Old Scale models articles

[xken]

If Mr. X was the photographer and died more than 70 years ago, the copyright has expired, so you can publish the image if you find an original postcard or photo yourself. The Imperial War Museum owns the copyright to the individual original photo they have, and you can't reproduce an image of that particular photo without their permission, but if you find the same image in a flea market, you can do whatever you want with it.

Mr. X's situation is correct. This is a public domain case. Our friend from Germany is also correct about the life of the author plus a number of years. Unforunately, each country has a different number of years.

However, the Imperial War Museum only has copyrights if it was assigned to them with a legal document. Possession does not confere ownsership of the copyright unless it has been legally assigned. Most confusion arises especially with internet regarding copyright protection for the site and not the content of images. One cannot claim copyright on an image in the public domain or that someone else has copyright of already. One cannot buy copyright protection second hand. Most museums claim a great deal and do a lot of chest beating about their copyrights; individuals do as well; but unless you can produce a legal document signed by the original author you do not own squat from a legal stand point.

For thirty years I had to dance around the Patent and Copyright laws and we had Patent attorneys that guided us through all fine points on protection of our products as well as; how to get around them. In one instance we won cease and desist cases costing competitiors millions of dollars based on an original hand drawn dated pencil sketch that I did that proved the design was that of our company. This was proof of authorship that predated the issuance of the patent, which can take quite awhile. Their products while altered copies fell under the derivative products definition and they had to destroy all their tooling and pay the company a great deal of money.

The bottom line is proof of ownership by whom; and where does the paper trail end going back to who and when. Again it is all about protecting the income stream based on sales for the original artist/author/designer/company.

You can patent and copyright anything that you think is a great idea as long as somebody else has not done it first; if you are willing to spend the money. The value and protection only comes into play when you start to sell it.

Also keep in mind these laws are being ammended and adjusted now very frequently so one must stay on top of what is current.

[Tom W.]

Possession does not confer ownership of the copyright unless it has been legally assigned.

Yes and no. At least according to American law.

Yes, you're right that technically the copyright must be assigned, but in fact possession does confer ownership.

I know this because I had to get written permission to publish photos of items owned by other people.

If you own the item (a photo, postcard, or helmet, for example), under American law a photo of that item is considered copyrightable material.

Thus a scan or reproduction of a photo or postcard is considered copyrightable, even if the owner of the photo hasn't legally had the copyright assigned to him or her.

There's an artist who challenges this notion by taking photos of other photographers' work and putting them in her exhibits. She's been hit by lots of cease-and-desist orders, but as of yet there's no case law that definitively outlaws this practice.

It's a gray area in American law, but the safe thing to do is to always get permission.

[xken]

If you own the item (a photo, postcard, or helmet, for example), under American law a photo of that item is considered copyrightable material.

Tom this is exactly what I was refering to earlier regarding derivitave products; the person that created the said item owns the copyright; "you cannot copyright an item that is already coprighted". You also cannot copyright an item that is already in public domain. Now many people think they can but go to the link I posted and read the section on "Derivitive Products".
The person taking pictures of other peoples work is creating a "derivitve product". If she is just exhibiting her work with no intent to sell; no problem. If she sells a photo of anothers work as hers she is in violation of the law.

All images reproduced in any form of book are suppose to have permission to reproduce; some people say fine and others want compensation. And again enforcement usually is based on the amount of money involved and aggrevation to procecute. This is why lisencing fees exist; you want to sell a product with a Disney character on it; you will have to pay Diseny upfront money; as well as a percent of sales, that is if they think they can make enough income off you to warrent it in the first place. Also they have a review board and have final say on all artwork and if you go to production without their permission they will have you scrap everything you have made.

There are many examples and there are many gray areas it comes down to how big is the gorillia you are copying and if he is a big one he will smack you real hard.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen:
The drawings I make, I have put my name on and the year. It is original art work regardless of the subject. \
I do not sell the originals, I sell copies. The copies I sell, does not confer ownership to the individual who buys the copy.
He cannot, copy, transfer, give or sell that copy that drawing without my written permission, period. This extends to my heirs and or assigns for seventy (70)years after my death. The only thing he can legally do with that drawing without seeking my permission, is to burn it.
I gave to the Forum for their enjoyment, twenty copies of my drawings. I did not transfer my ownership or any of my rights that I have, to those drawings. They are mine, period. Any one who contacts me and requests permission to copy a drawing(s). I will authorize them to do so, specifically, but you must contact me first, and request permission, not the other way around.
There is more baloney being passed around about copyrights than you can shake a stick at. What I have stated applies to any written material, books music, designs, photographs etc that is original. The instant it is done it is automatically copyrighted.
Those of you who plan to run off a bunch of pictures, or whatever, you better clear it with the owner. The author and artist of the Scale Modeler Magazine articles, though they may be dead, their heirs or assigns are not, and you cannot legally copy any amount and distribute those articles without their permission. Ignorance of the law does not get you a free pass.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[Tom W.]

Your explanation is spot on.

This is the most important point for everybody to remember:

There are many examples and there are many gray areas it comes down to how big is the gorilla you are copying and if he is a big one he will smack you real hard.

I used two photos from the Bundesarchiv in my last book. I got their permission sent them an international money order for the usage fee, and the book was published.

Several months later, I got a note telling me that the money order had not been deposited because the bank that the Bundesarchiv used did not accept it. The Bundesarchiv claimed they sent the money order back, but it had gotten "lost in the mail."

Mmm-hmmm.

In the end, I had to pay a second time. The Bundesarchiv was relentless. Nothing was their fault; everything was my fault. As the biggest of all big gorillas, they promised to make my life miserable forever unless I paid them twice.

So I did.

About a month after I paid again, I found a magazine from 1915 that has the same photos in it. I can now legally scan those photos and use them any way I want.

There are two laws of nature that might interest people reading this thread:

1) A week after you finish scratchbuilding a model of some aircraft nobody has ever heard of, a company will release it in kit form;

2) a month after you pay an outrageous usage fee for an old photo, you'll find a copy of it in an old magazine or at a stall in a flea market.

You can take that to the bank.

[xken]

Thanks for jumping in, you are absolutely dead on and that is the point I have been trying to make. Thank you. Ken

Watch out for the the gorillias; especially the ones with deeper pockets than you. And they also make the rules on how to use the images. Just because you may have a license to put an image on a mug does not mean you have the right to put it on a T-shirt. That's how they make more money.

[KlausKluge]

Hello Dan-San,

your answer is very interesting and helpful.

[Hans]

Klaus, don't mix up anglo-american 'copyright' with german 'Urheberrecht'. The British/US copyright is strictly orientated to the economical use of a object, so all our US friends here state very correctly that copying the Madonna CD without earning a cent is ok. In german 'Urheberrecht' this would be impossible. In Germany we have the 'Nutzungsrecht' for any economical usage of any artwork. So, you never can aquire the Urheberrecht for your ebay-aquired prints. But you have the Nutzungsrecht for your prints. If there are any other prints or scans...you can claim nothing.

H.

[StephenLawson]

Excellent point Hans. Definitions and subcatagories take various turns according to the country of origin.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Stephen Lawson:
I would have to go back and re-read the section on the International copyright law. However, as I recall, in recent years there was agreement by the co-signers of the various nations, up holding copyrights internationally, the exception was the Peoples Republic of China. It has to do with this Global economy crap. It is not just the UK and USA, it was all the co-signing nations. A thing to remember, if the pockets are deep, it worth pursuing, if not, forget it!
Blue skies,
Dan-San