Just had a thought about photos...

[R MICHAEL]

I was criusing ebay tonight looking at photos and I came accros an auction lot that had a photo that I bought last year. The one I bought came from a seller in Europe and the current auction is from one of the big sellers on ebay. I know as sure as I can that my photo is period and am sure this "new" photo is period as well.
I have photo lots that have "double" prints so I am not concerned about fakery but it did get me thinking of the uniqueness of our collections. Anyway I was just thinking aloud fellas and wondering.......


Mike

[Simon O.]

You see it a lot actually. Units\ships had their own photographers or soldiers simply had copies made for their comrades. I recently bought this album from E-bay to a member of 2./GJR 138.


http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...MEWA%3AIT&rd=1

There are several photos in the album that also appear in another group to the same kompanie i bought elsewhere and posted about here.
http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...&highlight=138

[W Petz]

Hello Mike,

I believe this discussion has taken place more than once. One of these discussions involved who has copyrights or true ownership on these photos when more than one photo exists (Copyirght the original owner and ownership whoever owns an original print of that photo). I have discovered a few photos in my collection that are in other forum members collections. As Simon has already mentioned Soldiers exchanged photos with their comrades. So more than one print exists. I've bought a grouping where 5 or 6 of the same photos existed. I have no doubt in my mind that these were passed amongst their friends and wound up in their photo albums or loose groupings only to be sold at a flea market, Military show or obtained from the vet or families of the veteran. The computer age and Ebay auctions have contributed immeansely to the spread of these photos as you have discovered on your particular photo. Bill

[Tim DC]

This is indeed an interesting question: what about the copyright ?

I have recently bought a couple of hundred negatives. It was interesting to see that some negatives were bundled to make some extra copies. For example, there was a bundle of negatives which had to be developped 6 times because there were also 5 friends in those photos. This confirms the fact that soldiers exchanged photos with their comrades.

[Strider]

This is indeed an interesting question: what about the copyright ?

OK this is my understanding of copyright law. I was a trained photographer so needed to know this stuff. However, I'm going by memory and I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice!

Actually copyright in WWII photos is a moot point. Who originally owned the copyright is a complicated issue, it can be the person who commissioned the photography, the owner of the film, if in a privately owned building - the owner of that building, generally the photographer was way down the list as owner of copyright. But regardless of all that, in 1940 the copyright law regarding photography was that it expired 50 years after the photograph was "taken" (not published). Therefore all WWII era photos have NO copyright.

However, if you happen to own a unique image now, there's nothing stopping you charging a "reproduction fee" to someone who perhaps want to use your image in a publication or TV production. This is what the archives do.

Even if the copyright still existed, just because you own the negatives or an origianl print does not mean you own the copyright. The same with any other item subject to copyright, an original piece of art, a DVD of a movie, etc. you have no rights of copyright unless you specifically bought the copyright from the copyright holder.

Lee
www.psywar.org
www.jax-real-estate.com

[Tim DC]

So, as I am a photo collector of German private photos:

- I can sell high-res scans to anyone wanting to publish them in a book/website/series/...
- BUT I cannot do anything about it if someone copies a scan that I posted on this forum for example and uses it for a book/website/series/...

Strange situation, isn't it, or am I wrong.

[Akira Takiguchi]

Lee is correct. Nothing strange, that's the way it is... I don't think it wise to consider photo collecting as investment depending on copyright law, though sometimes it does make money due to the nature of any collecting.

[R MICHAEL]

I have always enjoyed veiwing history thru the lens of a camera and I did not start collecting photos till the advent of Ebay. Every one point made so far is valid. I don't collect purely for economic reasons, though that is a minor factor. I always tell my wife when she questions my spending, "I can always get my money back" but this isn't why I collect. It is the perspective of history that the individual had when taking the photo. It is unique and will never happen like that again.
I was just putting to "paper" the feeling I was having of something "unique" only to find that it isn't as unique as I thought. Still this will not stop me from collecting at all just was given a reality check...
Of course I will not even get into the right or wrong issue of selling multiple photos out of a grouping.....


Mike

[Strider]

So, as I am a photo collector of German private photos:

- I can sell high-res scans to anyone wanting to publish them in a book/website/series/...
- BUT I cannot do anything about it if someone copies a scan that I posted on this forum for example and uses it for a book/website/series/...

Strange situation, isn't it, or am I wrong.

Yes that's correct. It's perfectly logical really. Either there is copyright or there isn't. It's just as well the copyright has expired else when you posted scans of photos in your collection on this website else you would be guilty of breaking copyright law, because ownership of a photograph (even if privately taken) does not mean you own the copyright on it.

So the moral of the story is, when you post an image on the web, make sure it has a visible watermark on it and the image is low resolution. A book publisher is not going to use a photograph from a web page because the resolution is way too low to reproduce well in print. A TV production company is not likely just to take stuff from the web without persmission either. The main danger is from other websites using your images. Personally that doesn't bother me as long as they give me credit as the original source and it's a non-profit making website.

Incidentally sometime in the late 1980's or early 1990's the international copyright laws were totally revised and photographs have much better and longer protection than before but obviously this is not retrospective and applies only to photographs created after the date the law was changed.


Lee
www.psywar.org
www.jax-real-estate.com

[Strider]

But it's also important to remember that when a copy of an image is supplied to someone when a reproduction fee is paid, there is usually a contract that goes with it which limits how the person may use this image. For instance if you obtain a copy of a photograph from an archive and pay a reproduction fee and sign a contract, even if the copyright has expired, you cannot do what you like with the image, you are bound by that contract.

So if you have a unique image in your collection and a publisher wants to use it in a book, you can draw up a contract whereby the publisher pays you a fee to use it in their book. You can limit how big the image can be used on the page, how many copies of the book can be printed, whether it's in colour or black & white, etc. You can do the same thing with anything else in your collection, say you have a Knight's Cross you can sell a picture of it to a publisher with a specification about how it can be used. Say "for use full page on the front cover of the book, limited to 10,000 copies, for sale in the U.S. only". If the publisher wanted to later reprint the book he would need to renegotiate with you the rights to use the picture.

In fact, it makes your life easier if the copyright has expired else a publisher would need permission from the cropyright holder as well as you to reproduce a photo in your collection.

Lee
www.psywar.org
www.jax-real-estate.com

[Akira Takiguchi]

Thank you again for the clarification Lee. Laws differ from country to country, but in Japan, I explained the situation in http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...31&postcount=9. 1971 was the year when Berne convention was established.

[W Petz]

OK! so it comes down to the current owner of the photo!! To me I have no problems giving permission for use of my photos in a book or someone else's website as long as they ask and I get credit. What further clouds this is a situation where maybe two or more people own the same exact original photo. Say for instance Akira has somehow acquired doubles out of my collection (whether through me or someone else). I've encountered this situation before where I found photos in my collection being used elsewhere's and others have contacted me asking me not to display one of their photos but in fact we both had original prints of the same photo. Now in this situation who holds the reproduction rights of the photo in question? I gather by what is being said if the other fellow writes up a contract with the book writer or seller then he suddenly has rights to use that photo and you don't??? I find this interesting not that I charge anyone for the use of my photos but maybe I should since it appears it is the only way to somewhat legally protect your WW2 period photos. Bill

[Akira Takiguchi]

Now in this situation who holds the reproduction rights of the photo in question?

Bill, nobody has reproduction rights in the sense of copyright. But of course, as a legit owner of these photographs, we can reproduce our images as much as we want based on the right of ownership, and we can license these images to any third party such as publishers and authors under contract.

When we both have same images, I can't stop you from licensing it to someone, and neither can you stop me. That's all simple.

I post my images on my website ( http://www.history.jp/wehrmacht/ ) large enough for good understanding of the subject, but it is usually still a poor reproduction of the original. The images are digitally watermarked using Digimarc software (invisible watermark). I have no legal rights to stop someone from stealing images from my site and using them for their publication, but that is OK.

It has been a tradition of this industry (WWII publication) to pay for the use of the images or mutually exchanging scans for the publication of each other. I watermark my images just in case to find out whom I can't trust. Tradition has more meaning to me than law.

[R MICHAEL]

very good question Bill, I was wondering the same thing myself.


Thanks Akira for the informative answer..

Mike

[Strider]

I gather by what is being said if the other fellow writes up a contract with the book writer or seller then he suddenly has rights to use that photo and you don't???

No you can still do whatever you want with your copy as long as the original copyright has expired. You could make a contract with another publisher if you wanted.

(This is based on my understanding of the law and my interpretation of it, I'm not a lawyer so could be wrong. I read another thread on here that says that when the copyright laws changed and the length of time of copyright was extended, this included WWII era photography. But my understanding is that the law is not retrospective and only applies to photography created after the new law came into effect. I'd like to know a lawyers opinion on that!)

Lee
www.psywar.org
www.jax-real-estate.com