Re: Breach of copyright! Contact to Claes Sundin!
 

If you then at the same time could stop peter_ewbank to sell photos on CD's that he does not have the copyright to. He has copies of pictures but the original pictures belongs to other people and he does not have the right to sell the permission to use the pictures (like he just did with a CD' with aircraft pictures from WW II).

Reply From Peter Ewbank
 

My name is Peter Ewbank. I sell photos on eBay as well as aircraft related manuals and blueprints on CD. My collection has come from 2 main sources: 1). The estate of the late Ken Bokelman. 2). The estate of the late Eijii Takikawa. Both men collected photos and I bought virtually all that their spouses were able to offer. I have attached photos of the antique slides as supplied to me from the Takikawa Collection. The last is an enlargement of the large format circa 1940 AGFA negative of which I have collected many. The above information until recently has been posted on all of my auctions on eBay. In recent weeks, I had removed this information from my auctions because I had assumed that all major photo collectors in the field of ww2 photography had seen it already. My e-mail address is peter_ewbank@clear.net.nz and I field all inquiries through my auctions within hours. If you do not receive a reply it is because I have not received the message.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

As the host of this forum I confess that I am not comfortable with this type of discussion, but if the parties concerned can keep this discussion civil I'll alow it to continue.

There has been an accusation of breach of copyright and the person accused has joined the forum to set the record straight, from his point of view.

Peter has shared the source of his material and that should settle the matter IMHO.

Welcome Peter and hope you will stick around.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

I will contact Peter directly - I am not interested in a uncivilized discussion

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Thank you.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Hi guys

In reality, what are the copyright laws on photos and text/quotes? Once published - therefore in the public domain - how are the copyright laws relevant? If one has purchased a book, for example, has one contributed towards the copyright fee? Therefore, is reproduction of photos and quotes from said book now in the public domain?

Confused!

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Brian,

I will try to answer your question by way of examples. First of all, the website 'Napster' had to back down from publishing music tracks on the web and allowing free downloads. The big music corporations came after them for copyright reasons, and they had to change their policy. Also, the music sites that gave transcriptions of songs (i.e. giving the full chord sequences to songs) have recently had to remove them because of ongoing litigation in the US and elsewhere by sheet music publishers (who claim it is losing them millions of $/£ per year - which is bollocks, because most working musos can work out the chords and solos to all that they wish to play live anyway. There is a mechanism for composers to get their dues, but the Performing Rights Society is unable to provide 100% blanket coverage of live events. But that is tangential to the main point here.).

The point I make is the fact that something has been published does not mean that anybody can rip it off (although I could give an example of some Polish prick in action!).

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

...text quotes are governed by the concept of 'fair use' ....fair use is generally reckoned to be pretty healthy. ...a 'parody' of a copyrighted work is considered “transformative” and thus fair. Another example - in 2002 a US court enabled image search engines to expand beyond simple Web text searching into images and video because “thumbnails” of digital photographs are considered to be fair uses. Thumbnails, the court ruled, do not replace the original in the marketplace.

As far as publishing is concerned, some publishers demand that every quote — no matter how short or for what purpose — be cleared with specific permission, which is extremely cumbersome.... There is a lot of confusion about fair use ...you might be familiar with the "20 percent” rule - use of a work before the use becomes unfair, or the "forty-word rule” for long quotes of text. Neither rule exists. Fair use is intentionally vague. It is meant for judges to apply, case by case. ... ..

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...view/chapter9/

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

The issue of copyright and ownership of photograph images is at best tricky. If you took the original photo and still own the negative, it is pretty clear that you legally own it, unless you published that photo, sold a print or negative, let someone make a copy negative, etc. In all the latter instances, it is not so clear, it depends on the caveats attached to the permission, sale, etc. Just because an image is published in a copyrighted book does not mean that the copyright holder has ownership or the exclusive copyright for a particular image. For example, many Luftwaffe photos in the USA originated from either government sources or captured documents. In either case, they are almost always considered in the public domain, and do not require permission to publish, but should be given source credit. Many times these photos are credited to “collection of ….”, which is easy but in many cases, incorrect. Publishing first or owning the print used for publishing does not in this case give exclusive ownership of images in the public domain.
There are certainly many, many cases of outright pirating on the internet and publishing with copyrighting of images incorrectly credited. But, IMHO, before I would accuse someone of such violations, it would seem that I had a very clear understanding of the origin and provenance of the material in question. I have been slowly trying to write a book on the Ju 88. Currently, the book effort is the process of cataloging about 4000 Ju 88 images in order to select and obtain permission to include in the book , which will be copyrighted. I will still not “own” all those images.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Hi, all

As Artie Bob states, this issue is at best troublesome, in reality VERY difficult, even for people that work in the field full time. I had to check this out some time ago for some of the photographs in my own collection.

The copyright owner of a photograph is in most countries (I have been told) one person, namely the person that held the camera. It is this persons privilige to TRANSFER this copyright to other persons and/or companies or organizations. This is typically automated if the person is an employee of for example a newspaper company, but this is part of the contract the photographer sign.

With regards to the numerous photographs taken by german personnel and/or professional photographers enroled in the german wartime military services, this is tricky, as most of the organizations of that time does no longer exist.

However, as one can see from books published during WWII, the copyright of photographs taken by most professional german photographers were copyrighted by their company (and not the military unit they were assigned to) and not the german army, navy or air force. And these companies does in fact still exist (under the same and or new company names, they might have been bought by other companies etc) as legal institutions.

So - if I buy or get a photograph from someone, where do I stand with regards to copyright? If the photographer is known, and still alive, this person can transfer his copyright to me, but I then have to get this in form of a legal document, or a release form. If not, I am not the holder of the copyright of this photo. So, even if I get the only known existing copy of a photograph from someones daughter, I cannot claim copyright as long as this is not legally transferred to me.

This theme does appear on this and other discussion boards from time to time, and it would be interesting if someone could gather information from the different countries in order to establish what is correct for the different countries, as it seems that for example Italy has a time limit on photographic copyright, and in for example Australia ALL photographs taken before January 1st 1955 is now in the public domain and has no copyright anymore.

With regards to the discussion that started this thread, in my opinion mr. Ewbank would have to establish that the copyright of these photographs has been transferred to him, and that mr Delmenhorst would have to establish that the original copyright owner is known and has refused to do so.

Could some of our german friends please tell us what the legal standings are in Germany?

Regards,
Andreas B

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 :) :)

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

I also understand that there may be another issue in that certain legal rights are not granted to photographs taken by German and Japanese combatants of WW-2.

Let us not confuse the issues of one who owns a "picture" and one who owns the copyright to that picture. They are not one in the same.

I strongly doubt that most pictures taken of WW-2 German aircraft have any copyright protection what so ever. Possibly a British or American soldier, or the estate ther of, who took a picture of captured aircraft could assert a copyright claim.

Copyright claims are often used to do nothing more than to try to intimidate other people, e.g. copyright claims of the Ethell Estate to pictures that were taken by the US governemt.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Many of us have struggled to gain permissions etc to publish photos, but what real cases do we know of people:
A) Claiming the copyright of a photo that someone else has published?
B) Succesfully claiming financial compensation for it having been used?
C) Going to court to claim compensation?

What I'm looking for is what real consequenses or risks do you/we as authors run when using photos that we think we have valid permission to publish in our work and publish in good faith? This is an important issue and since the agreements you sign with publishers usually tend to make the author accept any financial consequences of any copyright disputes caused by the published work.

Secondly, if someone starts a process for compensation, would that process have to be initiated in the country that the publisher is based in, or can it be started in for example the country the person who claims the compensation is based?

A third question regarding the photo collections that BA-MA, Deutsches Museum etc have which they claim copyright for and charge heavily for. Can they really make a court case regarding any of their photos in their collections? My guess is that more than one of their photos can be located in other collections so it can be questioned if they really are right in claiming these copyright fees (It's ok to claim a fee for making a duplicate or scan). Have they ever made any processes to claim compensation for photos used without their permission which they claim to be theirs?

Obviously my question is limited to photos of WWII German/axis aircraft.
/Mikael

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

I see that general discussion is focused on the question what if somebody claims the copyright for a published photo. From my experience, I have been able to see countless cases where diffierent veterans or their families, or collectors, possesed similar photos, even in cases where these people had no bound at all (like serving in same unit or at same time). I have also seen numerous cases where same photos could be found in different archives, museums or private persons. I personally have quite a lot of photos which other people also have, indeed I've even seen some of them at ebay. Still, I do not think that this is a real problem when we talk about the "Breach of copyright".
What is really disturbing is the fact that many photos are simply scanned from published books/articles and then re-published in other books/articles. Of course, these are easily recognized by apple-sized pixels, and bad retouche. In the past such practice was thought to be reserved for Eastern European publishers aqnd authors but I see very often that it has deep roots in the west as well. The last example is a book published by Motorbuchverlag about Bf 109 in foreign service and I was stunned by the amount of badly retouched scans in it.
The greatest nonsense of such practice is (in my opinion and from my experience) that in era of internet and forums like this one such behavour is absolutely unnecessary. In most cases I was able to find certain authors and historians and when I asked for help and photos I got positive reply almost every time, people were generally very keen to help. No one ever asked for money, for a contract about the copyrights or anything similar.
So what is the problem then? Why should someone publish a bad reproduction of a published photo and proudly write that it comes from his collection (the other way-around they take is to state they got it from late Heinz Nowarra or somebody else who passed away!) when they can try to get in touch with people which have the originals. Vanity, avarice or simple idleness?

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Denes,

you are right, owning an original negative give you more rights, but as I have stated it doesn't mean you have the copyright.

Boris,

You kwno I am one of the persons who share his original photo's with someone who needs them for a book or article without asking for any
money. And you know I have many original photo's.

Yes, the real problem is that current software allows to make photo's published in books or magazines printable.

And who can afford the costs of fighting against such breaches of copyright ?!

In my opinion it is perfectly safe to use "original "photo's" for a publication if you state it comes from the collection of xxx.
When you state the photo is copyrighted to xxx you will be on the trickyer
side.

Many photo's were swapped between "comrades", so there are many prints around and each owner can claim the copyright untill proven otherwise.

Regards,
Jan

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

To further confuse things 'official' wartime photos were distributed to all the Picture Agencies by both The Germans and The Allies free of charge. Pathe for instance has for sale its WW2 Newsreel footage that is, for the most part, made up of the footage taken by the combat cameramen and the rights are now held by the IWM.
There are hundreds of photo agencies that have 'copyright' of these (sometimes) famous photos so how do you decide who has to be credited?
Bovington Tank Museum sells copies of photos that belong to Koblenz so I would say it would be impossible to show where the copy used came from
Has anyone ever been forced to pay royalties for any WW2 photo?
I have never heard of it happening.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

As an author, I have struggled with this one as well.

The US Government generously considers its own material, including photographs, as being "in the public domain", and charges nothing in the way of reproduction rights. if you buy photos from them, you can use them as you wish (except that you cannot, of course, claim your own copyright for them). However, their publications may include pictures which originate elsewhere - where they may still be copyrighted. Very confusing!

Matters are being made worse by the fact that, although the period of time that copyrights last varies internationally, the tendency seems to be for it to increase.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

@ mkenny- once before I get a bulk of images of the Yugoslav Kingdom warplanes from one archive from Germany. But I have change my mind about use in publication when I get info how much I have to pay for this. Only I have pay is the images from the IWM. But never publish it.

Fact is that in the USA many thing is Public Domain and this is by my opinion reseachers paradize.

The fact is that many authors, not only from East Europe, just take image from publication or take it from web site or forum and place it into their publication. Main problem is in the idea- why they publish the subject for which they have no material. If you have research subject for sure is that you will found some material too. This simply denote that this publication are worth nothing and have not to be buy.

Have you ever try to scan some paper money like... Euro for excample? Gouverment are long time ago make agreement for the manufacturers of the scanners to make scanning software which could recognize that kind of "material" and scaner is block in moment. Best possible protection in the moment. Also all printers left invisible sign on every sample of print [yellow color is used] and who have authorities can with easy trace from which printer is something printed. If this technology could be used for the protection of the published books or magazine this will mean instant death of many of "famous" publisher. I hope that something will change in that way.

We in Serbia say "kind words open doors of steel" - I realy don't understabnd why somebody simply don't ask if need something.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

AFAIK, BA-MA, Deutsches Museum, etc. do not charge their fees for copyright (which they legally do not have), but rather for publishing purposes, i.e., 'publication fee', which is a totally different matter.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Denes
And what the copyright is?

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Franek, AFAIK all photos and other material published officially during the IIIrd Reich doesn't have any copyright any more.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Enemy Property Act which is decisive, says that anything that was created under German copyright laws in a specified period, is not protected anymore. That said any German WWII photo is copyrigt free, and in the name of the law I can copy any German photo from any of your books, but I cannot copy the whole set of photos or the book itself.
That said, it is clear that BAMA claims copyright named another name, thus disallowing use of copyright free photos, and more making use of them by individuals impossible.
I do not mention the fact, that I have heard they destroyed original negatives.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Dear Fellow Researchers,

Can anyone cite instances where an author has been taken to court or legal action taken against them for a photo for which another claims ownership? This is Mikael's question and it is a good one.

If, in reality, the chances of ever being taken to court are slim to none and, in those rare cases where it is actually done, the amount of redress negligible, then the risk in violating this or that supposed copyright may be worth the taking.

Let's take it a step further. Suppose I were to publish a photo from the BA/MA without their permission nor pay them some fee for the privilege. Would the amount they might seek be but the fee they would otherwise have received or would it include significant punitive damages?

This may sound like a callous disregard for the law, but I am also looking at the situation from that of an historian who would want to utilize the best relevant photos to give the best understanding of the subject possible. The idea is to disseminate new knowledge and understandings. Frequently, that can include the use of old photos seen in a new light based on other evidence that has surfaced. To be hindered by a labyrinth of laws seems to go against the very thing desired, to share new findings and insights. I see this as a labor of love and definitely not a money making proposition.

Regards,
Richard

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

I am offering the following source as a starting point only:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_c..._%28Germany%29



Hope this helps,
Ed

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Thanks Ed,

It turns out that the text is a translation from the German Wikipedia and it seems the english used is somewhat lacking.
/Mike

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Richard
If you are not registered in their system and will credit those photos to Hans Schmit or Johann von Doe, they will be not able to prove you anything.
BAMA behaviour deserves legal action but it is not a job for single researchers.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

That's exactly what I wrote earlier, Franek.
I would like to add though that the said law refers only to materials created officially by the German State, the IIIrd Reich, between 1933-1945, not private individuals, artists, photographers, etc.

Answering to Richard, BA-MA would most probably not go after you if you don't pay the so-called 'publication fee' (let me state again, they don't officially claim copyright fee!); however, they would put you on their 'black list', i.e., not allow you to do any further research in any of their facilities.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Denes
EPA clearly states anything under German copyright law, which includes private individuals!

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

This enemy property act may only be relevant in Malta (or where ever it originates), I don't think it complies with current EU copyright regulations thus the normal 70 years pma (death of author + 70 years) copyright period applies to all other countries.

Images taken by soldiers of British forces are PD 50 years after first publication, there's a good article in the wikipedia covering this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

AFAIK the removal of the German copyrights was originally done during Nürnberg trials. The idea was that by making all records open, the war crimes and criminals are easier to find.

Re: Breach of copyright! - photographs
 

Hi, all.

Franek - you are certain that this EPA act is relevant for everything created under german copyright law? For which timespan? 1933 - May 1945? September 1939 - May 1945? Dec 1941 - May 1945?

If this is so, I will then be able to set up my print shop and print for example novels by a german author published during the NSDAP era, and this is no problem? I kind of doubt this, taking all precautions that I very well might be wrong, and suspect that the EPA really was a law made effective for items under US control, taken from archives and persons during and after the campaign in Europe, and relevant for the eventual war criminals trials or other processes after the war.


Also - I always get confused when you refer to BA-MA or Bundesarchiv - Militärarchiv with regards to photographs - they have very few of these, the few and far between photographs usually being part of either a document such as a technical description of a kind of equipment, for example an aircraft, or as part of a Nachlass - the personal papers and or photographs of a person that have deposited these at the archive. The photographic archive is a separate entity, located in Koblenz, and it would be fair to the people at BA-MA, which in my opinion do a great job in order to get the relevant items in their collection to me at least, to discern between these units. That we all should wish for the possibility to roam the BA-MA's shelves looking for hidden treasure is an entirely other issue ;-) and you should really try to get ANYTHING out of the Norwegian National Archives, that are related to the occupational period, now that is an institution were their self-presented tasks (check their website www.riksarkivet.no and see second bullet point under the about us heading) and what really happens do not exactly match. And as far as I have been told, the captured documents that are kept by russian authorities (ex-soviet) are not exactly easy to access. In the Norwegian National Archives they do this by simply saying that the files concerning the remnants of archives of the Wehrmacht in Norway is restricted, and then you just cannot get anything...

Then there is another issue, namely the publication fee issue. What give the IWM, the BA-MA or other institutions the right to claim such fees? I do not know and this would in my opinion be a second issue for our research into these issues. There is a fact that when you sign the order form for copies of a file in the BA-MA, you agree not to publish these coipes or to pass on duplicates of these to other persons. Of course a lot of you guys out there doesn't give a damn about this.... and some of you do. But the key question is: What right does these institutions have to make you sign these documents? The answers would be interesting to know.

Well, now I have to go buy a few presents. Wish you all a merry christmas!

Regards,
Andreas B