A kind of legal question about photos.
 

I have one legal question. I was informed that all photos taken in the UK before 1957 are public domain. What does it exactly mean? If I buy a photo from, let's say, the RAF Museum can I use it freely in the article or book with the captions of the source of the photo, e.g. Hurricanes over London (RAF Museum).
I'm not a lawer and I don't want to break any laws and rules.

Thank you in advance for any help.

Dominik

Re: A kind of legal question about photos.
 

I am sure there will be further commentary about this from our UK friends, but, in the USA, "public domain" means it is not copyrighted and you can use it as you please. On the other side, if you use it in a copyrighted publication, only THAT reproduction, in your book is copyrighted, not the photo itself. I.e., I could not copy it from your book, put that in my book, and claim a copyright in my book, but if I had my own original reproduction print, I can use it in my book.

Re: A kind of legal question about photos.
 

If I am not much mistaken, buying a photo from the RAF Museum for ones personal use is one thing but then publishing same photo in a journal would incur an additional fee. Same with IWM hence the 'Not to be reproduced without permission' stamp on the reverse

Re: A kind of legal question about photos.
 

Chris and John

Thank you for replies.
I must say that my understanding of "public domain" is rather American. When I have my own copy of a document or photo I can use it freely as long as there's no copyright. That's why I'm a bit surprised and confused by British law. At least now I know what to do or what not to do.

Cheers!

Re: A kind of legal question about photos.
 

Chris, I will cheerfully admit that British copyright laws are unknown to me, but, if something is labeled as "public domain", that's what it is under international copyright convention rules, and the RAF Museum cannot charge a fee or whatever for reproduction by just putting a stamp on the back of the photo? Public Domain is Public Domain.

In a collorary I have often wondered how the BA in Germany can get away with charging copyright fees for photos taken by the WWII regime, when the Allies ruled that all photos' copyrights were invalid because it was a "criminal regime" as ruled by the Nuremburg Trials. Am I mistaken here?

Re: A kind of legal question about photos.
 

Today I have found a few minutes to read about public domain and what I have found is that there should not be any extra fees, as John mentioned.

Re: A kind of legal question about photos.
 

All I will say is tread very carefully. I have seen original photos given to me by Former German aircrew which I have published in my books appear on websites without my permission. When I have asked where the photos have come from & stated where my photos came from, they have mysteriously disappeared from the website.

Re: A kind of legal question about photos.
 

Chris the example you have given is something else. I assume the photos were taken directly from your book which is copyrighted.
But if I buy a photo from any source and the photo belongs to public domain I do not have to pay extra fees for publishing. But if someone who owns the photo shares it with me it clear for me that I should ask for permission (I always do that). If I were them I would have asked you first and then publish on the website.
Returning to main topic. IMHO museums shouldn't take extra fees for the right to publish materials from the Second World War as it's a public domain. In Australia it works like that and in the States too. So why is the difference?

Re: A kind of legal question about photos.
 

Photos from WW2 are not automatically public domain. As I understand it, all official German state photos are, and all US government photos are, but that isn't true for the UK or other nations, or for photographs taken by private individuals.

Re: A kind of legal question about photos.
 

Isn't that true that photos taken before 1957 are treated in the United Kingdom as a Public Domain?

Re: A kind of legal question about photos.
 

This for the UK:

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/co..._copyright_law

Re: A kind of legal question about photos.
 

Thank you Mark, that's a very interesting link. So as I read it, only photographs taken by unidentifiable (or very long dead) private individuals in WW2 are out of copyright, or will be in a couple of years. Any photograph taken by a Government agent will only be out of copyright if it had already been reproduced commercially before 1963.

You still have to obtain a good original print, of course. It might make an interesting legal case to buy and publish such a photo from (say) the FAAM at their private rate, but I don't think I'm up for it.

Re: A kind of legal question about photos.
 

The answer is to inquire first. In the US, the Copyright Office is quite nice about such things. I do have books with photos that give credit to someone/someplace or write "Reproduced with permission" followed by the name of the owner, institution or other source.

Getting permissions used to be quite common in the US, but there are those on the internet who copy what they will and their server is in Estonia or Uzbekistan. Looking at a photo is one thing, but reproducing it without permission can cause legal problems. What is called "Fair Use" in the United States is usually limited to academic and scholarly work not meant for general circulation, or brief snippets of a movie, TV program, or radio broadcast or song may be presented if you are a legitimate critic or researcher.

I'm glad to say enough of this is still happening with historical non-fiction. As far as lawyers, the first call is free in the US. Just make sure he's a copyright attorney, not someone who handles a bit of this and a bit of that.



Ed