Announcement

**KLMKsunbunny** · 01-11-2014, 04:11 AM

Hey Dave, i understand the unwillingness to share images, as i rarely do myself. But i'm not sure i fully follow you - Have the images those guys are selling been taken from ones in your collection and you've posted online?

If so thats a pretty poor act by the sellers, but the online environment makes such image theft ridiculously easy - once you post an image online it really is out of your control who sees it, who uses it, and for what purpose. How many here own their avatar image for example?

Also, when we collect old photos, do we really "own" them? We didn't make them. We may have bought the physical object but do we have any ownership over them as "intellectual property"? Personally i see myself as a caretaker of someone else's history, which otherwise may have been lost.

At least the photos are listed as copies in those ebay links.

**chrischa** · 01-11-2014, 04:12 AM

I quite agree.

The number of times I have commented to someone who shares an image here with a 'very nice' comment followed by a 'you should really protect by cropping it' never seems to be replied to.

Also, I have avoided buying photos from the estand that are of great photos but have absolutely no protection.
There are a couple of for sale posts of photos still on there that have been there for a while. One is a W-SS photo that I would have paid good money for but as a collector of photos, I will not do because it will have undoubtably been copied.

Protect your photos!

Chris.

**chrischa** · 01-11-2014, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by KLMKsunbunny View Post

Also, when we collect old photos, do we really "own" them? We didn't make them. We may have bought the physical object but do we have any ownership over them as "intellectual property"? Personally i see myself as a caretaker of someone else's history, which otherwise may have been lost.

Hello.

It's a nice thought but when I have paid £80 for a photo, I bloody own it!

If I buy an antique lamp I didn't own that originally or make it ...

Regards,
Chris.

**i.spring** · 01-11-2014, 04:32 AM

is it true that Dave is coming out this year with a color photo book based around the Russian front ? :-)

That is thankfully a lovely way of sharing some of your treasures with the world !

Ian :-)

**Michael Fay** · 01-11-2014, 06:00 AM

digitization is now basically theft

I collect a niche area of Third Reich era images, one that has now begun to get more popular. I collect them because I am keenly interested in them-and I knew they were important before most others even knew about the subject area.

years back ,a very special SS photo I bought was carefully scanned and digitally presented by me to WAF.

within a year it was being used by others as if it was their property all over the net .

If I buy the photo, I own it. The only way to keep it from: being used without my permission , without my receiving any revenue for its use, or not even the mentioning of who owns it; is for me to refrain from digitizing it and not allowing it to get on the web.

Why is my time taken to acquire and scan and post online considered without value?

Finally,The idea that my(or any one else's ability) to realize what makes a photo important is not worthy of either respect or monetary value is what make the digital world un-conducive to posting all my collection.

**Michael Fay** · 01-11-2014, 06:23 AM

This is not a photo, but it will elucidate my points (as I don't share much of anything I collect anymore be they photos or books or regalia).

Here is a very rare book with a special presentation to a special personage. Even the Contents of the book are very important to my research and interest. Most have no clue about such items until I educate them by my posting them.-The same can be said for some photos in my collection.

To literally make my images almost worthless to those who would disrespect my labor to bring this to the digital world, I have to add physical obstructions that are not easily photoshop programmed away (i.e. standard copyright applications are easily removed)

The problem with this is that I get burned out wasting my time at all on this. it is not much fun semi-ruining the image of my beauties. It becomes easier to not post at all. I am sure others feel the same.

Attached Files

6.JPG (34.1 KB, 657 views)

**Fritz** · 01-11-2014, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Michael Fay View Post

Why is my time taken to acquire and scan and post online considered without value?

I agree with you entirely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

Once the time span for original copyright is over ( to the best of my knowledge that effects all german ww2 photos taken by amateur photographers (i. e. ordinary soldiers etc.). The "copyright" for reproductions that you have made is all yours, or at least it should be.

In the EU they are working on something similar to the "sweat of the brow".

Another problem is also that photos are being scanned from books, so that is another source next to the internet.

Cheers

**N.C. Wyeth** · 01-11-2014, 10:12 AM

Are you guilty of Stolen Credit?

When it comes to photos, I think it's pretty simple - if you didn't create the image, you cannot "own" the image.

Almost all of the complaints I see about "stolen" photos are related to the reproduction of prints . . . prints of an image that someone else created. So you have a first-run print of an image that someone else created . . . does that entitle you to claim ownership of the image? No. You may own the print . . . but you do not own the right to control authority of the further proliferation of the image. If you don't want to share the image of your print - then don't [and hope that nobody else out there has another first-run print of the same image].

Feel free to shout out you own a first-run print of an image . . . but don't go around claiming you own the image - and therefore, should be entitled to absolute control of it's reproduction . . . that's just silly. That honor is reserved for the person that created the image . . . and if you are taking that credit, IMO, you could even be the guilty one in this situation.

**chrischa** · 01-11-2014, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by N.C. Wyeth View Post

When it comes to photos, I think it's pretty simple - if you didn't create the image, you cannot "own" the image.

Almost all of the complaints I see about "stolen" photos are related to the reproduction of prints . . . prints of an image that someone else created. So you have a first-run print of an image that someone else created . . . does that entitle you to claim ownership of the image? No. You may own the print . . . but you do not own the right to control authority of the further proliferation of the image. If you don't want to share the image of your print - then don't [and hope that nobody else out there has another first-run print of the same image].

Feel free to shout out you own a first-run print of an image . . . but don't go around claiming you own the image - and therefore, should be entitled to absolute control of it's reproduction . . . that's just silly. That honor is reserved for the person that created the image . . . and if you are taking that credit, IMO, you should be labeled the guilty one in this situation.

Hello.

I suppose the fact that photos sell for (what I consider as) extremes amount of money, many would disagree. Myself included.
Look at the price of photos on miltaria sites or ebay. It is about ownership.
I have the photograph in my hand, it is mine.

Could the same rationale above be applied to people who collect SA daggers? They do not own the dagger?

What about Soldbuchs? Are they still owned by the soldier or one step further are they still owned by the NSDAP government?

A big point for me is the fun of collecting is slightly tarnished by fraudsters.

I have the collecting bug. I can't change that. Maybe I am guilty and silly!

Cheers,
Chris.

**Fritz** · 01-11-2014, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by N.C. Wyeth View Post

When it comes to photos, I think it's pretty simple - if you didn't create the image, you cannot "own" the image.

.

No. The idea is that when you make a reproduction of an original, the reproduction is all yours and nobody is allowed to make copies until that "copyright" has reached its time limit.

This is like taking scans from a book. It is illegal to do that no matter if the copyright of the original photo (or painting etc.) shown in that book has long expired. The book itself is protected and so is your scan you have made using an original.

This is they way I understand the "sweat of the brow" idea. Your effort and work = your "copyright".

From what I know they are currently working on better laws for this as currently it is not on the same level with the normal "copyright". I think this is a good idea.

**InfanterieSammler** · 01-11-2014, 03:45 PM

Exactly the point of this thread.

I rarely share from my collection of RKT material anymore, because too often I find my stuff on other people's websites without my permission.

For example, here is one titled 'Nazi German' - that includes items I had posted of RKT Naseband. I'm fairly certain his family, whom I know, would not be happy to see his name associated with such a site. Down the bottom is a list of sources this individual has used. I wonder if any of these people gave permission at all to use their images...

Clasp in Gold" karya Florian Berger
Foto koleksi Bundesarchiv Jerman
Foto Koleksi NARA Amerika Serikat
Foto koleksi pribadi Akira Takiguchi
Foto koleksi pribadi Andrew Harris
Foto koleksi pribadi Daniel Löwenhamm
Foto koleksi pribadi Jan Hendrik
Foto koleksi pribadi John M. Donovan
Foto koleksi pribadi Marianne Schmidt
Foto koleksi pribadi Mark C. Yerger
Foto koleksi pribadi Nick H.
Foto koleksi pribadi René "PortraitHunter"

BTW, if someone can find an email with this person please let me know. I would very much like the opportunity to ask him to remove the Naseband images.

Regards,
John

**seekwhence** · 01-11-2014, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by N.C. Wyeth View Post

When it comes to photos, I think it's pretty simple - if you didn't create the image, you cannot "own" the image.

Almost all of the complaints I see about "stolen" photos are related to the reproduction of prints . . . prints of an image that someone else created. So you have a first-run print of an image that someone else created . . . does that entitle you to claim ownership of the image? No. You may own the print . . . but you do not own the right to control authority of the further proliferation of the image. If you don't want to share the image of your print - then don't [and hope that nobody else out there has another first-run print of the same image].

Feel free to shout out you own a first-run print of an image . . . but don't go around claiming you own the image - and therefore, should be entitled to absolute control of it's reproduction . . . that's just silly. That honor is reserved for the person that created the image . . . and if you are taking that credit, IMO, you could even be the guilty one in this situation.

I see your point and some of what you say is true; however, you left out an important caveat. You CAN claim absolute ownership of original photographic source material if the photographer or his heirs give you a written document attesting that they no longer possess this material and transfer all ownership and associated copyrights to you. In the case of the copied Bf 110 images I referenced, I received a transfer of ownership of the slides directly from the family of the photographer. That makes them legally mine and gives me the right to be angry when I see copies being sold. Whenever I buy slide collections directly from the photographer or his family, I always respectfully request a transfer of ownership so that I be allowed to publish the material in a manner befitting its historic importance. While we are on the subject of clarification, another topic needs to be elucidated. Slides and negatives are primary image sources. When one is photographed, it is a unique object. Unless copies were made around the time of development (which was very rarely done), they are one-of-a-kind. Photographs on the other hand, are secondary image sources since they are made from negatives or slides (unless they are Polaroids). As such, if you purchase a slide or negative, you do in fact, "own" the image since in all likelihood there is no other. And who besides the original photographer or his heirs can contest this fact? It's the same as if you own a personally inscribed SS-Ehrenring! On the other hand, if you own a photograph, there is a good chance there may be one or many other copies - all made from the same original negative or slide. In light of that, it is very difficult to claim ownership of the subject matter within a photograph.
So in the case of the copied Bf 109G and Fw 190A images that I referenced, I own the original slides that they came from along with the rest of the collections the slides are part of. No one can refute this - not even the original photographer (unless the slides were stolen). Furthermore, since I own the original slide, I can also claim ownership of the image content. Of course this starts to infringe upon the gray area with respect to the rights of the original photographer. But an argument can be made that if the slides were not stolen and he or his heirs divested themselves of ownership through a sale, the new legal owner has all the rights to their disposition and use (even in the absence of a document which conveys transfer of ownership and copyrights). There is nothing silly about this!

Dave (seekwhence)

**Mil-Archive** · 01-11-2014, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by John M. Donovan View Post

BTW, if someone can find an email with this person please let me know. I would very much like the opportunity to ask him to remove the Naseband images.[/SIZE]

There was a thread about that guy here :
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...d.php?t=465735

Originally posted by Fritz View Post

No. The idea is that when you make a reproduction of an original, the reproduction is all yours and nobody is allowed to make copies until that "copyright" has reached its time limit.

This is like taking scans from a book. It is illegal to do that no matter if the copyright of the original photo (or painting etc.) shown in that book has long expired. The book itself is protected and so is your scan you have made using an original.

This is they way I understand the "sweat of the brow" idea. Your effort and work = your "copyright".

From what I know they are currently working on better laws for this as currently it is not on the same level with the normal "copyright". I think this is a good idea.

That's my understanding too. Here's an example - If I go to a fleamarket in Germany, spend hours trawling to find photo material (or likewise with online auctions). Buy it (for what to me are significant amounts of money & in the case of online include the risk of getting ripped off). Research it, photograph it and photoshop the image files to straighten, sharpen, balance etc. Put that online - that JPEG of the image is mine and I retain copyright on that. That was taken with My digital camera and that digital image is mine. I didn't copy it from a book or download and re-upload it. The Photo album is mine too.

These albums and slides, singles don't magic themselves onto the internet. Someone went out and bought it, paid for it with money & digitized them. Same as photo archives and digital libraries all over the world do except on a smaller scale and for sharing knowledge and finding out more about them rather than for profit. The idea that 'if it's online it's mine' is an immature mentality and pure horse****. People with those attitudes are looking for a free ride at someone else's expense. Ask any of the photo collectors who have seen their images faked and on sale on ebay and their opinion will differ to that one.

I 'd guess this thread will go in the same circles as other threads on this subject over the years. The people who think that when they see WW2 photo material online that they then own it and can do what they want with it and then on the other side are the Photo collectors who put it online to begin with and other people who have basic respect of ownership.

The trend I see is less and less photo material is going online. I could be wrong but that is my impression. I am now also holding back quite a bit of material. Just today as an example I picked up an image for 80EUR which I am pretty sure is not going online. I still put albums online but the more high end items I am not in a hurry to put them online for the reasons expressed in this thread.

Photo collector only forums are now in existence whereas a few years ago they were not. I think some collectors are withdrawing from sharing material generally, the same photo collectors are very accommodating about sharing material with other collectors 1 to 1, as they know that their copyright will be respected.

**Fritz** · 01-11-2014, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by seekwhence View Post

I see your point and some of what you say is true; however, you left out an important caveat. You CAN claim absolute ownership of original photographic source material if the photographer or his heirs give you a written document attesting that they no longer possess this material and transfer all ownership and associated copyrights to you.

As far as germany is concerned the copyright expires after a while. Works, of whatever nature, cannot be protected forever.

The copyright of a photo taken by an amateur photgrapher is in most cases long gone. With professionals it is in most cases still valid.

So, sorry, but - to the best of my knowledge - nobody can transfer a copyright that has expired.

Hence, other mechanisms must be used (sweat of the brow) or new laws are required. In order to protect photos such as ours.

The idea is that should you only publish copies of your originals (you have a form of a copyright for your copies (not for the original though)) and let noone take scans etc. of your originals it shouldn't be legally possible to make copies of your scans. - Anyhow for a certain time frame.

Copies of your originals on the other hand can be made and distributed without permission as long as access to them is granted.

All this depends a lot on what country you are living in. For my understanding the law in the UK is quite advanced and protects such "copyrights". Other countries are working on similar laws.

Cheers

Announcement

Why don't people share more of their image collections...?

Why don't people share more of their image collections...?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread