To Sudek 13

[laurent]

Ok Sudek 13 whoever you are ,

Two years ago you have bought on ebay pictures which are far important for my book project. These were two shots of a belly-landed B-17 , " Judy E " # 42-30050 coded LN-X.
As obviously you can't be reached ( maybe someone knows , not me ) here's what I'll do : both poor quality scans will be used for my book ( better ones from original would be better , don't you think ? ) to complete the crew story and documentation I have. Needless to say that pictures will be quoted as " seen on ebay " , not from Sudek 13 source.
If ever you want to prosecute : my email is D010844(at)aol.com , but I'm sure you are a gentleman ( as everybody here ) and we'll find a happy end.

Laurent

[Hans Nauta]

Dear Laurent,

I can imagine your disappointment for not getting into direct contact with Sudek, but IMHO your post would not lead to any reaction from him or his team either.

Please consult the content next thread for some other ways to try to get into contact with Sudek:

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...ighlight=sudek

Frankly, I've never been into contact with him or his team and just as some (or many?) other visitors of this Board I've been frequently overbid by him or his team. But somehow I think contact can be made, it's just choosing the right approach.

Good luck and best regards,
Hans Nauta

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by laurent

If ever you want to prosecute : my email is D010844(at)aol.com , but I'm sure you are a gentleman ( as everybody here ) and we'll find a happy end.
Laurent

..bit dramatic Laurent...court proceedings would be nothing to a man of his wealth and if you can't produce the original images, your book will likely get pulped...

[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

[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....

[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.

[Franek Grabowski]

All photos taken by RAF airmen are Crown Copyright and by now expired. All German photos are copyright free due to enemy property act.
Life would be a lot easier if some people would care to check what the copyright is.
If Sudek will win any legal battle it would be because of corruption and not the law. The one cannot acquire copyright that does not exist anymore.

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Life would be a lot easier if some people would care to check what the copyright is.

..copyright infringments are upheld in courts of law ..ergo only the judge would able to rule on that one ...

(your) ignorance is no defence..

[Franek Grabowski]

No, the law is decisive, and the law is extremelly clear that copyright has nothing to ownership of print or negative. Apart of that, dates of expiry are present in law and precise as well.