That is a really interesting question. It's something I've wondered about when watching shows like "Pawn Stars" and others where this very same scenario takes place.
Standard disclaimer.... I'm not a lawyer but play one on the internet.
My guess is your first thought, that you own the physical item but not the rights to reproduce it for profit. The same as if you bought a prototype of a collectible item (
eg: in the sci-fi world, you can find prototypes and even the molds of toys & other stuff in the collectibles market), you own that individual item but you don't have the rights to then use that item to reproduce/create new products with the intent of selling them. In the case of a photographer, the rights (
which in the US are automatically assigned to the person who took the photo) are likely retained with the estate after death and might even be managed by a media company for licensing.
The other item to consider is who the picture is of and in what setting. If it was a private event and it's a celebrity in the last 50 years or so you'll likely also have to contend with the musician probably having a copyright on their likeness for reproduction. So even if you came across a negative of a private photo shoot of Jerry Garcia and the legal representative of the photographer gave a transfer of copyright with the sale of the negative you still couldn't create prints of it and sell them unless you also had a license with the legal entity managing Garcia's likeness (
like how posters of Marilyn Monroe and Elvis are sold and the images used on other merchandise). Now if its a picture of Garcia in a public setting, like walking down the street, and if you got the copyright of the negative transferred then you're likely good to go.
But... there is a always a "but"... if you're talking about something that would fall under US laws and if it's a really old item then there is the chance that it has entered the public domain rights. I don't recall if it'll be happening in 2019 or 2020 but the very original image of Mickey Mouse, from the Steamboat Willie animated short, will be entering the public domain. In the case of Mickey Mouse the subsequent versions of him are still protected, even if the change is something a little as how a button on his shorts is presented, but the very original B&W version will be popping up in some weird places soon.
The other 'but' is if you modify the work to create a new work under the argument of fair use. The case of Richard Prince is a good example of that; he took other people's Instagram photos, blew them up with his own description below the photos, and then displayed (
and sold!) them as his own works. There's been a few different lawsuits from him doing the same thing with other "works of art" that he sold; I know he won some of the early lawsuits but I'm not sure the outcome of the most recent ones involving the Instagram photos.
So the odds are if it's something that you want to make prints of for friends & family, or maybe even post online, you're good to go but if it's something you want to profit from then you should consult somebody who spent the time & money to get a law degree.
