To Sudek 13

[Franek Grabowski]

Bullshit, he has only prints but no copyrights!

[brewerjerry]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Bullshit, he has only prints but no copyrights!

Hi,
True .......
Whilst working at the Tate gallery, UK. about a year ago, I was in the 'archive ' section, and asked about photographs clearly explaining the,
'acquiring and copying of ' ww2 photos,
Apparently even if you have the negative of the photograph you may not have copyright unless the 'original photographer' released or sold the copyright to you, and you have to prove it.
If not it remains with the 'original photographer' or the company the photographer was employed by.
And in the case of an 'individual photographer' copyright can be passed to surviving family via estate once.
I didn't get time to discuss crown copyright etc.

As a publisher once told me, when I said I didn't know the copyright /or I got no reply....
'We will just publish' if someone complains we will agree on some money.
For the record this I withdrew from this book.

One suggestion was as RAF aircraft photos were mainly photographed by RAF personnel, the RAF personnel were employed by the RAF,so almost all the photos, in theory could be crown copyright.
Cheers
Jerry

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by brewerjerry

Hi,
One suggestion was as RAF aircraft photos were mainly photographed by RAF personnel, the RAF personnel were employed by the RAF,so almost all the photos, in theory could be crown copyright.

I think that's pretty much true of anything you do on your employer's time, so it's probably true of military service as well.

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Bullshit, he has only prints but no copyrights!

who says he has 'prints' only

he's probably got the original photos..and has thus acquired the copyright by default..I would have thought that was obvious....