Clarification on copyright please

[pinzaboy]

Hi

 

Over the years I've purchased photographs at swap meets, shows etc and wondered if was OK to share these images on Facebook?

Generally speaking, there is no information at all on the reverse although one or two might have a name.

 

Some photos are clearly originals sold as part of someone's old collection; others appear to be run off a ngative in quantity.

 

I don't wish to breach any copyright so I would welcome any advice.

 

Thanks in advance 

 

Tim

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Unless the sale specifically included transfer of the copyright or reproduction rights, the safe advice is no.

 

It's very disappointing. I have a railway interest photographic print which I should like to see in the online County photographic archive. Never seen it reproduced anywhere, no clue to the photographer, only the date is secure from internal evidence in the photograph, July to September 1959. County archive will not accept it for inclusion because the copyright is untraceable, and reckon 140 years from dating before it would be considered as safely out of copyright under current legislation. So I'll donate the print when I die and it can go into the online accessible archive in 2100, if anyone is still interested in making it available.

 

Long shot, just in case. It's a colour 7"x10" of N5 0-6-2T no 69266 standing on the Hertford branch alongside the ECML at Welwyn Garden City taken from Hunter's Bridge looking North, with Dawnays' steel stockyard in shot, and construction of Rank Bush Murphy Radio's new headquarters building underway in background. 

[johndon]

As mentioned, if you don't own the copyright or have permission from the copyright holder, you shouldn't upload images to any website, not just Facebook.

 

Doing so could, potentially, cost you a lot of money.  There is, for example, a company called Getty Images who will litigate at the drop of a hat if they find images that they own the copyright to being uploaded without permission.

 

I have at least 1,000 images that I'd love to be able to publish on my site but, without permission, it is not worth the risk...

Edited June 28, 2020 by johndon

[kevinlms]

13 hours ago, johndon said:

As mentioned, if you don't own the copyright or have permission from the copyright holder, you shouldn't upload images to any website, not just Facebook.

 

Doing so could, potentially, cost you a lot of money.  There is, for example, a company called Getty Images who will litigate at the drop of a hat if they find images that they own the copyright to being uploaded without permission.

 

I have at least 1,000 images that I'd love to be able to publish on my site but, without permission, it is not worth the risk...

Just as well copyright doesn't seem to apply to the jokes and 'things that make you :-) ' threads.

Otherwise they'd be empty!

[pinzaboy]

Hi

 

Thanks all for that very sensible advice. The photos will remain in my albums, which is a bit of a shame as some are worthy of a wider audience too. 

 

Best wishes

Tim

 

[TheQ]

from the UK .gov Website..

 

"Generally speaking, in the UK copyright in images lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years from the end of the calendar year of their death although the length of the copyright period will depend on when the image was created."

Edited June 29, 2020 by TheQ

[melmerby]

10 minutes ago, TheQ said:

from the UK .gov Website..

 

"Generally speaking, in the UK copyright in images lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years from the end of the calendar year of their death although the length of the copyright period will depend on when the image was created."

IIRC the copyright period was increased a few years back so some images that would still be copyright now had already fallen out of copyright at the time it was increased.

I believe the same applies to music, books etc.

[TheQ]

3 minutes ago, melmerby said:

IIRC the copyright period was increased a few years back so some images that would still be copyright now had already fallen out of copyright at the time it was increased.

I believe the same applies to music, books etc.

it was 50 years and has been extended to 70 years..

[ikcdab]

https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

Provides a good overview.

However, many, many works have no traceable copyright owner and it's a pity if they are lost.

Provided you are not making a commercial gain and a serial flaunter of the rules, it is a very low risk to publish pictures where the copyright is unknown with a suitably worded note. In the unlikely event that the copyright owner does emerge, an apology is normally sufficient. 

I am not advocating breaching rules, if you know who owns the copyright then you should not publish without their permission, but there are many millions of images where the ownership is lost in the midst of time.

Locally to me there was a photographer in the 1870s and 1880s who took views of local railways. He then sold prints of these and I have a number of these. His studio burnt down and the original plates were destroyed. He died in 1910 and no mention of copyright was made in his will. Several generations have passed with the usual complicated family twists and turns. Who now owns the copyright? With the best will in the world, it is impossible to determine. Does that mean that these pictures can never be published ever again? Of course not, its nust that we need to punlish with a suitably worded note explaining the situation.

[John Harris]

17 hours ago, pinzaboy said:

Hi

 

Over the years I've purchased photographs at swap meets, shows etc and wondered if was OK to share these images on Facebook?

Generally speaking, there is no information at all on the reverse although one or two might have a name.

 

Some photos are clearly originals sold as part of someone's old collection; others appear to be run off a ngative in quantity.

 

I don't wish to breach any copyright so I would welcome any advice.

 

Thanks in advance 

 

Tim

 

My other interests include military modelling and like railway modelling there are numerous photos regularly posted on forums and Facebook. 

 

There is a concept of 'fair use' within copyright law, there is a detailed explanation on the British Library site, but in short (to quote) "It’s a framework designed to allow the lawful use or reproduction of work without having to seek permission from the copyright owner(s) or creator(s) or infringing their interest.".

 

Obviously it's ultimately up to you, but I personally feel that posting to forums such as this or Facebook can legitimately be regarded as 'research', some people explain this by captioning the photo "Copyright Unknown, reproduced for research purposes" (or something to that effect).

 

I know in military research the same photo often appears in several museum's collection, so the copyright is contentious anyway.

 

Obviously, you can't print off copies of the Athena poster of the girl playing tennis scratching her bum, but putting a photo of a locomotive on a forum falls within the 'research' remit.

 

jh 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by John Harris

[billbedford]

53 minutes ago, ikcdab said:

 

Locally to me there was a photographer in the 1870s and 1880s who took views of local railways. He then sold prints of these and I have a number of these. His studio burnt down and the original plates were destroyed. He died in 1910 and no mention of copyright was made in his will. Several generations have passed with the usual complicated family twists and turns. Who now owns the copyright? 

 

If the creator is known to have died more than 70 years ago, then the images are out of copyright. The only caveat to this would be if any of the image have become part of a museum or commercial collection then they can add their own layers of copyright eg digitisation. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by billbedford

[GeoffAlan]

Several locomotive books I own, one written by a friend, have photos with notes, roughly along the lines of....

copyright untraceable, please contact the publisher if you have any information.

 

If a publisher is happy to do this then, with their financial clout, they are happy to pay reasonable costs, or fight unreasonable claims. Then the balance for an individual is.... Do I take the risk?

[johndon]

2 hours ago, John Harris said:

There is a concept of 'fair use' within copyright law, there is a detailed explanation on the British Library site, but in short (to quote) "It’s a framework designed to allow the lawful use or reproduction of work without having to seek permission from the copyright owner(s) or creator(s) or infringing their interest.".

 

The detailed explanation on the British Library Site also includes the following:

 

A statutory definition for fair dealing does not exist; it will always be a matter of fact, degree and interpretation in every fair use case. Nor is there a percentage or quantitative measure to determine fair dealing. The Intellectual Property Office lists the key factors used to determine the validity of whether a particular dealing with a work is fair as follows:

 

Has the use of the work impacted negatively on the market for the original work? If the creator or owner has lost potential revenue through the re-use of their work, it is not likely to be fair.

 

Which again, leads to the question, do you want to take the risk?

 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

 

If the creator is known to have died more than 70 years ago, then the images are out of copyright. The only caveat to this would be if any of the image have become part of a museum or commercial collection then they can add their own layers of copyright eg digitisation. 

An unusual situation can arise where the owners of the original media do not have copyright on reproduction.

e.g. Beatrix Potter's original artwork for her books is owned by the National Trust but the copyright was owned by the publisher Frederick Warne & Co.

[John Harris]

25 minutes ago, johndon said:

 

The detailed explanation on the British Library Site also includes the following:

 

A statutory definition for fair dealing does not exist; it will always be a matter of fact, degree and interpretation in every fair use case. Nor is there a percentage or quantitative measure to determine fair dealing. The Intellectual Property Office lists the key factors used to determine the validity of whether a particular dealing with a work is fair as follows:

 

Has the use of the work impacted negatively on the market for the original work? If the creator or owner has lost potential revenue through the re-use of their work, it is not likely to be fair.

 

Which again, leads to the question, do you want to take the risk?

 

 

I don't see any risk at all.

 

To quote from the BL site :-

 

"As an exception to British copyright law, fair dealing is governed by Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which outlines three instance where fair dealing is a legitimate defence:

• If the use is for the purposes of research or private study;
• If it is used for the purposes of criticism, review or quotation;
• Where it is utilised for the purposes of reporting current events (this does not apply to photographs)"

If anyone has an example of legal actions as a result of posting an old photo on the internet, I'd be interested to know of it.

 

Obviously, as I said, it's really up to the person posting and if they are comfortable with posting, but realistically do you think every picture posted on these forums has the express permission of the copyright holder?

 

jh

[John Harris]

40 minutes ago, johndon said:

 

The detailed explanation on the British Library Site also includes the following:

 

A statutory definition for fair dealing does not exist; it will always be a matter of fact, degree and interpretation in every fair use case. Nor is there a percentage or quantitative measure to determine fair dealing. The Intellectual Property Office lists the key factors used to determine the validity of whether a particular dealing with a work is fair as follows:

 

Has the use of the work impacted negatively on the market for the original work? If the creator or owner has lost potential revenue through the re-use of their work, it is not likely to be fair.

 

Which again, leads to the question, do you want to take the risk?

 

 

I understand that particular quote is referring to written works, so someone cannot write a story containing Daleks (owned by Terry Nation's estate) or a book with Thomas the Tank Engine in it, without obtaining the appropriate permissions.

 

jh 

[johndon]

16 minutes ago, John Harris said:

If anyone has an example of legal actions as a result of posting an old photo on the internet, I'd be interested to know of it.

 

As I mentioned earlier, Getty Images, as an example, are notoriously litigious when it comes to images that they own being used without permission.  I know of businesses that have been sued by them because their web designer found an image on line and used it on the website.  The business owner was none the wiser but they were still liable.

 

19 minutes ago, John Harris said:

but realistically do you think every picture posted on these forums has the express permission of the copyright holder?

 

I have absolutely no doubt that there are hundreds if not thousands of photos uploaded on the forums where the copyright holder has not given permission.  I assume that, if a copyright holder objected, it would be Warner's that own the site that would, potentially, be in trouble.

 

On my own website that covers the Tyne Dock to Consett railway line, I have published hundreds of photos that I don't own the copyright to but, in every case, I've asked permission.  To date, no one has turned me down.

 

John

 

[4630]

36 minutes ago, John Harris said:

 

Obviously, as I said, it's really up to the person posting and if they are comfortable with posting, but realistically do you think every picture posted on these forums has the express permission of the copyright holder?

 

jh

 

Let’s put it this way, if I become aware of any of my images reposted on any other forum or internet site without prior permission being sought I will, as the copyright holder, assert my right to appropriate redress.

 

I have taken such steps in the past and won’t hesitate should it happen again.

 

 

[DaveF]

 

If someone asks me permission to repost one of my images I will normally agree to it.

 

If an image of mine is reposted without my permission then I take such steps as may be required to have the image removed and would not hesitate to seek redress if it was appropriate.

 

There have been times when one of my images has been reposted without permission, in each case I have contacted the owner of the site and the image has been removed forthwith, usually with a written apology to me.  That has applied when the poster has simply been a member of a forum or whatever but the site owner has taken the action to remove the image.

 

David

 

 

[johndon]

11 minutes ago, DaveF said:

There have been times when one of my images has been reposted without permission, in each case I have contacted the owner of the site and the image has been removed forthwith, usually with a written apology to me.  That has applied when the poster has simply been a member of a forum or whatever but the site owner has taken the action to remove the image.

 

I have done the same a few times and the only place that has given me an issues is Facebook.  I usually contact the person who has posted the image and, on occasion, they have come back and said "the image was on the internet so it must be OK to put it on Facebook" at which point they get a quick education and the image is usually removed, I think I have only had to go to FB directly on one occasion.

 

John

[kevinlms]

I wonder how The Rolling Stones are going to get on, with their demands to stop Trump from using their music without permission, for his re-election campaign?

 

Now if someone like Getty threatened Andy York, of the consequences of not removing one their photos, he would no doubt remove it at the earliest opportunity. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised, if that had already occurred.

[johndon]

2 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Now if someone like Getty threatened Andy York, of the consequences of not removing one their photos, he would no doubt remove it at the earliest opportunity. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised, if that had already occurred.

 

Getty often don't even threaten, they just send an invoice...

[EddieB]

There may not be a difference in law, but to me there’s a big difference between publishing from a physical image (print) acquired legitimately (but lacking details of copyright owner), and filching an image off someone else’s website where permission could be sought, but has not.

 

Someone* has said that there would be very few historical railway books published (or those published would be much poorer) without images identified only as being from the “author’s collection” (with disclaimer as noted by GeoffAlan, earlier in this thread).  Where someone has sold or given away a print, without identifying themselves, then I wouldn’t object to the publication of that image if ownership of copyright cannot be traced by reasonable methods - in our hobby the “rewards” for publication are pretty modest anyway.

 

On the other hand, it does annoy me when images are copied from known sources, particularly other websites, with no identification of the source or crediting the photographer.  Unfortunately there are quite a few such images on RMweb.  Perhaps it’s naïveté and not intending to pass off someone else’s work as their own, but at the very least it’s bad manners.

 

*Copyright owner of this statement could not be traced :-(

[kevinlms]

37 minutes ago, johndon said:

 

Getty often don't even threaten, they just send an invoice...

Conversely in Australia, a smaller movie company from the US tried to sue Australian's who had downloaded a B grade movie from the US (pirating). It was done by forcing internet providers in a court order, to provide details of those 'guilty'. They sent them invoices to those they could trace (many internet providers refused to comply), for exhorbitant amounts.

 

It ended up in court and eventually the judge threw the case out, because the promoters failed to convince the judge the alleged extent of the 'loss'. In other words, plain greedy.

 

Obviously, this was intended as a test case (they selected a smaller maker, with a relatively small number of downloads, rather than a major blockbuster - for obvious reasons), for the industry generally. While it failed, there is some changes to the Copyright Law in Australia, mainly to make it more closely aligned with the US.

 

For the record, I don't download American movies, least of all 'B grade ones!

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by kevinlms
Info added

[Reorte]

10 minutes ago, EddieB said:

There may not be a difference in law, but to me there’s a big difference between publishing from a physical image (print) acquired legitimately (but lacking details of copyright owner), and filching an image off someone else’s website where permission could be sought, but has not.

 

If it's a very old photo it's probably a reasonable chance that it's out of copyright anyway, although you'll be taking a gamble. It would be good to know how the law would treat such a situation as a difficult to trace old photograph, but you'd doubtless need legal advice for that rather than opinions from the internet (I'd hope at worst nothing particularly harsh was the result but see preceding statement); perhaps it's a good one to approach an MP with, with the goal of ensuring historical material for which copyright exists but is practically impossible to trace doesn't get lost for good.