Virtual photo-theft or not?

[Maikäfer]

I don't know if many WH-members also read the Third Reich History forum but I notice that a lot of posters there seem to start coming here in oder to get their photo-material. After all, a "cool SS photo" is pretty much all the AHF-regular is interested. Here's a thread in which a user ("gencom") posted several photos he just copied from Robert Noss' thread about the Album from "Oberbayern" he got a few months ago, naturally without telling where ge got them:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=83951

And here is "Iwanss" who is suddenly displaying images from batfink's SS-album currently in the for-sale secton:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=82446

Previously this "Iwanss" was already displaying John K's set of photos from the Stubaf. who commanded the Flak-Ers.Bat. at München.

I don't know how the owners of the actual photos feel about this, but personally I'd be apalled if my own photos studdenly turned up without me knowing on another forum, posted by people I don't even know. I guess this just goes to show that putting some sort of mark / text on the photos has very good reasons for being done so. What does everyone else think about this?

[Akira Takiguchi]

Maikäfer, so many mentally childish beings are there on the net. Descipline is becoming a word almost unheard of.

I will not allow such behavior on this forum.

[Gary T]

They are not claiming them as their own. They are not using them to make profit or build their own website. They've acknowledged where they are from. If you don't wnat your photos being posted on the forums the solution is simple - don't put them on the web. Keep them in your albums where only you can selfishly see them - now that is childish.

[TONY Q.W.]

...I personally believe that Maikafer should not be called "childish" in any way. I have friends who their whole life is collecting rare pictures. At least they deserve "some type" of mention .

Regards,

[R MICHAEL]

This is why I love this forum. The vast majority of contributers post from thier own collection. Of course I think the above mentioned threads do have thier place as it dessiminates knowledge and that can't be all bad.
The bad thing about the internet is once you post a photo you loose control of it. I have had a few of my photos so up on different forums and if I was offended all I would do is Pm the poster or post in the thread that it is mine.
As long as the photos are not put forth as the posters own I really don't see much of an issue.... Mike

[Gary T]

...I personally believe that Maikafer should not be called "childish" in any way. I have friends who their whole life is collecting rare pictures. At least they deserve "some type" of mention .

Regards,

But those in those links either have the owners website on (www.photosammler.de) in which case they attracting visitors to that site or the posters have put where they have gathered the photos from.

If you don't want people posting your pictures - referenced or not - then the only way to ensure that is not to post on the internet.

[lritger]

At the very least, it's poor form to post photos from someone else's collection and not credit the original source. It's been my experience that really, that's all most folks want- just an acknowledgement of their contribution. I have seen instances where the photos are actually stamped with someone else's website, though, and THAT really burns me up. It's not "theft", per se, but it IS dishonest and should not be tolerated.

Lynn

[Gary T]

At the very least, it's poor form to post photos from someone else's collection and not credit the original source. It's been my experience that really, that's all most folks want- just an acknowledgement of their contribution. I have seen instances where the photos are actually stamped with someone else's website, though, and THAT really burns me up. It's not "theft", per se, but it IS dishonest and should not be tolerated.

Lynn

Surely if they have the stamp on then that is acknowledgement? If it's airbrushed out then that's a different matter. As someone who has their site appear in Dutch, German and Russian - together with all pictures - I can understand the issues. Scans and write up from my site appear all over the place. But there is not much I or anyone can do about it.

[Sebastian Bianchi]

The photos were only sourced after the fact (this thread). I don't think that there's anything wrong with using photos as long as they are clearly sourced and credited. In fact I get a lot of requests to use photos from the site (the actual site, not forum) and I always say yes and thank you for asking. All you ask for is a little civility.

[Mark C. Yerger]

When people scan from my own copyrighted books without permission, I report them to my publisher for copyright legal action.


Mark C. Yerger

[Ron Weinand]

Mark is correct. I have had not only photos from my books used without my agreement, but my layout and grading system copied from my books and used in other publications and on other websites. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO PUBLISHER RIGHTS AND COPYRIGHTS?

Many of the photos in my publications I PURCHASED over the years or purchased the rights to print from the owners.

Ron Weinand
Weinand Militaria

[Sebastian Bianchi]

When people scan from my own copyrighted books without permission, I report them to my publisher for copyright legal action.


Mark C. Yerger

Mark, are you talking about period pictures, or ones you took yourself? It would be very difficult to carry legal action against someone using period photos since they are mostly in the public domain. You can certainly do so if you took the pictures - more so in different countries.

I agree, though, that people are borderline criminal. One guy printed the whole site and sold it on e-bay (from Russia).

[lritger]

Sebastian, you bring up a good point regarding period photos. Copyright laws, at least here in the US, center on the ORIGINAL author of the work, whether that work is a book, album, poem, or photo, and 60 years after the event, that link is harder and harder to establish with WWII veteran photos.

On top of that, it seems there is some sort of copyright restriction on anything produced within Germany from 1933 to 1945- i.e., anything printed during that time period has no legal copyright protection. Forgive me, for I don't know the specifics, but would love to know more on that.

Lynn

Mark, are you talking about period pictures, or ones you took yourself? It would be very difficult to carry legal action against someone using period photos since they are mostly in the public domain. You can certainly do so if you took the pictures - more so in different countries.

I agree, though, that people are borderline criminal. One guy printed the whole site and sold it on e-bay (from Russia).

[Greg]

A related issue from another site - over the past year there have been several lively discussions on photo copyright infringements over on missing-lynx.com. Missing Lynx is one of the foremost (if not the best) military modeling sites, with some great forums. Discussions have centered around the fair use of armored vehicle photographs, some taken during WWII and some after - is it fair use to post photos on the Internet for which you do not hold the actual copyright? Some posters had apparently been concerned that others were posting images that had been seen before on the Internet, but that they had bought at some point and wanted to publish in print.

Osprey Publishing got involved because that company administers the Missing Lynx site. For a two-month period posters on Missing Lynx were not allowed to show any photos for which they did not indisputably own the copyright. Osprey's legal advisors eventually opined that "the posting of images on the site constitutes fair dealing, and would not represent a copyright breach, provided that the following criteria are obeyed:<O</O
<O</O

§Images must be posted at low-resolution
<O</O
§Copyright and trade mark owners must be credited for the use of their images whenever this is reasonably possible"

See the image copyright posts on the Missing Lynx Announcements page http://www.network54.com/Forum/258371


Greg

(not sure where the funny smilies came from, and not sure how to get them out!)<O</O

[Akira Takiguchi]

Everyone wants money. Conflicts occur. Laws are made.

Copyright law has two sides - 1. to protect the copyright owner's benefit 2. to limit the right to benefit the society.

Of course, everyone is eager to get more protection. They read the laws they like, and lobbys to change the law to get more real protection. Publishers are no exception.

News and photos were underprotected in early days, because they were considered just showing the facts and not as a real creation (copyright was created to protect the art of creation). Of course this has changed as time progresses. But I believe that in many countries WWII photos are public domain, like they are in Japan (Japan has not been a poor-protection country, by the way). See http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...31&postcount=9.

Anyway, what publishers talking about individual photographs are bull****. They usually don't have copyright about individual WWII photo, they just got permitted to publish it in their books. One can talk about copyright when they are the creator himself or when they legally acquired the right from the rightful owner.