Previously unpublished picture of Shirley Temple

[newuser]

I know this question is crass in light of her death but my family has an unpublished (to my knowledge) picture of Shirley Temple that was taken while the family member was on vacation in Hawaii. Unlike current celebrity candid shots she happily posed for the close-up picture and it is only her in the shot. I figured news outlets would be looking for any previously unpublished pictures of Shirley Temple but:

1. I have no idea who to contact about this and;
2. I have no idea how much the publishing rights to a picture like this would be.

Any guidance on this would be greatly appreciated.

Kelly

 

[Braineack]

I say it lacks tact as well.

 

[Gavjenks]

Generally a public photo of somebody is fine to publish pretty much whenever, especially if they look happy to be in it (no argument that they had any expectation of privacy, unlike potentially if they're huddled over / hiding)
And on top of that, it's currently newsworthy, which adds a lot of protection.

Most likely you could simply sell it outright to news companies. And I presume you would simply contact their offices. I have no idea if they would actually want that or what they would pay or if they would for whatever reason demand some crazy model releases. But what does it cost you to find out? Three phone calls?

 

[KmH]

How much the rights to use the photo would be depends on how the photo would be used.
What you sell is called a use license. A use license is essentially a rental contract. Whoever buys the use license would be renting the photographer's copyright.
Business Resources | American Society of Media Photographers

What year was the photo made?

Is the photographer still alive?

 

[vintagesnaps]

You're right it does seem rather crass; I just read about this morning. You might need to think about giving it a little time.

I was going to post the same resource that Keith did, and was wondering the same type things, who was the photographer? Does your family own the photo?

I don't think it makes any difference if a subject looks happy in the photograph as far as licensing usage... apparently your family member(s) met her on vacation and she might have been happy to pose for the photo at the time, but I don't think that necessarily means anything when it comes to using the photo.

If you own the photo and the copyright, then look up info. on copyright, contracts, etc. etc. You could probably think about magazines or other publications that are reputable who may have interest in licensing usage.

 

[Gavjenks]

You're right it does seem rather crass; I just read about this morning. You might need to think about giving it a little time.

New segments and short documentaries and things are being produced RIGHT NOW probably. If he wants to sell this, I don't see anything rude about that if it paints Shirley Temple in a positive light. That's a healthy memory, and people need photos right now. It's neither as marketable nor as useful to society (to whatever extent it is) much later on.

apparently your family member(s) met her on vacation and she might have been happy to pose for the photo at the time, but I don't think that necessarily means anything when it comes to using the photo.

It doesn't mean MUCH, but it means something. There are laws (or precedents at least) that prevent you in most cases from using photos of people if they are trying to hide from the camera, as that is sometimes considered a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, if the person is smiling right at the camera, then that obviously no longer applies / is not at all ambiguous.

Also, newsworthiness usually nullifies that, so you have two layers (hence journalists can still publish photos of the mayor walking out of his house with a jacket hiding his face, right after a sex scandal, etc., even though he's trying to hide)

 

[vintagesnaps]

There's a difference between editorial usage like in a newspaper or in the media, and retail use or making a profit from usage. Newspapers always have had obituaries for famous people ready so when something happened they already had the info. prepared and other media outlets probably do the same thing.

I was rephrasing what the OP said, it does seem a little less than tactful to want to know if the photo is usable to profit from it so soon after her death was announced but I think celebrities are seen differently than someone would view a situation if it involved a friend or relative.

 

[KmH]

The Top-Earning Dead Celebrities - Forbes
Right of publicity statutes could factor in that Shirley Temple likely did like lots of other famous people and made provisions so her estate could continue making money from her likeness.

Without a representative that has connections in the publishing community I think it would be very difficult for the OP to identify who to contact.

 

[Pav10566]

Just my humble opinion: Send a copy to the family, sell the original to a large circulation newspaper and offer the earnings to a children charity or an orphanage...I'd be surprised if anyone would blame you doing this

 

[newuser]

Thank you all for the helpful replies. I realize it isn't a tactful topic but she was a public figure, I assume there will be some interest in "new" images of her, and the photo isn't exploitative. The picture was taken by my great uncle who is no longer alive and the original is now in my possession. The photo was taken in 1937 in Hawaii and is a very sweet picture with her sitting crossed legged covered in leis. I will check out the Business Resources provided. Thanks again.