Can I reprint part of an old advertisement?

Yes, your instincts are right to ask the question. Without being able to see the ad, it is very likely that the company that produced the product in the ad was gobbled up, merged or otherwise morphed into another company that is out there. My guess is that if you used this image for your own financial gain in an advertisement, product label or otherwise, they will find you and you'll be paying. So, my reccomendation is for you to find them. It is never wise to use someone else's work for your own financial gain unless you have permission. This answer is provided for informational purposes only. Actual legal advice can only be provided in an office consultation by an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction, with experience in the area of law in which your concern lies.

The question of whether a use of potentially protected intellectual property is a complex, fact-specific task. Prior to making used of a potentially protected piece of intellectual property it is appropriate to obtain specific advice from an experienced attorney practicing in the field of intellectual property in your jurisdiction. It is important to keep in mind in a situation in the hypothetical situation you describe, that the photograph in the hypothetical add and the entire add itself are likely to be covered by copyright protections, in addition to the trademark protections for the brands and logos contained therein. Even in the absence of a copyright notice, creative works can carry either "common law" protections and/or the legal protections provided to copyrighted material under federal and/or state laws. In order to determine what protections may apply in a given circumstance, it would be necessary to research registrations, as well as analyze the protections which may apply as a result of any such registration (or lack thereof). In addition, the way in which someone other than the owner of a piece of intellectual property seeks to use the property may impact whether that use infringes upon the owner's rights. For example, commercial use of intellectual property is often (but not always) treated differently than non-commercial use. Also, there may me potential "fair uses" for the property which would be non-infringing in nature. In short, there are so many potential variables involved and the analysis of the circumstances are so fact-specific, that a review by an experienced attorney is essential to any meaningful determination of whether a use of intellectual property is permissible or not. DISCLAIMER: Please note that this response is not intended to and shall not create an attorney-client relationship with Briskin, Cross & Sanford, LLC or Byron M. G. Sanford, Esq. and are not intended to address the particular situation or circumstances identified int he question to which this response is offered. This response is not intended to serve as legal advice or counsel and is offered solely for educational purposes. Also note that I am licensed to practice law only in the state of Georgia. The information contained in this post is not intended to address any issues which may arise under the state or federal laws applicable to any state other than the state of Georgia.

The issue is simple. Does copyright still protect the photograph? If yes, you can't re-publish it w/o a license from the copyright owner. If no, you can. Because the photograph was first published before 1978 [the date the current version of our copyright law became effective] the old version of the law applies and, as a consequence, it's a devilishly difficult exercise to figure out if copyright still protects the photograph. See http://j.mp/1NpxbD . Note: The old version of the law stated that if a copyrightable work [such as a photograph] was published w/o a copyright notice then no copyright protected the work [the notice being a prerequisite]. If no copyright, anyone could, and still can, freely use the work. But that publication with notice rule had exceptions -- the one perhaps relevant in this situation was that a work published w/o notice by a licensee of the copyright owner WAS still protected by copyright [and so the work did NOT, because of the licensee's notice failure, enter the public domain]. That's likely relevant because photographers often license their photographs to ad agencies and then the ad agencies [as licensees] publish the licensed photographs [via the advertisement]. In short, even if the advertisement you found does not have a copyright notice [why you can't tell is beyond me] the photograph that you want to re-publish may still be protected by copyright. Because of the rule just discussed or, perhaps, because the photograph was published with notice somewhere else before it was published in the advertisement you found. All of which is to say that to determine the copyright status of the photograph you need to hire a copyright attorney or copyright researcher. And pay that person lots of money. Or you could simply re-publish the photograph and take the risk that the copyright owner will not find out. If you do re-publish w/o doing the copyright research, you should budget some money to pay the copyright owner if he or she comes out of the woodwork. Or you could take your own photograph, or license one for cheap, and forget this whole mess. That's the smart move. Good luck.