Copyright Info

[Bulldog90]

I collect Sanke cards too and have wondered about this same topic. From what I have learned over the past few years, all of you are correct in saying that these images have entered into public domain. However, I wanted to let you in on two examples that came as somewhat of a surprise to me last year when I was researching a piece about Albert Ball. Apparently the Imperial War Museum holds the copyright on several images of Albert, and does want to be acknowledged and paid when you use them. This is also true of many of the best known photographs of the BEF, which were taken by government soldier/photographers and not by individuals. As such the British government continues to hold some level of copyright over the images.

As far as the Sanke images go I would say you're in the clear, after all how, hypothetically could a copyright be enforced by an imperial government that ceased to exist in 1919? It would be great if we could get some input from an international copyright lawyer....

Bulldog90

[Colin A Owers]

I think that the British Crown (that is the Government) copyright has no limit. Same as the US Government does not give up their ownership of recovered aircraft wrecks - unless it was sold beforehand. You can get caught out if you are not careful.

I have photos given to me by ex-No.3 Squaddron AFC members that are (now) AWM photos. If the guy got the photos through the squadron in France, does he have a copyright or the government that ended up with them in the AWM?

Very tricky.

Colin A Owers

[Regulus]

Colin,

Good thinking on this matter ! I can add some examples :
The IWM has a large number of photo's which orginally belonged to the Marinekorps Flandern (see my previous post in this thread) and of which of people over here (me included) have also prints.
I have seen the same thing with photo's from tanks, of which some originally were found on postcards ! They claim the copyright, which they impossibly can have...

Best from Johan

[Bletchley]

British Crown Copyright on published material is 50 years from the date of publication, and on unpublished material it is 125 years from the date of creation. Anything produced by an employee of the Crown is Crown Copyright if it was created in the course of duty. I would guess that this applies to photos as much as documents, but I am not sure about this. A relatively recent twist, however, is that any unpublished document held by a British national archive (e.g. Public Records Office, now known as the National Archives, at Kew, London) now has the copyright "waived" - i.e. the Crown still owns the copyright, but a decision has been made by the government not to enforce it. Again, I would guess this applies to photos as well, but I am not sure...see

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/archives/copy...agement_cc.doc

I am currently digitising a whole stack of ex-Royal Aircraft Factory documents that I will be putting on a CD-R disc and mailing out soon to those who have expressed an interest (for cost of postage and disc only), all of which are covered by this waiver

Bletchley

It still sounds like it may either be irrelevant or a possible legal quagmire. Does anyone own Wooleys book on the Sanke cards? I'm wondering if there is any copyright reference in it.

In regards to other images, it seems like one could spend years just trying to trace ownership to rights for even a small number of images on a case by case basis. Even if they are 80+ years old, extensions may have been continued without public knowledge of it. If the negatives are long gone, is ownership considered to be as well or does ownership extend even beyond that? There has to be some established guideline regarding this for most WWI images at this point in time.

George

[Hans]

In Germany the copyright for a photography will last for 70 years after the death of the photographer. No idea what the law says when the copyright was hold by a firm like Sanke.

It's a quite common misunderstanding that the owner of a print holds the copyright (which may explain those incredible high prices on ebay sales... ) and sometimes the habit of hoarding those photos and concealing them from the public. The owner of the copyright is /was alone the owner of the negative.

Hans

Trading Cards...Baseball, Basketball, racing ...are copyrighted. Just look on the back and in one corner you will see a "C" in a circle with the date. The Trading Card Co.....Topps...et al ...did pay the photographer for the photos. Plus in a lot of cases the co. has paid the player/team for permission to use the image.

Then there is the problem of legal liability......a kid cuts his finger on the card and sues !!!!!

[TonyWilliams]

There is a difference between copyright and reproduction rights. Someone who owns a picture, but does not own the copyright, can still charge you reproduction fees. I know because that's what happened to me with some illustrations from the PRO.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

How far does that extend? For example, if there are multiple period copies of the same photo, can anyone truly claim rights if they don't own the negative? If someone happens to own a photo and claims "reproduction rights" how do they know they own the only copy off that negative. If there are other people that also own a copy of the same period photo, can they also claim reproduction rights?

What if the photo is digitally modified from the original or only a section of the photo is used? Does that change anything?

Thanks,

Jasta

[TonyWilliams]

Basically, if they hold the only copy you know of a picture you want to use, then you have to pay what they ask or pass on it. If you know someone else with another copy, perhaps they'll charge you less!

TW