Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Hi All,

this is my two cents .

The maker of an artwork (photo's included) is according to the (Dutch) law the copyrightholder of the artwork (in this case let's call it photo).

The copyrightholder can sell prints of the photo, publish the photo, sell copies of the nagative or give permission to use the prints, but unless he also sells the copyright to the photo he still remains the one and only copyrightholder.

Off course there are many variations, such as selling limited copyright for a specific purpose, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

Now how about the copyrights of a photo bought through for example Ebay ?

When you buy such a photo you are not the copyrightholder of that photo, but when you use this photo for a publication, you can claim the copyrights for this photo in good faith, claiming that as far as you know this is the only remaining print of that particular photo.

The only one who can challenge that claim is another owner of a print of that photo (but if he can't proof he has bought the copyright from the original copyrightholder he has the same rights as you) or ultimately the original copyrightholder or someone who has bought the copyright or inheretid the copyrights.

And luckily for most photo's bought through Ebay the original copyrightholder can't come forward anymore and his offspring is apparantly not interested in copyrights, because they are selling the heritage of the original copyrightholder.

That means many people can claim the copyrights of a photo (many prints were swapped between "comrades") and all can use them as they please without the risk of being legally challenged by the other owners of the prints.

All this said, you can claim the copyright but you can't prove you are the one and only copyright-holder. It is case of claiming untill proved otherwise.

I am no expert in International Law, so I can't tell what differences there are in the various countries. But simple logic tells me that a legal rule for a certain country only applies to persons falling under the jurisdiction of that country.

So to my opinion if photo's are made by inhabitants of the USA and Australia and if the laws of those countries state that the copyright is ended after a certain amount of years that only applies for photo's made by people falling under the jurisdiction of those countries. Meaning that this don't apply to photo's made by people of other countries.

Just for clarification (if you are tired reading all this): a photo published in a book is certainly not become public domain, but only made available to the public to see.

Regards,
Jan

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Dear Jan,

The German(and Japanese and Italian) material in the USA from WWII I mentioned as being in the public domain are IMHO considered as “war booty”. In this respect it has nothing to do with being previously published. IIRC, at least some courts in Europe have considered such items as not subject to recovery by the previous owners, whether or not it was government or private property.. As I said, the situation is very tricky. I do not know if any European nations have the public domain category as defined in the USA. For example, similar material in GB is subject to the Crown copyright. I do not know what the laws would be in Holland, but I suspect there is little there that would be considered as WW II “booty” as most of it was going the other direction.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

the bottom line is these discussions are entirely academic...proprietry rights & definition of 'fair use' on a case by case basis could only be established in a court of law...ie if the copyright holder has a big enough wallet...

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Would be interesting to start a sticky thread based on Andreas' suggestion, compiling a "general" listing of copyright law(s) as they apply to our sphere of interest.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

I would differentiate between original photos (prints) and original negatives.

Obviously, all existing prints (and their reproductions) of a certain subject can be traced back to the original negative. Therefore, if someone owns the original negative - even if he did not actually push the shutter release button - can fairly claim that he holds the 'source' of prints made off it.

Now, I am not certain that owning the original negative is equal to owning the copyright, but chances are much better than simply owning a print.
I'd say - without any legal backing, however - that if someone owns the original negative can pretty much claim the copyright over someone who owns a photo made from that particular negative.

Obviously this does not apply to the current era of digital photos...

P.S. Very interesting thread, BTW. I agree with Ruy, that the topic should be made 'sticky' and periodically updated, when new and reliable information comes to light.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Hello all,

Interesting discussion - sorry, I am not a lawyer, but I did find some usefull links on the internet regarding this subject:

http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html

http://www.pdimages.com/law/10.htm

http://ahds.ac.uk/copyrightfaq.htm

http://www.protectmywork.com/index_photo.php

Perhaps these links are usefull - it is a very complicated matter...

Regards
Rob

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Actually, at least for some of us, this is not an academic issue. If you are trying to put a book together, the task of gaining permission to publish photos may be the most difficult of all. I have been fortunate in that various collections, have given permission for a body of over 25,000 Luftwaffe photos, but I still am working on several hundred that show certain aspects that I would like to use. In some cases, I may have to artwork, using information from photos to get around this issue.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Copyright is a tricky issue. Even if you believe you have covered it all before publishing something you can be in for a surprise afterwards. One thing I have learned from footnoting my book all over the place..... very honest, but not always a clever thing to do.....

cheers,

John.

Copyright! - photographs
 

I agree it would be useful to have a compilation of copyright laws country-by-country. What I would find very useful is a list of the old photo archives and a list of who now owns who. In addition to the old negatives and slides I have collected, I also have a huge number of photos with stamps on the back. Here's a sample of a few of them - "Photo by M. Olmstead", "Weltbild GmbH" "Fotosiegel, Ulm-Donau".

Whenever I am contacted by the person who held the camera or who has had copyright transfered to them by the person who held the camera then I oblige by not making new photo prints even in cases where I have a 1940s negative or slide because ownership of an old negative does not automatically serve to transfer copyright or intellectual property rights (putting US public domain completely to one side).

Many of you will think this a tongue in cheek response, but I trust that everyone will appreciate the practical side of this issue.

I also sell manuals and blueprints on CD on eBay. In most cases I have produced each CD from the original book in my collection. In all other cases I have searched out whoever digitised the material and got their permission. The most recent example of this are the P-51 Blueprints on CD sold on behalf of Flug Werk GmbH. I am also acting to protect this item from piracy on this organisation's behalf and also to help in terms of evidence against a particularly pernicious group of pirates operating on eBay.

All of the CD items are new copyrights on the restored and edited original art-work (NOT the original engineering design), since sufficient work has been done to each document to serve to create new intellectual property.

Many of these are branded items protected by trade mark registration. As could be expected I am obliged to respect Brand XX's wishes re its brand.

The internet is a useful information tool, but it can be used for disinformation as well. Information transferred on the internet can help people shape their opinion. Reputations can be enhanced or destroyed depending on personal predeliction.

My thanks to those members of this forum who have alerted me to the start of this thread on 12 o'clock high.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Very interesting disscusion. I have consulted some few months ago some genltemens, most from USA and one from Holland, which are much more informed about the protection and international low. My basic interest was to take some extract from book published in 1919 and publish it on web. Free. Info I have found out the 70 years after the death of the author and if any other does not claim ownership over the publication this subject became public domain.

After the reading of this two page of various comment I have turn off PC and take just to overview on the many of the books I have. Best books are result of the many years study and the authros are visited, interview many of the surviving crew and their families. And collect their images and published here. Could this be possible to do with official images? Answer is simply- I have take and watch the date of publishing and from separate folder take various informational leflets I have get from various archive. So if you are going to use images from IWM you should ay at least 22 BP if the image is going to be published in magazine. Other charges is much higher. Bundsarchiv make charge in that time in regards to how many prints are going to be published and you could not take and release under the charge of some 104 DM. Now take any book or agazine, count the number of the images and see how much this cost? Answer is simple- we would not have today that much publication in the past.

In this way personal albums and search are important. And there should be determined- Copyright and Right. If somebody get image from grandson of the German WW1 fighter pilot could it use it? How to found out who make image? How many years to spent to found out that? And there is other solution- if on the image is many people presented this could mean that all of tem have a sample of image and maybe this sample is preserved until today. Copyright or Right? I think all of them have right to use it.

Many of images was once before released as Public Domain or Free Press Sample. Just some time ago I have place of this forum image of the Dornier Do215 which have been released before the war as free press release. I am sure that negative is still preserved and maybe Dornier or Bundesarchiv have it and can claim all right reserved but- Free Relesae is Free relase and all of this can be free used. If you order print now I am sure that you will be charged.

Only you can be sure that you have total ownership oer the image if you have made it. If not there will be always problem. Even if you have original, taken from veteran or buy on ebay, you could be faced with problem. Problem could be made by other resachers or Institution. As I can reusme from the many years of previous contact authors never have a problem with Institution [ if they use original from other source] but always have problem with other authors. So there is one term used by many of reseachers and authors:

"Publish and be damned"

Please don't take this moto as recomenation but just to show to you how the deep problem is.

Modern problem- if you get scan of original image and the scan is in the high resolution, do you have right to use it. Some publications accept it as original. But many does not care at all. Also one more problem- original black and white can be with easy converted by image editing software into the color. And this is then something new and open new gate to abuse Copyright and Rights over the original ownership. Good thing that in the moment I don't know any publisher who would accept that kind of "work" for the release in press. I hope that this will stay like this.

And what I know and what I am sure? I am sure that the there is protection over the images but this protection is for sure much more under the level how the protection is strong for the art work. Try to reroduce any art [ no matter is this da Vinci or the art made by Skyraider] you will be faced with the brutal low and court will have no mercy. In this way I am deeply sorry that one gentlemen here was stated just some time ago that his art was used without his permission!!!

What I will do? Be sure that I have no time machine and I could not back in time and collect directly couple thousand of old images I have in my collection. But this topic re-open some critical problem so in future I will use all I have collected for my own purpose and my own risk and would not forward any copy and risk to any other. Simly words- nobody would ever get anything from me. Until the things don't become clear.

To illustrate this problem I have attached three images and one color art I have in collection- recolored image of Werner Voss Fokker Trpilane, tail gun of He111, Gloster Schneider Trophy racer and my color profile. I am 100% sure that art is mine :) :)