Digital photo collections

[edwest]

Thanks to a google translation, I've spotted a number of Luftwaffe photo CDs from this company. Are they legitimate?


http://translate.google.com/translat...%26prmd%3Divns


Click "skip" on the first page.


See also this page:


http://deutsches-wehrkundearchiv.de/8.html





Usual disclaimer,
Ed

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, Ed

To what extent they are legitimate - who knows.

They certainly offer the so-called Döbrich collection, the supposed photo albums of the late Hans Döbrich of JG 5.

If the person behind the company owns the original albums, or has made an arrangement with the owner, I suppose it to be ok?

This ultimately brings us straight back into the ´Who has copyright on the material from the nazi era in Germany now´, as a lot of the photographs were taken by PropagandaKompanie photographers of units/companies that do no longer exist - and the photographer is deceased.

There have been numerous discussions on this here and elsewhere, I have yet to see a conclusion from any official instance in Germany - press release or whatever. The Bundesarchiv themselves has released a lot of photographs on the internet, but I haven´t had the time to read any information surrounding that.

Regards,
Andreas B

[harrison987]

Books, photos, and documents produced during WW2 by the axis powers lost all copyright in 1945, due to the Enemy Property Act.

So it does not matter who the original company or photographer is...or if they are still alive. It also does not matter who the current owner is of the originals.

Anyone can reproduce them.

[DB601E]

Hi,

it did a while ago some resach about photgraphs and copyright. As far as i understand german law, (which is not as easy sometimes) it seems to be like this:

First there is a different between art and normal photos. (Also photos can be considered as artwork if special technics, like an extraordinary illumination has been used.)
And there is of course a difference about the "ownership" and "the right to use" the picture.

For "normal" photos:

Copyright of the pictures has always the person taking the pictures, you are allowed to use them after 50 years, if they have been not LEGALLY (with agreement and knowlegde of the photographer) published before.
If the picture has been published, there is a copyright for 50 years after first publication of the pictures.

This means for example in some cases:
A picture has been in a private collection for 49 years, then it will be published with the with agreement and knowlegde of the photographer the first time in a newspaper or book. Than there are again 50 years of copyright. So in this case, there is a max. copyright of 99 years possible.

Finally this concerns only german law.
http://dejure.org/gesetze/UrhG/72.html

Finally, some editors of newspapers and books sadly doesn't worry much about the rights of old pictures, as the risk is low, the "owner" will be still alive and takes notice about. Secondly the fee for unauthoriced publication, depending on the number of prints, is normally not very expensive. (Normally about the double price of a standard charge).

There are still some question, how website publishing is evaluated concerning the "views", if they are equal to evaluate like prints.

Regards

Lino

[DB601E]

To provide job and career opportunities to attorneys in germany, there are also some other elements to keep in mind:
How did the owner express his agreement to publish his pictures.
If he hands out the pictures to anybody while assuming, the pictures will be used for a publication one day by this person, this can, under certain circumstances, already be considered as allowance. A written allowance is even better.

If money was given, was the payment high enough? According to a new regularisation in germany the owner can demand more money, if the publication was more succesful than he expected when he provided his pictures.

Finally, there are personal rights of people, beeing portrait in the picture. Are they persons of "public or historic interest" or just a private persons, didn't like beeing shown on a published picture?

Most of this questions affect of course almost always current succesfull publications of mass media, but at least theoretical they are also to to be considered for historic aviation pictures.

Regarding this jungle of laws and regulations, i really have no idea, how to evaluate the situation of archives, claiming to have the copyright of pictures and demanding money.



Lino

[brewerjerry]

Hi
Always interesting copyright, I once had the chance to speak to someone at a UK national museum, in the media section, and they said to claim copyright, you need the negative or you are able to produce paperwork to show you own the copyright.

It is a minefield, it is not your copyright if.....
you used your employers camera/film/time, etc.....
many military personel did.

I presume the company can claim copyright on the CD, as they converted the photos to digital.
Some people scan manuals and then claim copyright of the CD manual, using this reason,when they are not the original author of the manual.
cheers
jerry

[DB601E]

Hi Jerry,

as far as i know, at least according to german law, the possesion of negatives or originals has nothing to do with copyright. It may concern however the "right to use".

The author, in this case photographer can give (or sell) an exclusive or non exclusive right for publication of his work to others. But finally he will be always the copyright owner.

Or, what i assume in case of archives, the price is less a fee for copyright than a fee for the propagation of the "rights of use" (You normally do not need, if there is no copyright anymore) and for having access to the archived documents (as maintaining and creating archives is also expensive).

There is also the discussion, if somebody get's already some kind of new copyright by scanning and printing the pictures of others, as the editor has some effort and work to do, to get a picture ready for publishing.

As result, it is also question, if you are allowed to use pictures, you have scanned from an existing publication. (even if there is no copyright anymore for this picture.)

Awfull jungle.

Regards

Lino

[edwest]

I think this question needs to be addressed properly. For example, artists/illustrators in the United States may only consent to a first printing use, followed by an additional payment for any reprints. Then there are, for example, North American reproduction rights, country specific rights and global rights. Technically, a person who poses for a picture signs a form that agrees to limited or unlimited use by the photographer and/or the organization he works for.

In wartime, apparently cameras were used widely and different subjects were photographed frequently. Does a father's photo album that is later sold allow for the reproduction of any photographs it contains? Generally, on eBay, photos are sold on the condition of historical research and without specific mention of copyright which simply means "right to copy."

I am certain there are persons in the legal profession in Germany who are aware of this along with publishers. Look at Luftwaffe im Focus. Not only does it claim copyright but forbids the reproduction, storage or transmission of the contents of any issue "without prior written permission of the publisher." [English text in the original.]



Hope this helps,
Ed

[CJE]

Originally Posted by harrison987

Books, photos, and documents produced during WW2 by the axis powers lost all copyright in 1945, due to the Enemy Property Act.

So it does not matter who the original company or photographer is...or if they are still alive. It also does not matter who the current owner is of the originals.

Anyone can reproduce them.

My advice is that you'd better avoid that kind of thing with two collections: BA and ECPA-D.
The latter consider their collection as a war-booty.
The former are very agressive in terms of copyright and now threaten to sue anyone who publishes their photographs without full credit (including the photographer's name! This no joke...) and paying the reproduction rights.

[Dénes Bernád]

Originally Posted by CJE

My advice is that you'd better avoid that kind of thing with two collections: BA and ECPA-D.
The latter consider their collection as a war-booty.
The former are very agressive in terms of copyright and now threaten to sue anyone who publishes their photographs without full credit (including the photographer's name! This no joke...) and paying the reproduction rights.

This situation, of course, raises more questions:
1. what if one has an original, over 65-year-old print off the same negative, which is now hold by BA/ECPA?
2, what if a print, which was made off the original negative hold by BA/ECPA many years ago then copied is now 'floating' around without the proper credit? No one can possibly know 100% what these two archives have in their collection.
3, As far as I know, the material now in collection of BA-MA was returned to Germany from the US, where it had been thoroughly copied. BA-MA cannot claim ownership of these older copies made in the US.