Copyright - some innocent questions.

[jonny777]

I have searched the site, and although there is an informative thread on copyright in the archives, it is from 2007 and image-based websites have changed since then.

 

Many negative/slide collections appear at various auctions; some said to include copyright, others a little less certain.

 

The law appears to be that image copyright remains with the original photographer until 70 years after their death, unless specifically signed over to someone else; but if a collection (or part of) is put up for auction by the executors or photographer's family with an agreement over copyright transfer, is that legally binding?

 

Many photographers (including myself) have albums of images such as Flickr, Smugmug, etc., but does anyone understand the small print? Have I transferred full rights to that image away to the parent company by uploading it there, despite the fact that I took the photo and retain the original transparency/negative?

 

If I post a photo on Facebook and someone copies it to their hard drive, and subsequently uploads it to another site as theirs; whose image rights are they stealing? Facebook's, mine, or both?

[Andy Y]

The law is still the same Jonny.

 

If you can prove you have bought the original image with copyright title then it does become yours. In the world of printed material you can grant usage to a publisher (either on a single or continued usage basis) but title remains with you. However anyone copying the image from a book would also be infringing the publisher's copyright by copying part of said book.

 

The same applies to the digital world, when uploading to Flickr, for example, you can stipulate that you reserve all rights to the image but you may choose whether the image can be shared or not (this makes use of some of Flickr's tools) and similarly by ascribing a Creative Comms Licence classification wherever you use it. Upload to Facebook (or here or any other website) you still retain title but it's more likely that the image will be copied. Such is the way of the 'net. We stipulate that all uploaded content is the property of the poster and not us as the publisher so we couldn't legally pursue re-usage (but I would happily support anyone so wronged by proving it was they originated the material if necessary); I can't see Facebook etc doing that.

[jonny777]

Thanks Andy, that is very useful.

[rue_d_etropal]

Going on from the digital angle, if someone uses their camera to take a picture of their computer screen, which just happens to be displaying a photo, is that copying or creating your own image? One reason I asked is that I have seen such photos showing screen with a google map image, but stating it is a photo of a computer screen.

 

To be fair, and I know people won't like it, but the idea of copyright, intellectual property ownership is totally out of date these days when you can take a good photo with a mobile phone. The fact that someone taking a photo of your layout at an exhibition has more rights over that photo than the lyout owner is slightly bonkers. Although most people would think that it protects individuals, when it is actually more a way to make more money for big corporations. Look at who owns many of the classic photos(not necessarily railways).

 

As I said most would disagree with me, but having worked in IT, I know most people in IT share their ideas, and most of the software we happily use on the internet is free to use, and those who wrote it would not want it any other way. If you see an idea, you use it, adapt it , turn it into something else. That is the way IT works, and we would would not have this, and other online forums without it.

[Dava]

The conflict between Open Access to data, images, archival material etc., and proprietary ownership of copyright is at the heart of it.

 

We all use and benefit from access to open collections and I believe this is the way forward. See the Ruston archive for example, and we need more collections from loco builders etc digitized and online, but who pays?

 

But writers, photographers and especially publishers don't want to see their business models given away. A mixed economy of free and paid-for is most likely to continue.

 

Dava

[Reorte]

Going on from the digital angle, if someone uses their camera to take a picture of their computer screen, which just happens to be displaying a photo, is that copying or creating your own image? One reason I asked is that I have seen such photos showing screen with a google map image, but stating it is a photo of a computer screen.

 

To be fair, and I know people won't like it, but the idea of copyright, intellectual property ownership is totally out of date these days when you can take a good photo with a mobile phone. The fact that someone taking a photo of your layout at an exhibition has more rights over that photo than the lyout owner is slightly bonkers. Although most people would think that it protects individuals, when it is actually more a way to make more money for big corporations. Look at who owns many of the classic photos(not necessarily railways).

 

As I said most would disagree with me, but having worked in IT, I know most people in IT share their ideas, and most of the software we happily use on the internet is free to use, and those who wrote it would not want it any other way. If you see an idea, you use it, adapt it , turn it into something else. That is the way IT works, and we would would not have this, and other online forums without it.

AIUI (and this is just a recall from reading something elsewhere, might be wrong) is that if the thing that may cause concern is just in the background then there's no copyright issue (you can go back a long way and see advertising hoardings and posters in photo backgrounds for example), if it's clearly a photo of that material then it could be infringing copyright.

 

I don't see why the ease of being able to take a photo should make any difference, other than it making it harder to keep things under control. It may get misused, or used for ends I don't like, but I'd rather have it than not.

[mjkerr]

If you are posting digital images, then modify them BEFORE uploading 
Include the original camera data, date of image and owner (not the copyright) 
Resize the images, typically to screen size 
Reduce the quality, typically to 90% 
If you have to upload the original files, then consider syndication (again the public will only see low quality images) 

Many image programs will NOT show this information, so people that copy the file are not aware of this 
In the event you find the (copied) file, inspect the camera data 

The next issue is having such a file removed 
Ideally contacting the account holder will resolve the issue
Should that fail then the provider has to be contacted, but in most cases they will advise you to contact the account holder, and no further action takes place 

It can also be useful to search for images, it can be surprising where they end up!

[Andy Y]

To be fair, and I know people won't like it, but the idea of copyright, intellectual property ownership is totally out of date these days when you can take a good photo with a mobile phone.

 

What has the device an image has been taken with got to do with it? Copyright laws are as relevant today as they are in decades past, probably even more so; those whose views differ, when I enquire more sees the perspective boil down to "well it's on the internet so it doesn't matter".

 

The fact that someone taking a photo of your layout at an exhibition has more rights over that photo than the lyout owner is slightly bonkers.

Why? If you own a layout but are only able to take poor images what claim do you have over someone's better quality images? If it is permissible to take pictures at an exhibition, for example, then there is no issue. Common sense and courtesy should steer the picture taker to discuss with the layout owner what usage of images they are happy with.

[Blandford1969]

As an observation, from someone who has spent a lot on building a negative collection with copyright, my approach is that if someone links to one of my photos on Flickr and credits it then fine. If they repost something from Facebook and give me a credit then fine.

 

However someone who rips something off my Flickr or Facebook and then reposts it and does not give a credit is something I object to. Fortunately its rare.

[alexross42]

I have a related query that I hope someone can help with, I thought it better to add to this thread rather than start a new one...

 

I've recently acquired a few slides that have been produced by 'CCQ' and 'Modern Image Slides' but I cannot find any information about either company and suspect they may have ceased trading some years ago - if that is the case, what becomes of the copyright in this instance? If the stock/assets of the company are sold on to an individual or other business presumably the copyright goes with it?

Thanks,
Ross.

[AY Mod]

3 minutes ago, alexross42 said:

If the stock/assets of the company are sold on to an individual or other business presumably the copyright goes with it?

 

That would be the most likely scenario.

[BrushVeteran]

22 minutes ago, alexross42 said:

I have a related query that I hope someone can help with, I thought it better to add to this thread rather than start a new one...

 

I've recently acquired a few slides that have been produced by 'CCQ' and 'Modern Image Slides' but I cannot find any information about either company and suspect they may have ceased trading some years ago - if that is the case, what becomes of the copyright in this instance? If the stock/assets of the company are sold on to an individual or other business presumably the copyright goes with it?

Thanks,
Ross.

I may be able to help a little with this one.

CCQ originated Oxford and as far as I can remember their collection was sold to Ron White of Colour Rail.

The Modern Image Slides business was run by the late Tony Eastwood and he used material 'rented' from various photographers, including myself. He then sold the duplicate slides as part of his business. Before he sadly passed away he sold the majority of his master slides to Kevin Derrick of Strathwood fame. Several of my images have subsequently appeared in Strathwood publications by agreement but I still retain the original slides and therefore the copyright. If you are in any doubt as to the copyright on the M.I.S. slides then please PM me with the details of the slide and I may be able to confirm if it is one from my archive. Failing that you may care to look at Brush Veteran flickr site which has most of my early images on display. Hope this helps 

[alexross42]

That's really useful, thank you.
I did wonder if Colour Rail had become the recipient of any of the CCQ slides but couldn't find them on their website despite searching the catalogue.

I'll kindly take you up on your offer of sending you a PM with the MI slide details

Regards,
Ross.

[ikcdab]

1 hour ago, alexross42 said:

I have a related query that I hope someone can help with, I thought it better to add to this thread rather than start a new one...

 

I've recently acquired a few slides that have been produced by 'CCQ' and 'Modern Image Slides' but I cannot find any information about either company and suspect they may have ceased trading some years ago - if that is the case, what becomes of the copyright in this instance? If the stock/assets of the company are sold on to an individual or other business presumably the copyright goes with it?

Thanks,
Ross.

When the company's assets were disposed of, then the copyright would have been accounted for then. And if the business of the company was selling images, then they will have made sure that the copyright issue was covered.  If you have bought the slides, then there will be a copyright marking on the slides. It's tough, but if you want you reproduce them commercially (ie not for private use) then you will need to track down the current owner. 

This is a very difficult situation if the current owner cannot be found.  You could just take the approach that you will use the slides as you wish, and if anyone challenges you then deal with it then.  Most people are reasonable and will understand the situation if you do it sensibly. It all depends on what you want to do with the images. 

[AY Mod]

 

34 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

if you do not wish others to 'possess' your images - in the widest sense of the word - do not upload them to the internet.

 

At least I care about the law, the principles and the morals and how they are implemented here which isn't the case, largely, on Facebook Groups. Many just help themselves to anything, often implying it's their material - it's not even an altruistic thing, often the groups are closed. You won't even know your material is being abused if you're not in that Group.

[cctransuk]

4 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

 

At least I care about the law, the principles and the morals and how they are implemented here which isn't the case, largely, on Facebook Groups. Many just help themselves to anything, often implying it's their material - it's not even an altruistic thing, often the groups are closed. You won't even know your material is being abused if you're not in that Group.

 

I don't contest any of that - I was merely pointing out that, despite reassurances given on some sites, they cannot prevent downloading / saving of material.

 

I feel that this basic fact should be published as widely as possible, so that persons uploading copyright material do not have unrealistic expectations as to the security of their images, etc.

 

CJI.

[AY Mod]

2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

so that persons uploading copyright material do not have unrealistic expectations as to the security of their images, etc.

 

Wouldn't it be better if more people were educated correctly, encouraged to be honourable and penalised for abuse in this regard? I'm not dropping our standards to the lowest common denominator.

[cctransuk]

Just now, AY Mod said:

 

Wouldn't it be better if more people were educated correctly, encouraged to be honourable and penalised for abuse in this regard? I'm not dropping our standards to the lowest common denominator.

 

It would be so much better if human nature were not what it actually is - there is an infinite list of things that would make the world a better place, IF ONLY everyone played nicely.

 

However, we live in the real world where, in so many instances, a minority spoils it for the rest.

 

Being of a pragmatic nature, I think it is wise to go into things with eyes wide open!

 

CJI.

[Blandford1969]

6 hours ago, ikcdab said:

When the company's assets were disposed of, then the copyright would have been accounted for then. And if the business of the company was selling images, then they will have made sure that the copyright issue was covered.  If you have bought the slides, then there will be a copyright marking on the slides. It's tough, but if you want you reproduce them commercially (ie not for private use) then you will need to track down the current owner. 

This is a very difficult situation if the current owner cannot be found.  You could just take the approach that you will use the slides as you wish, and if anyone challenges you then deal with it then.  Most people are reasonable and will understand the situation if you do it sensibly. It all depends on what you want to do with the images. 

It can be a bit more complicated than that sadly. I purchased a load of original slides of three deceased photographers. I did not know at the time the delaer had 'lent' them to a third party who copied them and sold them on their website claiming to be selling with reproduction rights, they also still appear in their books in which they claim they are their copyright despite never having been their copyright. When challenged they got very umpty.  Buyer beware seems to be more and more the case now and will only get more complicated as we move forwards in time.  

Edited December 11, 2023 by Blandford1969