Breach of copyright! - photographs

[Jan vd Heuvel]

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

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Hi, all

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.

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...

[Modeldad]

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.

[Tony Williams]

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

[Jan vd Heuvel]

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

[mkenny]

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.

[Pilot]

@ 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.

[Franek Grabowski]

Denes
And what the copyright is?

[Dénes Bernád]

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

[Franek Grabowski]

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.