Image ownership

[rjtrixster]

Just out of curiosity,
If I own prints taken at a professional photographic studio which has since gone out of business, do I now own the rights to the images. I only ask because I have some Prints taken at Olan Mills which went belly up a few years ago and I am wondering if I now have the legal right to have copies made for family members, in case the the printers refuse to print them.

[LaPistola]

Would it be the photographer and not the company that owns the photos?

[jet_kit]

It's some years since I got involved with copyright. But, the rule used to be that copyright was vested in the owner of the film. For this reason, newspapers would supply the film for their photographers and could then claim copyright. How this works with digital, I don't know, but I would guess the same applies and it would be the owner of the memory card.
What you have are prints which does not entitle you to make copies.
However, if you make inquiries at the last known address and get no response (which, of course, you won't), it could be reasonably inferred that the original owner is no longer exercising his copyright.

[OldBoy]

I think what applies here is whether you are going to make a commerical profit from the images, in which case you would be breaking the law. In theory making extra copies of a image/print without paying the copyright owner is still breaking the law but most copyright holders wouldn't bother chasing you.