve a cdv. Is this true?
I find that very hard to believe - but I don't think you should attempt to clean it in any way, but certainly don't leave it in a musty cellar, if you know what I mean.
 
Guys, this is exactly what I needed. I just signed to do a nonfiction book for teens called Women Heroes of the Civil War with Chicago Review Press, and holy cow, I need images. Zuzah, you are a godsend.

Question: Are most of the pics from the Nat'l Archives, the LOC, in public domain? They'll tell you on the info included with the pic whether it's under copyright, right? I have to pay for any permissions I secure -- and I want to stay cheap.
 
Guys, this is exactly what I needed. I just signed to do a nonfiction book for teens called Women Heroes of the Civil War with Chicago Review Press, and holy cow, I need images. Zuzah, you are a godsend.

Question: Are most of the pics from the Nat'l Archives, the LOC, in public domain? They'll tell you on the info included with the pic whether it's under copyright, right? I have to pay for any permissions I secure -- and I want to stay cheap.
Without giving legal advice, anything published in the U.S. before 1923 is in the public domain. I assume anything at the NA or LOC before that date is safe to use.

An excerpt from The myth of the pre-1923 public domain
"...As a practical matter, there would likely be little risk in digitizing any pre-1923 edition of a work. The presumed copyright owner would have to establish with certainty that an authorized publication occurred at a later date. As time passes, it becomes harder and harder to document authorship of earlier works, and so the likelihood of a complaint or suit diminishes. But there is a big difference between saying "this is in the public domain" and "this may be copyrighted, but there is little chance that I wll be sued."

In short, just because a work was published in the US prior to 1923 does not mean it is in the public domain. The first authorized publication needs to have occurred before that date. This is just one more example of how hard it is to establish with certainty the copyright status of a work. ..."
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/07/the-myth-of-the-pre1923-public-domain.html

Remember, I don't give legal advice.
 
One of the most unique collections of Confederate portraits I came across was a special publication issued by being a member of the White House of the Confederacy/ Museum of the Confederacy. It was a book simply called Confederate Images. There was also a book featuring many Confederate uniforms and artifacts, also unique to being a member of MOC.

Another fantastic collection of mini-bios and portraits, many unpublished before, is a six-volume set I obtained from Time Life called CONFEDERATE GENERALS. It contained every single Confederate general, some well-known and others not so well-known. Truly a beautiful publication.
 
Without giving legal advice, anything published in the U.S. before 1923 is in the public domain. I assume anything at the NA or LOC before that date is safe to use....

Mike -

I did not see this post when it was originally written and just cam across it tonight. While you are correct (per my experience) that images prior to 1923 are generally in public domain, however it is a bit more complex than that. The copyright laws vary depending on type of work and when it was published. For example if an author publishes a work today the copyright is good for 70 years AFTER the death of the author! That means if someone in their 20's published an item early in their career and lives to be 90 the item could be legally copyright for a total of 140 years!

If the image was a work for hire (i.e. photographer on assignment for a magazine) then they are not subject to the life of creator rules. For current works this would be 95 years since publication or 120 years since creation (whichever is shorter).

Also, the work that Zuzah, myself and others do with restoration/colorization of images creates a derivative copyright. While the original B&W image itself may be in public domain, the recent work performed on it constitutes a new copyright for that derivative.

Finally, there are a number of images (I am thinking specifically of the image of Lee and Traveller below) that the image is in Public Domain, but the only original copies are in private hands (in this case the Museum Of the Confederacy) and only small digital versions exist so that they can control sales of usage of the image. They want $200 per use for this image. Other museums and individuals do the same when the images that they control. This gives them a revenue stream and helps keep an image that would otherwise be in Public Domain out of circulation.

general-robert-e-lee-horse-traveler-1866-jpg.jpg
 
Last edited:
David, thanks for your more precise explanation! If a person digitally restores an old public domain B&W photo, but does not color it, this person now has a copyright until 70 years after his/her death?
 
David, thanks for your more precise explanation! If a person digitally restores an old public domain B&W photo, but does not color it, this person now has a copyright until 70 years after his/her death?

Like yourself, I too am not a lawyer.

I have paid to have several things I wrote to be copyright by the LOC. I have not done so with the images I have worked on. From what I have read the restoration work would qualify as it's own copyright as it would not exist without your effort.

I keep all of the layers for restoration and colorization just to show the work if it ever becomes necessary. I keep the uncropped version to help prove my ownership over the work.

It also is why I put a watermark to help keep control.

Hope this helps.
 
The Library of Congress has updated their site. This means that if you had links to old search pages or even individual image pages they are no longer working.

Here is the new link for Civil War negatives:
http://www.loc.gov/collections/civil-war-glass-negatives/

and the new link for the Brady Handy Collection:
http://www.loc.gov/collections/brady-handy/

You can also find a number of Civil War images in the stereograph collection (just search on Civil War)
http://www.loc.gov/collections/stereograph-cards/

The LOC has a link for all things Civil War, but it does not seem to be working (site was just updated August 30, 2015). Hopefully they will get that back up and running.
 
Finally, there are a number of images (I am thinking specifically of the image of Lee and Traveller below) that the image is in Public Domain, but the only original copies are in private hands (in this case the Museum Of the Confederacy) and only small digital versions exist so that they can control sales of usage of the image. They want $200 per use for this image. Other museums and individuals do the same when the images that they control. This gives them a revenue stream and helps keep an image that would otherwise be in Public Domain out of circulation.

general-robert-e-lee-horse-traveler-1866-jpg.jpg

This is why I often suggest that people give such images to organizations such as the Library of Congress, which does put images into the public domain, and has the resources to preserve the image without charging for its use.

- Alan
 
Back
Top