Re: To Sudek 13
 

Horst
This is bussinness. If you can claim hundreds of $ of copyright fees per single photo, it will be always tempting.
Personally, I am always trying to get to original picture in order of getting highest quality and then to give respective credit.
In regard of those manuals, what is the actual subject of copyright?

Re: To Sudek 13
 

This publishing company is full of shyte. I have already spoken with them, and Sicuro has NO COPYRIGHT on those items. The Canadian Intellectual Property Rights dept., hands out copyright to ANYONE. You do not have to provide proof of anything. You register online, tell them you are the owner, and voilà, you get a copyright certificate in the mail. They do not investigate the claims, and WILL NOT back you up in court.

I know this, because 1) I am Canadian, 2) I have dealt with copyright for maaannnnyyy years, and 3) I own about 80 original manuals, and wanted to obtain the copyrights WAAYYYYY before Sicuro did.

WW2 copyright does not exist anywhere I know of, not because it is WW2, but because of the date. If I owned a aircraft company and printed aircraft manuals in 1940...copyright would be lost if:

1) original author died (company went out of business) and 10 years go by from his death

2) 50 years after original publication, no copyright was re-registered.

3) company lost all records proving they were the original publisher.

However, I can RETAIN the copyright if I re-register, have proof of legal copyright, and are WITHIN the legal tmeframes/dates.

Sicuro is under the impression that IF NO ONE claims copyright after the author's death, then the first person who does becomes the legal copyright holder. That is 100% FALSE. Copyright automatically would have gone to EADS when they took over Messerschmitt AG/Daimler-Benz., and automatically lost when 50 yesrs went by from the publication date.

If they did not register the copyright 50 years after the original publication (75 in Canada, I believe), then even THEY cannot claim anything. Once in FREE DOMAIN, it remains in FREE DOMAIN for life. This is recognized worldwide, even in Germany.

I have a letter from the legal department at EADS, stating they even THEY cannot prove they are the legal successor, as the company changed so many times, and there is NO documents showing they are the successor (even though it is pretty obvious). It would never hold up in court. EADS can offer a "non-exclusive" license to print the work (logs/branding, etc.), but Sicuro's copyright claim is BS.

Copyright law, though slightly different in every country, is GENERALLY the same. Once an item is in free domain, it remains in FREE DOMAIN.

To date, the family of William Shakespeare gets NO ROYALTIES from plays published...no copyright. That is why you see his plays published by 100's of different publishers.

Both Sicuro and sudek13 cannot claim copyright on anything, and would lose any court battle, as they would not be able to prove they are the LEGAL SUCCESSOR of the photos or documents

100% fact.

;)

mike

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Mike, German stuff (official and individual) lost copyright due to post-war decisions later implemented eg. by Enemy Property Act. Similarly, all the RAF stuff is considered Crown Copyright and according to HMSO is now expired and in public domain, while all the USAAF stuff was considered paid from taxes and again in public domain. Some, mostly companies, claim copyright, like Boeing for their photo collection, but the only problem is to find a lawyer for a long legal battle. They would lost.

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Thanks Franek!

Now that I remember, I think I heard that somewhere before as well...

:)

Mike

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Gentlemen-

While it seems clear that copyrights can no longer be applied to WWII images, I imagine that Sudek13 would be well aware of this. Is it possible that he is not after copyright's at all, but publication rights instead? I am by no means an expert on these legal issues, but if publication rights apply to pictures, as I believe they do, then this may be his goal to obtain instead of the copyright's.

The following information was listed on Wikipedia.com concerning publishing rights:
"The publication right is a copyright granted to the publisher who first publishes a previously unpublished work after that work's original copyright has expired. In practical terms, the publication right is the same as all the exploitative rights granted under copyright, but does not cover the moral rights.
Germany has known the publication right since 1965, first with a term of 10 years since the publication, extended in 1990 to 25 years.With the EU Copyright Directive, the publication right was introduced in all countries of the European Union with a 25-year term starting at the publication of the previously unpublished work. In the UK, the publication right was introduced by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996, effective on December 1, 1996."

-Eric Zemper

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Yes, this is a very valid question, but then the question is if it could be applied to WWII photos. Imagine, I have got an original print never published before, but someone publishes it just before me. Or even harder nut, I have got a scan and the situation repeats. Who would have any rights?
Doubtless copying a photo from a recent publication would be a violation, but then again, if a source would be stated, it will be not. I think the law was constructed to avoid plagiarism and in effect would not apply to the pictures themselves. Stating in credit that photo belongs to Sudek collection published in a book Blah blah, should solve the matter.

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Hi Eric,

No, that would not hold water. Published or not, all photos became FREE DOMAIN many, many years ago. Once an item is in FREE DOMAIN, no one can claim anything on it, puiblishing rights, copyrights, etc. Sure he can publish as much as he wants, based on free domain, but he cannot hold the sole publishing rights.

Even if it were true, he would have to prove it HAD NOT been published at all in ANY magazine, book, etc. since it's conception (virtually impossible), and he would have had to do it within the timeframe allowed (dependant on country) BEFORE Free Domain came into effect...he is decades too late for that.

Let's say for example, I took a photo in 1945 of an Me109. I now have copyright. I am the original photographer, and copyright is automatic. If I die, the copyright transfers to my family. If the copyright is not "officially" re-registered within 10 years from my death, OR 50 YEARS from the original date I took the photo (both figures vary depending on country), it then falls into FREE/PUBLIC DOMAIN. And NO ONE can claim copyright or publication rights...even my family.

If someone lends you a photo for publishing in a book, it would be common courtesy to list who lent the pic in the book. But if you have a WW2 image of the web you do not need to contact anyone for printing/publishing.

ZERO can be done for Publication Rights and Copyright on items in Free Domain.

Mike

Off topic: Harrison 987
 

Hi Mike, did you get my PM about the DB605? Please PM me back if you can.
Best wishes.SM

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Hello Again-

After reading conflicting information online from various sources on this topic and becoming completely confused, I decided to write to the Copyright Office at the U.S. Library of Congress (www.copyright.gov). I asked them if copyright protection / publishing rights still apply to WWII photographs and if someone were to buy or an original unpublished picture, if the new owner of the image claim any rights to it. Here is the reply:

"Publishing rights are only one in the bundle of the exclusive rights that
comprise copyright. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

A work created before 1978, but never published or registered, would be
protected for the lifetime of the author (photographer) plus 70 years. However, Section 105 of the US copyright law provides that copyright protection is not available for any "work of the United States Government", which is defined as "a work prepared by an employee of the government within the scope of his employment." Thus, if the photo was taken by a member of the military services as part of his duties during the war, it would not be protected by copyright.

On the other hand, a photo taken by a serviceman not specifically "employed" to take photos would be subject to protection.

If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are
determined by the photographer's will, or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession. Mere ownership or acquisition of a photograph does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of the physical copy does not of
itself convey any rights in the copyright.

For further information on copyright duration in the US and how to assess
copyright status, please see http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html,
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15t.html and
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.html. "

Please keep in mind that this only applies to the U.S. and the laws may be very different in other countries.

-Eric Zemper

Re: To Sudek 13
 

Hi Gentlemen,
I own a fair amount of original WW2 photo's.
This copyright thread is very interesting but you all are forgetting one thing.
In the case of WW2 photo's, especially photo's taken by German soldiers/sailors/airmen and so on, the copyright is not in question.
Why do you think many photo's appear on Ebay ?!
Almost any photo on Ebay is sold by the relatives of the real copyrightholders and they (the ones who can claim the copyright because they inhereted it) have no interest at all to register the copyright to the photo, but just want to make a quick buck out of the legacy of their deceased relatives.
So if you buy a photo on Ebay you are pretty save to use it for a publication.
Just don't claim the copyright to the photo but claim it is a photo of your own collection (and you can prove it !).
This will not prevent that this print can be used again by somebody else, but in most cases this is not your concern.
Most collectors are not out for making money out of their collection (certainly not in my case), but for completing a photo-selection for a publication or just to add to a personnal collection of a specific type of aircraft.
In the case of Sudek13 I can't imagine he wants to make a profit out of his photo's. He is so wealthy that he don't need that. So, although I don't like it as so many others, that he pinches a photo away from me, I believe he is doing a good thing for the airminded community.
I believe in the good intentions of people and I believe Sudek13 is using his money for the benefit of the future generations of fans of aircraft/tanks/guns and so on.
When you are that wealthy as Sudek13 what else could be the reason for buying photo's on Ebay. I don't believe it is for making more money.

Regards,
Jan