Copyright on photos

[Rich G]

Chaps, thanks for clarifying the questions I raised above.

Without going into too much detail, I am basing my questions around the following scenario.
Person is keen scale modeller, and in this line has to build sections of the subject from scratch because the kit out-of-the-box isn't truely accurate. Now, he wants to show why he has scratch built a particular thing and to does this he wants to use a close-up photo of the original piece to explain why the kit is wrong. He has contacted the museum in question, for their permission, and they have out-right said 'No we own the copyright. You can purchase photos from us, which we use to fund the museum, but when used on your site they would have to be low quality to prevent these being used by other third parties.'
Kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise...high quality close-ups being the name of the game!

It seems pretty clear cut that the owner of the negative has copyright and, in the case I was referring to, so long as the photos are used for educational, and a non-profit making site, then this would be OK. But out of courtesy, reference should be given to the museum where the item was photographed?

I have the feeling that some museums ( probably most, based on my scenario) would not permit any photographs from their collection to be used on a web-site and instead they would request that you purchase a photo from them as they use these photos as a means to raise funds for the maintenance and expansion of their collection.

The point is, if there is no monetary gain, and the exercise is purely educational, then there should be no problem. Am I wrong or is it that clear cut?


Thanks

Rich

[Samuel]

Rich,
If it's any help I know there exists specialist photographers, who shoot nothing but pics of planes.

They do this at airshows etc, and their prints are perfectly legal and they sell them to specialist magazines etc.

If the museum your talking about allowed photos to be taken, and it did'nt say otherwise on the ticket, or from a sign on the walls etc, I think they're talking nonsense.

If your still in doubt, go to an airshow where a Spitfire is on public display in the open air and reshoot, but I would be tempted to just use what you've got.

Ownership of a WWII neg or print, please believe me does not give copyrights, these rights MUST be signed over to you by the copyright holder, who would be the photographer, his employer at the time, his descendants or someone else who can prove they bought them in the past.

As Gordon stated though don't worry about it, the powers that be are turning a blind eye to the whole affair.

Points to remember though.. if you post on the net a period photo you own anyone can copy it and use it in a book etc, and there's nothing you can do about it unless you own these rights.

If you post on the net a picture of one of your medals that you took yourself, then they have no right to copy it or use it.

Gordon summed it up well in his initial post, just read it through a few times.

Sam (with the freudian keyboard)

[Akira Takiguchi]

[I posted another, better message. See below]

Hello,

Samuel is right, owning negatives gives you no better rights than owning prints. I'd like to make the Samuel's point a bit clearer: you cannot freely copy the images posted on the net unless you're risking the same possible violation as the guy who posted the images on the net.

Copyright has two intentions. One is to give the creator of the original material a chance to make money. The other is to let the general public to benefit from the material. The law encourages you to share your creation with the other parts of the world, by allowing you to live on it. It's the win-win model. Which intention is more important is a different matter. The recent trend is to give more rights to the holder.

Copyright is a sensitive matter. If the original holder has no problem about republication (copying), you will never get into trouble. And so-called fair-use has no problem, either. If the original holder thinks it bad to see it on the Net, it is dead wrong to publish it, whether it's free or charged. No difference.

In the world of copyrights, how it has been treated in the past is also important (in the case of movies, a special right is established due to its way of redistibution). My impression is that historical photographs have almost always been presented with the attribution to the archive's name --- rights of original photographers have been "out of consideration". One reason for this is the cost of running archives. Though they do not have copyrights in original sense, but they own the negatives/prints and allow you, the author, to get a copy for your book for a certain amount of money. This benefits both archives and readers. Thus, to consider that you can publish a photograph in your book by just copying from another book is a stupid idea. It's a free-ride, and not win-win. Archives (not only National Archives and Bundesarchiv, but people who pays a lot to get and maintain the collection) will have to charge more, or simply stop offering. It's the loss of the readers.

Finally, I have to say that copyright has always been changing and what was true yesterday could be wrong tomorrow.

[ 21 June 2001: Message edited by: Akira Takiguchi ]

[Rich G]

Once again thanks to all for the input and the enlightening information!

Rich

[Rick Research]

Another specific example: I have a portrait photo (posted in the Imperial Forum under "Turkish WWI Awards to WW2 Admiral"--oops, just noticed it is gone now, we only have 2 pages of space in there)of Konteradmiral (V) August Bo"ning (1891-1964), taken during his brief internment, May-August 1945, since his breast eagle has been removed (though he is still wearing his decorations).

This photo is a second pose taken at the same time as the one used in the admiral's biography in Hildebrand's and Henriot's "Deutschlands Admirale 1849-1945," volume 1.

My photo is part of a large group that was obtained directly from the Bo"ning family by Don Frailey more than 30 years ago. The "Admirale" photo was never mounted in the album I have, yet obviously came from his possession as well.

There is NO clue as to identity of the photographer. Was it a fellow internee? Was it an Allied photographer? If the Admiral even knew the photographer's name, certainly he never discussed such minute trivia with his wife or children. Even if he had, that memory would be long forgotten.

The publisher of the four "Admirale" volumes would appear to hold "de facto" duplication rights to THEIR photo, by fact of having published it. But "de jure"-- how could anyone imagine it would be POSSIBLE to find an UNKNOWN photographer? And if copyright derives from the original negatives--what is to say these have not been tossed in the trash since the day they were first developed?

And since I have generously shared MINE for free here on the Forums, does this mean any lout can use it in any book any time in the future without so much as a "thanks" to me? (I'm glad its a dark shot, well rubbed from being carried around in his tunic pocket, probably! So there, potential image thieves, !)

This rather puts a crimp in MY naive generosity, and makes me rethink any future postings of an unpublished nature. I do not expect to derive piles of filthy lucre from my images, but would deeply resent someone who published-for-money and didn't even acknowledge the source, let alone ask my permission!!

[ 20 June 2001: Message edited by: Rick Lundstrom ]

[Samuel]

Given the effort and time it takes to write a book, phone calls, letters, trips, buying things you don't really want etc etc, I don't know if it's actually profitable to write a book, relatively speaking.

More a labour of love than anything else, and as such maybe the onus is on all of us to meet an author half-way and help if we can.

I have'nt got anything an author won't have seen before, but if I did I would give.. even without credit.

It's good to share, don't think about the few you've given but the hundred fold you've been given back by others.

In the short time I've been here I've been given more than I could ever give back in two lifetimes.. and to everone I'm grateful.

Sam

[Gordon Williamson]

I think Akira has hit the nail on the head. Archives very often don't own the legal copyright, so what they should really be charging you is a REPRODUCTION fee (not a copyright fee)for making a copy of the print they own. Often there are hundreds of other original prints in circulation so it may even be cheaper to but an original print on the collector market than pay the extortionate price some Archives try to charge. I agree a modest fee to cover costs and help run the Archive couldn't really be objected to but the prices some charge ( for photos they don't own the rights to in the first place) are really outrageous. In making a copy for you, they themselves are probably in breach of copyright!

Whereas Wade isn't quite correct, merely owning the original old album does not give you legal right to copy the photos, in fact only the original photographer or his assignees would have the right to take action for infringement so the chances of that happening are remote to say the least.

I'm afraid from Rick's point of view it would be very difficult for him to take action against anyone who lifted the photo from this Forum and made their own use of it. Most honourable persons would of course ask first, but if they don't, there ain't much you can do.

Sam is absolutely right that very few authors in this field actually make much money out of their books, once costs are taken into account, and the tax man takes his share, there ain't muich left. Every now and again I manage to buy a little piece for my collection with what I have left for myself, but I certainly wouldn't ever consider giving up my "real" job to write full time.
I have been very very fortunate in having so many generous collectors willing to share their photos with me. Anyone who really thinks he can write a serious book without getting help with photos from contributors
is fooling himself ( unless of course he is a specialist photo collector).
Robert Noss (Photosammler) whop has just taken up a Moderators post with the GD forum has a vast collection of superb photos and has been of great assistance to me and I willingly pay him what I can from the small photo budget some publishers allow the author. I would much rather subsidise a collector and help him build up his collection which he so graciously shares, than pay rip-off prices to major Archives.
Robert adds a copyright note to his photos. Uusually in a position which does not spoil the photo but would give anyone trying to lift it without asking a real job trying to degitally remove it. But, just have the courtesy to ask him, and he will probably send you a better resolution image without the copyright mark with no hesitation. I have to say it was I who suggested paying Robert, not him who asked for payment! So, there are many generous owners of very fine photos only too willing to share.

As a gesture of friendship, Horst Bredow of the U-Boot Archiv accommodated me for several days, free, in a room at the Archiv and allowed me free access to the entire vast photo collection and to the Archiv dark room facilities to make as many copies as a wanted for my own use. He told me payment was not necessary. I subsequently made sure a four figure payment was made by one of my publishers to the Archiv funds. The Archiv is a registered charity which depends on donations to survive, yet he was willing to waive all fees as a gesture of friendship. THIS is the kind of Archiv which deserves support, not those who rip you off with huge copyright fees for photos they have no real right to.


Gordon

[François SAEZ]

Hi Gordon,
Maybe it was answered before, but I didn't get it. Taking the example of U-boot crew, if I understood well, one of the guy was taking pics of the crew, the life on the boat.......really personal things - when/if they returned they were use to develop the films AND to give/sell a complete set to each member.
Now if one of the crew made a photo-album with private pictures + those pics (taken on the boat) - who owns the rights?
The photographer? Even if nobody knows who he is.
All the crew members?
The owner of the photo album?
The German Government?
Is there really a way to find?
Thanks
Friendly
François

[Gordon Williamson]

Hi Francois,

Bottom line is that the copyright always belongs to the person who created the image -i.e. the photographer. If it was a member of the crew, and he happily gave sets to his crewmates then clearly he wasn't concerned about copyright and there is now no way of tracing him anyway. So, such photos would probably be safe to use. But, how would we know if was a crew member and not a Marine Kriegsberichter who went out with the boat as often happened? If it was a KB, then the copyright probably now vests in the Bundesarchiv. But, as there is probably no way of telling, it is very unlikely than anyone could PROVE they owned copyright and take any action.
Different of course if it is a studio posed photo which often has the photographers name, sometimes embossed in the corner. Copyright may well still exist if the photographer is still alive or he may have willed his rights to a family member if deceased. Still very little risk of anyone trying to take action though.

The whole issue rests on proof and with wartime photos, in most cases it would be all but impossible.

Gordon

[Rick Research]

Here's another tricky one. I have a big photo album from a young War Volunteer Pioneers Unteroffizier, which came from his estate. Many interesting shots of demolitions, making fake tanks, trench life. Among these is the famous shot of Pour le Merite ace Kurt Wintgens seeming to gloat over what became his last victory. That shot was later--and I emphasize LATER--made into a commercial postcard and widely circulated.

This print is NOT commercial. It was taken at that moment, by either my young NCO, or one of his platoon mates, and field developed like all the others with a generic mimeograph type address back, and message dated to his girlfriend back home. There are other shots of shot down craft--all featuring a tall, rather chunky pioneer officer front and center--the platoon CO. The same background men show up in all of them--this was their section of line where planes came down.

Regardless of later assignation of "rights" to the Imperial German War Effort, or whatever, this was a PRIVATE shot, sent BEFORE commercial cards were produced--a print from the original negative before it was taken, sold, or given away. I was actually offered "big bucks" by a prominent aviation collector 20 years ago to sell this one shot out of the album, but refused the offer. It would have broken up the group, and interrupted the NCO's long letters, carried on over multiple photos.

Now, good luck finding the paperwork assigning legal title to FUTURE 1916 use of this photo from the commercial printer. MY print, dated, mailed etc clearly PREDATES any such assignation. Does this "free" my "grandfathered" print from subsequent claims? After all, I can PROVE "pre-existing use"....

[Gordon Williamson]

Rick,

I may be wrong in this, but it is my understanding that Copyright runs for 70 years from the creation of the image. Rights may be assigned to another person or successor during the life time of the Copyright but at the end of 70 years they expire. Not 70 years after the death of the photographer, 70 years after the creation of the photo, so - any photo taken before 1931 will now be in the public domain and can be used by anyone.

Gordon

[Akira Takiguchi]

Hello,

My previous message was based on my memory. I am sorry about any inaccuracies in it. Here's a better one:

Copyright extends 50 years after the death of the creator.

For the works created by legal person (like KB photos), copyright extends 50 years after the publication of the work. If the work was not published after the 50 years, copyright expires 50 years after the creation.

The trend is, as I understand, to extend it to 70 years, but still 50 years in Japan.

Q. What is the difference between negatives and prints?

A. Prints are considered to be original copyrighted work. So are the negatives.

Q. What can you do about photographs when you have original copyrighted work?

A. You can display it publicly as long as you own the original copyrighted work, regardless of the copyright status. You have to convert the photograph to digital image to be able to display over the Internet. The law says you can display the original material, it does not say you can display the digitized image.

Q. Why archives can charge you for the use of photographs owned by the archives?

A. This is the effect of ownership of the work, and has nothing to do with copyright.

Q. Do being a owner of original copyrighted material give you copyright?

A. No. You have no control over duplication of published images unless you have the copyright.

(For the following questions I could not find definitive answers, I need a real lawyer here. Hey, I thought there are pretty many rich lawyers among the collectors. Can't you post a message unless you get paid? )

Q. Am I safe if I digitize the KB photo and place it on the Web?

A. Pretty, almost 100%, safe, because it's over 50 years since the creation. They're in public domain now. Most photographs you get are taken by PK photographer or unit's photographer. They were printed in masse and distributed to the soldiers. I believe it is safe to consider them as published.

Q. I have original negatives. Do you think I have copyright?

A. It can be assumed that the original owner transferred the copyright to you.

Q. I have original negatives. Can I control the copyright of wartime (=already public domain) prints? i.e. prohibit others who owns the prints to publish the photo?

A. No.

Q. Can digitized image considered to be a derivative work, giving you copyright?

A. Not sure but unlikely. Digitized images are different from original prints / negatives in many aspects, but only to make it worse. We don't call it a creation to make something worse, do we?

[ 21 June 2001: Message edited by: Akira Takiguchi ]

[grnberet57]

Well, to add another point to this debate, what about pictures that are signed? Are they still property of the guy who took them, or at that point does the ownership move a little bit? I have some pics autographed to me personally, and I want to show them off, but don't want to step on any toes.

Kevin

[Akira Takiguchi]

Carl, you are confusing (usual) property rights and intellectual property rights (=copyright).

Copyright is the right to control copying of material. Probably you are the sole owner of the photo. But that does not transfer copyright to you. You may exhibit the photo to public, but when you scan it and place it on the web (that already is infringing the rights of the copyright holder if copyright has not expired), you can not inhibit others from copying it, because you don't have copyright. You have no control!

Still, if you ask Web readers to agree not to copy the photos, that may be effective as a usual contract between you and readers, but that has nothing to do with copyright law.

For the personalized photographs, the story could be different, but not much I believe. You own it, but most probably you don't have copyright.

[James Clark]

Moving on slightly, I have a lot of pictures of exhibits from various museums. I took them, and in most cases paid a specific (though usually token) fee to do so (i.e. I took the pictures with the museum's permission). Clearly the copyright on the pictures resides with me, but I still feel slightly uneasy about posting/publishing them. Should I, or do I have too many scruples?