A kind of legal question about photos.

[John Beaman]

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.

[Chris Goss]

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

[John Beaman]

Originally Posted by Chris Goss

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

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?