photo's copyright

[Andrej]

Hi guys!

I've a question:
As a photo collector have I got any right about my photos?

For example, yesterday I found published ina a book a photo that I have ....

This book was stamped before I bought the photo but, in the future, if someone uses the same photo could I do something? Have I got any right?

Thanks!
Andrea

[R MICHAEL]

Andrea,

hello and welcome to the forum. The question that pops to my mind is this; are you sure that the photo in question is yours? I ask this because there were multiple copies of photos made during the period so there can be two or more original images floating around and concievably being used in publications. I would think you only own the image you have and the "other" image being owned by who ever.
I also know that unless the owner of the image at the time of publication had given the publisher rights for one time publication the image could pop up somewhere else.
hope this helps. Mike

[Akira Takiguchi]

if someone uses the same photo could I do something?

Sorry, no.

Have I got any right?

You've got the right of ownership. If someone asks you permission to do something about your photo, you can force him certain conditions (money, etc.). But if someone else has the same image, you can not do anything about his action.

See also: http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...31&postcount=9

[Mark Proulx]

Copyright always poses a problem.

It is my understanding that copyright is actually held by the person who took the original photo. Just because you have a photo, doesn't mean you have the rights to it. As stated earlier, it is also quite possible for more than one photo to exist. Again, that right would belong to the person taking the original photo.

What can you do about it? Nothing really. This can also be an issue across borders. As a photo may be published in Europe, would somebody in North America pursue legal action over a photo use in another country? I hesiate at a the cost of that idea.

It also my understanding that copyright of German sourced photos from WW II was terminated at the end of the war. I could be corrected here however. There is also the issue of how long the copyright lasts. I understand that to be 50 years. Probably varies from country to country. Also, is the photo actually registered and copyrighted. I have encountered items that are said to be copyrighted, but I know that the process was never undertaken.

Also, different countries have different copyright laws. I have a book on the issue for Canadian residents. I'm sure each country also has there own laws on this matter.

This does point out that copyright can be confusing and difficult to apply across borders. I guess this is just a risk taken when collecting photos.

HTH

Mark Proulx

[Strider]

Sorry ownership of a photograph does not have anything to do with ownership of copyright.

In fact even if you own a photograph, you should be careful about publishing it yourself, as you might be breaching copyright.

I believe with WWII era photographs generally the copyright has expired and they are in the public domain, as the International Copyright Law at that time for photographs was that it expired 50 years after the picture was taken.

However, the law varies around the world. The European Union introduced some incomprehensible retrospective copyright law in 1996 and I have no idea how that affects WWII era photographs created/published in Europe.

Also, is the photo actually registered and copyrighted. I have encountered items that are said to be copyrighted, but I know that the process was never undertaken.

Copyright doesn't have to be registered, it naturally exists when the work is created - it's not like with Trademarks that need to be registered.


Lee
www.psywar.org

[W Petz]

This subject has been discussed in length in a few threads in the past. I shouldn't worry about private photos taken by a soldier having a copyright. The right of ownership lays with the original owner which in most cases the owner has expired and the photos have been sold or given away thus ownership has passed on. This subject can be argued to death and it has....as it keeps appearing again again.

[Maisalto]

At this very moment, a copy of Mr Larrister T-34 photo is for sale at ebay.de . Not him nor the seller have any copyrights, only the ownership of the copy itself. After all these years, finding the author of a pic is an impossible task.

[Ron C.]

There are a lot of good general comments in this thread. I am not an expert in the field of copyright law; however, it is a very involved and complicated area of the law. In fact there are quite large law firms whose practice is entirely, or almost entirely, devoted to copyright and patent law. My comments are skeletal only.

The Copyright Act of 1909 covered such matters until the law was changed, effective January 1, 1978. The 1909 act granted a copyright for 28 years, with one permissible renewal for an additional 28 years. The copyright lies with the original author or creator of the work, except in a "for hire" situation. By selling, giving or otherwise transferring a copy of his work, i.e. a print from his original photographic negative, the author does NOT grant any copyright for further use of his work......unless he specifically enters into a written assignment of his copyright in the work. He may make many such assignments for various limited purposes and periods. He may make one for use of the photo as a black and white image, and one to another person for using it as a color image, and so on. Even if the original creator dies before the end of the copyright period, that does not end the copyright. His heirs inherit the right and any renewal rights.

In the 1978 change of the law, there are various time frames at which things may be done. I cannot set all of it out here, but it is quite possible that the copyright could exist for the life of the creator.....and for some time thereafter. It is likely that at least 70 years would be possible as a protected period. I understand that the Supreme Court may be getting a case in challenge of this law at some point, so it may not yet be settled law. The laws of different countries may be quite different than the U.S. laws.

Another point to be considered regarding photographs is the privacy right of the subject being photographed. To totally avoid problems, a person would need not only an assignment of the right of the creator of the photograph, but also a model release from the person being photographed.

As I said earlier, the person who has the copyright is the creator of the original work, i.e. the photographer. In a copyright suit one of the questions to be decided would be who is the creator of the work. One of the methods of such proof for older photos made from negatives would be who can produce the original negative from which the "reproduction" was made. Yes, I said "reproduction". A print, no matter when made, is nothing more than a "reproduction" from the original photographic image.......the negative, except in the case of Polaroids. I know of no way that one can look at a print, or 200 prints of the same image, and determine which one was the first print made from the original image. If you had purchased an "original" print of a photograph from Ansel Adams himself, that would not give you the right to copy it and sell Ansel Adams prints on the market. You would own the print you bought from him, and no other right in it. You could sell it, but not copies that you made of it. Copyright cases can be hard to prove, take a long time to do so, and be a very expensive proposition. The one making the claim of violation of course has the burden of proof. Newer digital photos can be easier to prove who was the creator due to metadata placed into the photo, and with the ability to embed copyright and creator information into the digital coding of the photo. It is also the "original" image. The proof with film created images can be a more involved and expensive matter, since negatives too can be copied.

I mentioned above the "for hire" creator of an image. That simply means if I hire a photographer to go out and take some photos for me, he does not have the copyright to the photos......I do, since he was working for me, and doing the work as a job assignment for me and not as a creator for copyright purposes. I would have the copyright. A copyright exists at the moment of creation of the work, and not just when it is registered. In fact, there may be a considerable period of time pass before a photo copyright need be registered to protect the "copyright".

As with all laws, there are exceptions and interpretations, and the cases are generally decided on a case by case basis with complicated factual issures.

This isn't even really scratching the surface of the question, so I will end it here.

Ron

[Maisalto]

"...That simply means if I hire a photographer to go out and take some photos for me, he does not have the copyright to the photos......I do, since he was working for me, and doing the work as a job assignment for me and not as a creator for copyright purposes. I would have the copyright."

That may depend on the legal system...in most of the EU countries, for such a situation the copyrights are divided between the author of the photo ( the photographer) and the person who hired him. The author keeps the moral rights, that is, the image cannot be changed, cropped, distorted, colorized etc, without his permission. The patrimonial rights, meaning economic value/profit, are reserved for the person who ordered the job.