Breach of copyright! - photographs

[Franek Grabowski]

Andreas
I am certain the EPA refferred to anything under the German copyright law. I do not remember the period but you may find EPAs in the internet. The problem is that EPAs were agreed among Allies but it was to legislation of each country to implement them into their law system, hence there might be some differencies between eg. British EPA and US EPA.
According to the law, yes, you are allowed to copy such novels, but you must be awared that there might be some smart guys who can pay more than you are able to some lawyers, to prove you have no right to do so. This is the trick with the copyrights, which are often claimed by big companies or agencies. You have the right but no money to execute it.
By the way, copyright for photos was not in mind when the law was applied. It mostly reffered to technical designs, research, etc., which are also subjects of protection.
Finally, I always understood that photo archive is an integral part of BAMA but only placed in another city. If I am wrong, then sorry.
It does not change the fact I am finding actions of the archive as well as of ECPA illegal in regard of access to the information. I can imagine there are archives it works much worser, but there are the ones it works much better. Still, I stand by my opinion, that we should write to European Commission and ask them to clear the general problem of access to European archives.

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by Andreas Brekken

Hi, all.
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.

The right of ownership. You don't have to sign their documents - but then they won't sell you the copies. That's their privilege.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Maybe so, but still I find it quite unacceptable for a public funded archive to behave that way!

[Brian]

Hi guys

Not having a legal mind, nor being particularly bright - could someone sum this all up in a nutshell, in plain, simple English, please?

What is one allowed to do and what is one not supposed to do? What can one copy for publication - prints/quotes/extracts?

I have to admit that I have been loaned prints in the past - and used them - only realising later that they were from/or are in the IWM collection, or FAA collection. Having said that, I am also aware that some of the photos I have used were donated to these collections, and those in the AWM collection, by my contacts! I have personally donated a picture to one of the above - for which others now have to pay a fee!

Happy Christmas to one and all

Brian

[gdskoog]

An attempt at a nutshell abstract-

1 Work gets pubished and shipped to vendor.
2 Work generates X amount of revenue/currency for vendors, publisher, author.
3 Work viewed by outside interested party and referred to lawyer/barrister.
4 Work then motivates one of two following actions-
-the amount of currency generated in #2 is deemed worth incurred legal fees to recoup share of revenue/currency.
-the amount of currency generated in #2 is deemed not worth incurred legal fees to recoup share of revenue/currency.

Anything beyond the above is a function of personal honor and morality. As an artist I have found myself on both sides of this issue. In researching my Stuka-G experimental plane project I found some scans on a Russian website of the Stuka-G in the RAF Museum in London. In the scans was the information of the publisher of the book that was scanned and I chose to track down and purchase a hard copy of the book (which had I found the book first, I would have purchased it and then scanned the needed images).

When I complete the plans of my plane I will give Herr Junkers all due credit for the beautiful lines of that aircraft, but I will also copywright the design work I have done in making my 7/8 scale version airworthy. Should anyone in the future chose to purchase a copy of my plans, I will not complete the transaction without first having discussed my actions with the estate of Herr Junkers. However, it would also be very easy for me to burn cd's and sell them for $25.00 on the 'net as fast I can generate them and just wait for the lawyers for the Junkers estate to present me with a cease and desist order. As I stated above it ultimately comes down to personal honor and due dilligence.

This post is not directed at any one individual/group. It is just an offered observation.

Regards,
Duane

[Brian]

Hi Duane

Thanks for that, most enlightening!

Apparently I fall into the personally dishonourable and immoral category due to my past demeanours, so I will endeavour to portray another side of the many-sided coin!

Following your lead, Duane - our artist friend spends many days, months, years of his life creating what he considers to be a 'masterpiece'. Along comes an interested party who agrees to act as agent (publisher), puts 'his' valuation on the creation and gives the artist 10% of its estimated value. Artist cannot afford to pay any fees but is able to put bread on the table for a few weeks - agent/publisher buys new car!

Or am I being sarcastic?

Brian

[Primoz]

Originally Posted by gdskoog

When I complete the plans of my plane I will give Herr Junkers all due credit for the beautiful lines of that aircraft, but I will also copywright the design work I have done in making my 7/8 scale version airworthy. Should anyone in the future chose to purchase a copy of my plans, I will not complete the transaction without first having discussed my actions with the estate of Herr Junkers.

Who the heck is this Herr Junkers you refer to? Is it Hugo Junkers who lost all his property, patents etc. when the Nazis took seized power in 1933 and died in February 1935 (so more than 70 years have passed since his death)? Well, the Ju 87 was developped after 1933 and the company was controlled by the Nazi state. I don't know why anyone should pay fees to anybody concerning the Stuka.

BTW, do newspapers and magazines pay royalties to Mr. Kalashnikov for every photo depicting someone holding an example of his automatic rifle?

[gdskoog]

Originally Posted by Brian

...Along comes an interested party who agrees to act as agent (publisher), puts 'his' valuation on the creation and gives the artist 10% of its estimated value. Artist cannot afford to pay any fees but is able to put bread on the table for a few weeks - agent/publisher buys new car!

Or am I being sarcastic?

Brian

Having had a number of producers reuse my designs (with no additional fee payment) that were licensed for a single use event, I know exactly where you are coming from in your frustration.

gds

[Uncle Sam]

A Mr Roger Honts, the admin of MCF said, the copyright belongs to the person who took the photographs. As WWII as been over 60 years ago, by this moral standard they should be in public domain. No sensible person is going to be bothered to chase an anonymous person halfway across the world and sue in a court costing $60000 for some photographs.

K

[Snautzer]

Thats copy right, how about portret right of the ones on the photograph?
I'm pretty sure almost none gave permission to the (then copyright holder) photographer to let his face end up in a book.

This is one of the reasons why you cant photograph and publish people at will (accept for the celebs)

Regards,

Snautzer