# Copyright for vintage Kodachrome slide images? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 8, 2023, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-for-vintage-kodachrome-slide-images/985218 "2023-06-08T18:37:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-for-vintage-kodachrome-slide-images/985218/21 "2023-06-10T22:05:59Z")
Just for those who don’t want to read the full story on the Maier case, the people who bought the negatives and wanted to use the photographs entered a _voluntary_ royalty sharing agreement with the closest heir. There was no court ruling on who got what. So that case doesn’t really help here. ---
**Author:** ![Common\_Tater](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/common_tater/32/13846_2.png) [@Common\_Tater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Common_Tater)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-for-vintage-kodachrome-slide-images/985218/22 "2023-06-10T22:44:26Z")
> [@Pork\_Rind](#): > > For editorial and fine art use, no. For commercial use, yes. Interesting. I’d have thought the courts would rule that, ordinary people doing ordinary things in a public place would have no expectation of “privacy” or whatever, and therefore not much to be done about commercial use. But I can also see the arguments to the contrary. The nice young lady gazing wistfully from her car, if someone were to use that image in a commercial advertisement or similar, she should be compensated. It sure gets complicated as time goes by (though not _too_ much time) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copyright-for-vintage-kodachrome-slide-images/985218.md?page=1)