Breach of copyright! - photographs

[Delmenhorst]

If you then at the same time could stop peter_ewbank to sell photos on CD's that he does not have the copyright to. He has copies of pictures but the original pictures belongs to other people and he does not have the right to sell the permission to use the pictures (like he just did with a CD' with aircraft pictures from WW II).

[peter ewbank]

Originally Posted by Delmenhorst

If you then at the same time could stop peter_ewbank to sell photos on CD's that he does not have the copyright to. He has copies of pictures but the original pictures belongs to other people and he does not have the right to sell the permission to use the pictures (like he just did with a CD' with aircraft pictures from WW II).

My name is Peter Ewbank. I sell photos on eBay as well as aircraft related manuals and blueprints on CD. My collection has come from 2 main sources: 1). The estate of the late Ken Bokelman. 2). The estate of the late Eijii Takikawa. Both men collected photos and I bought virtually all that their spouses were able to offer. I have attached photos of the antique slides as supplied to me from the Takikawa Collection. The last is an enlargement of the large format circa 1940 AGFA negative of which I have collected many. The above information until recently has been posted on all of my auctions on eBay. In recent weeks, I had removed this information from my auctions because I had assumed that all major photo collectors in the field of ww2 photography had seen it already. My e-mail address is peter_ewbank@clear.net.nz and I field all inquiries through my auctions within hours. If you do not receive a reply it is because I have not received the message.

[Ruy Horta]

As the host of this forum I confess that I am not comfortable with this type of discussion, but if the parties concerned can keep this discussion civil I'll alow it to continue.

There has been an accusation of breach of copyright and the person accused has joined the forum to set the record straight, from his point of view.

Peter has shared the source of his material and that should settle the matter IMHO.

Welcome Peter and hope you will stick around.

[Delmenhorst]

I will contact Peter directly - I am not interested in a uncivilized discussion

[Ruy Horta]

Thank you.

[Brian]

Hi guys

In reality, what are the copyright laws on photos and text/quotes? Once published - therefore in the public domain - how are the copyright laws relevant? If one has purchased a book, for example, has one contributed towards the copyright fee? Therefore, is reproduction of photos and quotes from said book now in the public domain?

Confused!

[John Vasco]

Brian,

I will try to answer your question by way of examples. First of all, the website 'Napster' had to back down from publishing music tracks on the web and allowing free downloads. The big music corporations came after them for copyright reasons, and they had to change their policy. Also, the music sites that gave transcriptions of songs (i.e. giving the full chord sequences to songs) have recently had to remove them because of ongoing litigation in the US and elsewhere by sheet music publishers (who claim it is losing them millions of $/£ per year - which is bollocks, because most working musos can work out the chords and solos to all that they wish to play live anyway. There is a mechanism for composers to get their dues, but the Performing Rights Society is unable to provide 100% blanket coverage of live events. But that is tangential to the main point here.).

The point I make is the fact that something has been published does not mean that anybody can rip it off (although I could give an example of some Polish prick in action!).

[FalkeEins]

...text quotes are governed by the concept of 'fair use' ....fair use is generally reckoned to be pretty healthy. ...a 'parody' of a copyrighted work is considered “transformative” and thus fair. Another example - in 2002 a US court enabled image search engines to expand beyond simple Web text searching into images and video because “thumbnails” of digital photographs are considered to be fair uses. Thumbnails, the court ruled, do not replace the original in the marketplace.

As far as publishing is concerned, some publishers demand that every quote — no matter how short or for what purpose — be cleared with specific permission, which is extremely cumbersome.... There is a lot of confusion about fair use ...you might be familiar with the "20 percent” rule - use of a work before the use becomes unfair, or the "forty-word rule” for long quotes of text. Neither rule exists. Fair use is intentionally vague. It is meant for judges to apply, case by case. ... ..

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...view/chapter9/

[ArtieBob]

The issue of copyright and ownership of photograph images is at best tricky. If you took the original photo and still own the negative, it is pretty clear that you legally own it, unless you published that photo, sold a print or negative, let someone make a copy negative, etc. In all the latter instances, it is not so clear, it depends on the caveats attached to the permission, sale, etc. Just because an image is published in a copyrighted book does not mean that the copyright holder has ownership or the exclusive copyright for a particular image. For example, many Luftwaffe photos in the USA originated from either government sources or captured documents. In either case, they are almost always considered in the public domain, and do not require permission to publish, but should be given source credit. Many times these photos are credited to “collection of ….”, which is easy but in many cases, incorrect. Publishing first or owning the print used for publishing does not in this case give exclusive ownership of images in the public domain.
There are certainly many, many cases of outright pirating on the internet and publishing with copyrighting of images incorrectly credited. But, IMHO, before I would accuse someone of such violations, it would seem that I had a very clear understanding of the origin and provenance of the material in question. I have been slowly trying to write a book on the Ju 88. Currently, the book effort is the process of cataloging about 4000 Ju 88 images in order to select and obtain permission to include in the book , which will be copyrighted. I will still not “own” all those images.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, all

As Artie Bob states, this issue is at best troublesome, in reality VERY difficult, even for people that work in the field full time. I had to check this out some time ago for some of the photographs in my own collection.

The copyright owner of a photograph is in most countries (I have been told) one person, namely the person that held the camera. It is this persons privilige to TRANSFER this copyright to other persons and/or companies or organizations. This is typically automated if the person is an employee of for example a newspaper company, but this is part of the contract the photographer sign.

With regards to the numerous photographs taken by german personnel and/or professional photographers enroled in the german wartime military services, this is tricky, as most of the organizations of that time does no longer exist.

However, as one can see from books published during WWII, the copyright of photographs taken by most professional german photographers were copyrighted by their company (and not the military unit they were assigned to) and not the german army, navy or air force. And these companies does in fact still exist (under the same and or new company names, they might have been bought by other companies etc) as legal institutions.

So - if I buy or get a photograph from someone, where do I stand with regards to copyright? If the photographer is known, and still alive, this person can transfer his copyright to me, but I then have to get this in form of a legal document, or a release form. If not, I am not the holder of the copyright of this photo. So, even if I get the only known existing copy of a photograph from someones daughter, I cannot claim copyright as long as this is not legally transferred to me.

This theme does appear on this and other discussion boards from time to time, and it would be interesting if someone could gather information from the different countries in order to establish what is correct for the different countries, as it seems that for example Italy has a time limit on photographic copyright, and in for example Australia ALL photographs taken before January 1st 1955 is now in the public domain and has no copyright anymore.

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.

Could some of our german friends please tell us what the legal standings are in Germany?

Regards,
Andreas B