Copyright on photos

[Samuel]

Here in the Ununited Kingdom copyright on a photo lies with the photographer, and remains so I believe for 50 years after his/her death. Ownership of a print, be it period or otherwise does'nt give the right to re-produce without permission of copyright owner (the photographer).

If the original copyright owner can't be found, I think it may be illegal to just copy it anyway.

So all these period pictures in books etc.. where do you think they stand?

Is it the case that an author of a book can't really complain when someone copies a picture from that book, given that the author is'nt the original photographer, and therefore not the copyright owner anyway?

A case of I bootlegged it first sceneareo.

Anyone know the facts?
Sam

[ 18 June 2001: Message edited by: Samuel ]

[grnberet57]

Most period photographs that are in well researched books are usually coming out of private collections. This would indicate that the person in the photo obviously didn't take the picture, but he owned the picture. Thus when it's used in a book from the private collection, there is no copywrite infringment. However, if a Hoffmann photo shows up in a book somewhere, there is a delima. Does Hoffmann own the rights, or does the person who owns the photo. Kind of a blurry subject.

Kevin

[Gordon Williamson]

Sam,

Very interesting topic. In fact the length of Copyright period was extended from 50 years to 70 years a few years back. So just about anything from the First World War is in the Public Domain, but not so WW2 stuff.

By law Copyright vests in the person who created the image, i.e. the photographer, not the person in the photo. This is why even when you go into a photographers to have your passport photo taken, you get the photo but not the negative, YOUR image is HIS copyright.

Photos taken by official war correspondents most probably are the copyright of the person emplying the photographer-i.e. the government, so I'd guess probably most Kriegsberichter photos would effectively belong to the statutory successors of the 3rd Reich government, i.e. the Bundesrepublik (effectively the Bundesarchiv).

Photos taken by individuals would now be almost impossible to trace as far as copyright is concerned. Owning an original print of the photo does not give you copyright over it. Many museums with photo archives (like the Imperial War Museum) will happily charge you a Copyright fee to use one of their photos and in many many cases they don't own copyright in it in the first place, all they have is an old print !

So, if you find a nice collection of old wartime prints say in an album, and post one here on the Forum, then someone else downloads it and uses it in a book. Tough sh*t, it was never your Copyright in the first place, and you probably breached the original photographer's Copyright in the first place by posting it here!
The whole subject is a minefield! You will often see disclaimers in books saying that every effort has been made to trace the holder of copyright, but apologising in advance if they have inadvertantly infringed anyone's rights.

Normally authors will, out of common courtesy, credit the supplier of the photo,but it's good manners rather than fear of breaking any copyright law, as in most cases the supplier rarely has copyright in any case.

At the end of the day, it's all a matter of risk assessment. In reality there is not a lot of risk in using photos ( other than official government archive photos) if you can't find out who owns the copyright. In most cases it would be almost impossible for them to prove Copyright was theirs anyway.

I'm sure British Law is now in line with the other EEC countries and to a large degree most of what is in it is agreed internationally.

Gordon

[Samuel]

I think Gordon has put it in a nutshell.

Staff photographers have no rights, those being transferred to their employers.

Potrait photographers always hold on to the negs, for the purpose of future orders of prints, unless the client is willing to pay a premium (usually quite expensive).

My main point is though, just as someone can copy a period print from this site without fear of proceedings, so is it true of copying from a book... I've seen some people fearful of taking images in some discussions. Assuming it's a private print.

It should also be remembered that even if the print is given from the original photographer, unless written permission is obtained for copying, or assignment of copyright bought from same, the print should'nt (technically) be copied.

Chances of proceedings though, as Gordon said are practically zilch.

Photography is a hobby of mine, so I've always thought about these points.

Sam

[Gordon Williamson]

Lets say you write a book and put into it a fairly "safe" non-copyright photo. No problem. However,if I copy it from your book,I can be done for infringement of copyright, not of the photo, but of your book.

Photographer pal of mine was always very careful,if taking a photo from a book, to make sure the image did not capture any of the surrounding page, just the photo itself!

Gordon

[Samuel]

Copyright of text etc.. yes that lies with the publisher I believe, so copying that would be a no-no. Replication of a picture would I believe need to be a very tight crop.

May I ask who owns what copyright wise (text)when a publisher does one of your books?

Is it the same as with photos i.e. commisioned work is copyright of book house, or do you maintain copyright as author?

Sam

[Gordon Williamson]

Copyright of text varies. Most times with a commission, the publisher will retain all rights. Generally for these the author is paid a single lump sum for all rights in the work.

Others, the author retains copyright, and these are usually the ones where the whole idea was the authors "baby" and he is being paid royalties on each copy sold. So, looking at the copyright statement inside the cover, you will have a fair idea whether the author was contacted by a pubisher and asked to write the book on their behalf (i.e. it was their concept) , or whether it was his idea and he has been successful in finding a publisher.

Of course its only a rough "rule of thumb" and not right in every case. Some publishers only deal in outright purchase of the material and rights, whoever had the idea.

Gordon

[Mark S.]

regarding pictures in private possesion, even if the original photographer is known, wouldnt any provision of a copyright be null and void unless the person actually applied for the copyright? Just taking a picture doesnt automatically copyright it on your behalf, you have to apply for such measures, unless it is published, then the entire publication falls under copyright laws.
Does this make any sense?

[Samuel]

The copyright, here anyway, is mine on my picture the second my shutter closes on my camera. This also applies to other artwork, copyright on a painting for example starts with the first stroke of the brush.

No special application is nescessary.

Myself and Gordon have really been discussing prints from WWII, photographer unknown.

The IWM in England, would'nt in my opinion take legal action against use of a picture in their possession, I think their legal advisors would advise against it, as Gordon said the copyright is'nt theirs to begin with. They would only serve to open a massive can of worms for themselves. Photos are artworks and they have no right to "take possession" of copyright, plus how could they prove they have the sole existing copy, no way could they do that.

Propaganda shots taken by the Germans, would I believe belong to the current German government, Gordon pointed that out as well.

Of course allied powers have the right to take possession for the purpose of say evidence in the nazi trials, but charging fees nowadays to collectors/authors etc, I think is taking a liberty, and in my opinion the pictures should be returned to Germany where they belong, this also applies to the massive photo files in Washington.

These pictures are historically important to the Germans. It is their history not ours.

To the victor the spoils of course, but not with copyright.

Sam

[Gordon Williamson]

Sam is absolutely right. There is no need to apply for copyright of a photo. If you are the photographer then under international law it is your copyright (unless as already mentioned you are an official government photographer etc). Anyone uses one of your photos without your permission they are in breach and can be sued.

The great difficulty after 50 plus years is proving who owned the copyright in the first place.

By the way Sam I love your location Un-United Kingdown- Freudian slip on the keyboard or what?

G

[Rick Research]

This copyright "dilemma" is rather interesting--

I have an original photo, taken at an undated point during WWI by THE Heinrich Hoffmann (studio stamp on reverse). This piece of "art" shows German soldiers loading or unloading sacks of Feldpost off a train. Eww! I can feel the book offers pouring in....

Hoffmann died in 1957, which means his copyright doesn't run out until either 2007 or 2032, depending on who's counting (US laws are much, much worse--have no idea what the German ones are). Depending on whether his "estate" could contest copyright holding, this snapshot could theoretically still be "protected" from duplication until long after we are all dead.

Now, to cloud this exact case, Hoffmann was sentenced after the war, by a GERMAN court, to loss of property as a Nazi profiteer. Does that mean his copyrights were taken away from him? Or does his estate retain possession of a photo made in 1915-16 like mine?... which I paid something like 50 cents for in a cigar box of WWI photos more than 20 years ago.

How many lawyers does it take to dance on a print of mail sacks? This stuff is nuts!

[Rich G]

Could I just ask a question on copyright...?

What if you take a photo of something that is on display in a collection and open to the public, where photographs are allowed to be taken, can you use that photo in a website, without the permission of the owner, of the said collection?

EG. Friend takes photo, of say, a spitfire at the Battle of Britain museum, and then wants to use it in his website to show a detailed shot of a particular feature of that spitfire, is he breaking copyright, and what are the consequences?

Is the copyright not the photographers, as he owns the negative and was given permission to take the photo, and therefore can use the photo as he sees fit?

Rich

[ 19 June 2001: Message edited by: rgordon ]

[Samuel]

Most (all) professional photographers will put the images through their books, the prints, negs and copyrights become the property of the business, much like any other asset like cameras etc.

If the business assets were seized then yes the copyright will go to whoever the court deemed appropriate.

If permission to take a shot is given, then a photographer can do what he wants with the shot, unless stated otherwise on the museums ticket, I don't think the Spitfire shot will cause problems, at most they would just tell him to take it off the net, but I doubt it would come to that, if the shot was legally taken then also the copyright of the picture is with your mate and is his property.

Does anyone know the situation with "spoils of war" such as the IWM,s artifacts and images, were they taken legally or otherwise?

I suppose at the end of the war officials just took, took took without hinderance, but are they allowed to do that?

Is it any different to the nazi looting of conquered countries, such as France.

I don't know, but we all know the difference between right and wrong, and the rightful place of these archives, batons etc is Germany IMHO. Everyone knows who won/lost the war and we don't have to prove it anymore. It just boils down to money.

Sam

[Jeff S]

This is a discussion that hits near and dear to my heart, as the majority of what I collect is photos and negatives. I have approximately 16,000 WWII German original negatives in fact. Both privately taken, and War Correspondants.

From what I have been able to discern from research, copyright begins and ends at the original negative. They is first Generation. Prints made from negatives are Second Generation. Prints made from a second generation photo, are Third Generation. Etc... So basically the earlier the generation, the better in terms of legality.

I have also seen people that hesitated to post photos on the internet from books. There is no copyright(that I have found) infringement when the images are being used for an educational purpose, this is key, without being charged. So a "free" website such as this one, would be fine. However a "paid" website(which technically is making money on all items on the site) is not ok.
Obviously credit to the book/website is always encouraged.

The subject of professionally taken photos is touchy, and to me, a grey area. I have approx 2500 original negatives from an SS
Kriegsberichter. Now this is film directly from his camera. I purchased them from his family. Since these men were both photographers, and soldiers, how could it be proven if the photos were taken from him in his role as correspondent, or as a soldier? Obviously photos from his "off hours" weekends, etc... wouldn't be considered property of the state.

Man, I'm confusing myself now.

I'd be interested in talking with others that collect negatives, or have some they would consider trading/selling.

[Panzer]

Hello gents,
I was led to believe that once an old photo album had been legally purchased that the contents were then legally the buyers to do with as they wish. Thus reproduction of the pictures inside was perfectly legal.

On the subject of copying book contents for web sites, I believe that for an inclusion of a picture or section of a book to be used for "educational purposes" the original author has to be credited. The right to do this does not extend to the use of images to "pretty up" a website or promote a website, no matter if it is free or charging. Unless it IS actually for some educational endeavour, permission must be sought from the owner of the Copyright. In my own case I have retained copyright over my own books, rather than the publisher.
Cheers! Wade Krawczyk