Clarification on copyright please

[Graham_Muz]

It never ceases to amaze me that some, and how many, people think “because it’s in the internet it can be copied” 

Copyright law as already stated above still applies! 
 

I even know some sites / blogs that blatantly copy / publish images without any regard to copyright and or permissions but then have a statement that everything on their site  is copyright! 

[4630]

12 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

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.

 

There is already provision for making legitimate use of copyright material where the copyright holder can't be found under the 'orphan works' provision.

 

Details available from the government's 'Intellectual Property Office' here;

 

copyright - orphan works 

[ikcdab]

6 hours 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?

And do you think that the owner of (say) 5000 pictures in a collection would even recognise one from the library even if they frequented the relevant forum? 

[pH]

I have a more general question about copyright, particularly about what I consider one of ‘my’ photos. 
 

I saw a very unusual locomotive on a local line, from a considerable distance, and wanted a photo of it. For certain reasons, I couldn’t get there to take the photo myself. I gave my camera, containing film I had paid for, to a friend, with instructions as to what I wanted photographed and from what angle. He did exactly what I’d asked him to do, gave me back the camera, and I paid for developing and printing.
 

The question I have is - who legally owns the copyright to this photo?

 

(The question is actually academic, since my friend never thought of claiming copyright and, very sadly, died many years ago at a young age. But I’ve long wondered about it, and this discussion seemed a reasonable place to ask the question.)

Edited June 29, 2020 by pH
Grammar

[pinzaboy]

As the original poster, I'd like to thank you all for your useful comments.

Tim

[Graham_Muz]

17 minutes ago, pH said:

I have a more general question about copyright, particularly about what I consider one of ‘my’ photos. 
 

I saw a very unusual locomotive on a local line, from a considerable distance, and wanted a photo of it. For certain reasons, I couldn’t get there to take the photo myself. I gave my camera, containing film I had paid for, to a friend, with instructions as to what I wanted photographed and from what angle. He did exactly what I’d asked him to do, gave me back the camera, and I paid for developing and printing.
 

The question I have is - who legally owns the copyright to this photo?

 

(The question is actually academic, since my friend never thought of claiming copyright and, very sadly, died many years ago at a young age. But I’ve long wondered about it, and this discussion seemed a reasonable place to ask the question.)

Technically the copyright is still retained by the actual photographer regardless of who owns the equipment,  or paid for film and or developing, or any employer unless the rights are formally signed over. 
 

[DaveF]

3 hours ago, ikcdab said:

And do you think that the owner of (say) 5000 pictures in a collection would even recognise one from the library even if they frequented the relevant forum? 

 

 

I manage to be able to recognise my photographs quite easily and I have considerably more than 5,000.

 

David

[johndon]

With regards to the equipment belonging to one person and the photo being taken by ‘someone’ else, there is this rather unusual case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

 

[Dave 46]

19 hours ago, pH said:

<snip>

I saw a very unusual locomotive on a local line, from a considerable distance, and wanted a photo of it. For certain reasons, I couldn’t get there to take the photo myself. I gave my camera, containing film I had paid for, to a friend, with instructions as to what I wanted photographed and from what angle. He did exactly what I’d asked him to do, gave me back the camera, and I paid for developing and printing.
 

The question I have is - who legally owns the copyright to this photo?

 

<snip>

 

In 1981 I went on a trip to China.  In the party were a couple, and one of them worked for the Sunday Times.  I was handed a camera, to take a picture of them, and it was subsequently used, without attribution, in an article in the Sunday Times Magazine.  I spoke to the librarian at work about this, as someone who should know about copyright, and she told me it wouldn't be worth following up.  I was mildly annoyed about it.

 

Dave

 

[melmerby]

On 29/06/2020 at 16:53, EddieB said:

 

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.

 

 

From what I see the vast majority of images on RMWeb are either somebody's own work or "Hotlinked" to the original.

In the latter case it is easy to identify where it has come from as the web address is in the link, where details of the rights holder will be.

I've posted a few scanned images from some books I have, but as the books are about 90 years old and the photos around 120 or so years old, copyright will almost certainly have expired.

[Free At Last]

45 minutes ago, Dave 46 said:

 

 I was mildly annoyed about it.

 

Dave

 

About taking a holiday snap of someone with their camera?

I've done it many a time whilst on holiday,  never considering myself to be David Bailey I would never give it another thought.

[pH]

11 minutes ago, Free At Last said:

About taking a holiday snap of someone with their camera?

I've done it many a time whilst on holiday,  never considering myself to be David Bailey I would never give it another thought.

But we’re talking about legalities here, not common sense!

[kevinlms]

19 hours ago, melmerby said:

From what I see the vast majority of images on RMWeb are either somebody's own work or "Hotlinked" to the original.

In the latter case it is easy to identify where it has come from as the web address is in the link, where details of the rights holder will be.

I've posted a few scanned images from some books I have, but as the books are about 90 years old and the photos around 120 or so years old, copyright will almost certainly have expired.

You could always ask the copyright holder to come forward, with both parents!

[chris p bacon]

22 hours ago, pH said:

But we’re talking about legalities here, not common sense!

 

This is a grey area as although you took the image you weren't the creator as it was commissioned by the couple who asked you to do it.   Had they not asked, you would not have taken the image of them.

 

If you wished to take their image and use it in a publication then you would have had to have sought their permission to do so which I doubt they would have given.

 

having spent several months researching copyright some time ago, I'm glad it was about pre-grouping images as that made it so much easier.

 

 

 

 

 

[fezza]

The key question is really whether the copyright holder will take offence and (more importantly) whether he has the inclination and resources to sue. The odd picture of an obscure station on Facebook is unlikely to cause anyone to head for the courts... 

[pH]

2 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

This is a grey area as although you took the image you weren't the creator as it was commissioned by the couple who asked you to do it.   Had they not asked, you would not have taken the image of them.

 

If you wished to take their image and use it in a publication then you would have had to have sought their permission to do so which I doubt they would have given.

 

having spent several months researching copyright some time ago, I'm glad it was about pre-grouping images as that made it so much easier.

 

Chris, that is an interesting reply.

 

It wasn’t me that took the photo you were commenting on. It was ‘Free At Last’:
 

On 30/06/2020 at 10:26, Free At Last said:

About taking a holiday snap of someone with their camera?

I've done it many a time whilst on holiday,  never considering myself to be David Bailey I would never give it another thought.

 

I was just being flippant in reply to that post:

 

On 30/06/2020 at 10:38, pH said:

But we’re talking about legalities here, not common sense!

 

However. I think your reply is relevant to a question I asked earlier in this topic:

 

On 29/06/2020 at 13:38, pH said:

I have a more general question about copyright, particularly about what I consider one of ‘my’ photos. 
 

I saw a very unusual locomotive on a local line, from a considerable distance, and wanted a photo of it. For certain reasons, I couldn’t get there to take the photo myself. I gave my camera, containing film I had paid for, to a friend, with instructions as to what I wanted photographed and from what angle. He did exactly what I’d asked him to do, gave me back the camera, and I paid for developing and printing.
 

The question I have is - who legally owns the copyright to this photo?

 

(The question is actually academic, since my friend never thought of claiming copyright and, very sadly, died many years ago at a young age. But I’ve long wondered about it, and this discussion seemed a reasonable place to ask the question.)

 

I read your answer to say that, since my friend would not have taken that picture if I hadn’t asked him to, and since he composed it as I had asked him to, I have some claim to the copyright of the photo. Am I right in interpreting it that way? (That is the way I think of the situation I described in my original post.)

[chris p bacon]

1 hour ago, pH said:

Chris, that is an interesting reply.

 

It wasn’t me that took the photo you were commenting on. It was ‘Free At Last’:
 

 

I was just being flippant in reply to that post:

 

 

However. I think your reply is relevant to a question I asked earlier in this topic:

 

 

I read your answer to say that, since my friend would not have taken that picture if I hadn’t asked him to, and since he composed it as I had asked him to, I have some claim to the copyright of the photo. Am I right in interpreting it that way? (That is the way I think of the situation I described in my original post.)

I didn't realise I'd mixed up the quotes...whoops..

 

As per your question,  In our research what was noted was that early copyrighted images (before 1900) were by photographers who were instructed on what to take photographs of, when and where and the copyright then belonged to the person who had commissioned the picture, much the same as an employer now. Now it is a little different as the copyright could remain with the photographer,  but if a contract was in place to create the image they may not be able to publish it without the express permission of the person who commisioned it.

For our needs the copyright timeframe was very short at that time, so anything pre-grouping is deemed to be out of copyright although we always check before use. 

This site has some interesting info.

 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481194/c-notice-201401.pdf

[PMP]

20 hours ago, pH said:

 

I read your answer to say that, since my friend would not have taken that picture if I hadn’t asked him to, and since he composed it as I had asked him to, I have some claim to the copyright of the photo. Am I right in interpreting it that way? (That is the way I think of the situation I described in my original post.)

Nope you have no legal claim

to it, unless there is a contract in place outlining the terms of your ‘Comission’, that you will hold the copyright.

 

For example. You could ask me to take a pic of the postbox at the end of our road, facing north at a height of 1m from the ground, from a distance of 10m using a 50mm lens at f2.8, 125th second, at ISO100.

 

I then go and take the pic to the spec, I’m the ‘author’, therefore it’s my copyright. The same applies even if you supply the equipment. If as part of the instructions you say, I (pH) will own the copyright of the image and determine and receive any royalties etc etc, then if I agree to those terms, (ideally written), the copyright would be yours to use as you see fit. I the ‘author’ would have relinquished my copyright rights under the terms of the contract.

 

This type of contract ensures that the commissioner who would normally have paid for the snappers services, as an employee, or sub contractor, gets full use of the image. Some organisations and terms of  employment cover this with any images intellectual property etc produced by that individual whilst working for the ‘company’, copyright automatically becomes the property of the ‘company’.

Edited July 2, 2020 by PMP
Page timing out

[Neil]

Copyright is one of those subjects which returns time and time again. There never seems to a be a satisfactory, cut and dried resolution. It tends to polarize opinion into two camps, strict observance to and encyclopedic knowledge of the law and those more relaxed who point to the leeway given by fair use, research and review. I wonder if the real problem is that the law is designed for one thing (to protect revenue) which doesn't fit with our purpose, the free sharing of knowledge. Obviously I can think of scenarios where in the context of our hobby one would step on the toes of another. Free sharing of the knowledge contained with the latest MRJ or this months Modeller would undermine their profitability and livelihood of those employed in producing them. An old uncredited photo bought at a fleamarket would probably not cause revenue loss. In my collection of magazines I have a few issues of 'Chemins de Fer' from the 1950s. I have no idea if the publisher is still in business or the photographers still alive. If I thought it pertinent to post an image, drawing or section of prose then I'd be happy to take a punt on it; partly because I'd be reasonably confident that no one involved with the magazine then would bother about it now and that I'd be depriving no one of money they could otherwise have made from their work. It seems to me that the law needs to catch up with the age we're living in and common sense.

[J. S. Bach]

42 minutes ago, Neil said:

 ...snip... It seems to me that the law needs to catch up with the age we're living in and common sense.

Laws and common sense?? Never happen!!

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Would a Bradshaw's Timetable from July 1945 now be out of copyright?

Edited July 2, 2020 by Peter Kazmierczak

[pH]

The history of copyright is interesting. It actually derived from a ‘carrot’ to encourage printers to register with the English government and so allow the government to know what was being printed about them, and who were operating as unauthorized printers and could therefore be shut down i.e. as government censorship.

 

An early regulation (though not the first):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_Order_of_1643

 

[Steamport Southport]

27 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Would a Bradshaw's Timetable from July 1945 now be out of copyright?

 

I don't know, but I think Middleton Press now have the rights to publish them. Which might have came from when they got the rights to publish the current timetables.

 

https://www.middletonpress.co.uk/books/bradshaw/

 

 

 

Jason

[rocor]

If posting an image from another web site, a note and a link could be provided under the image, i.e. link from <address of image>.

 

Some sites would rather that you provide a link to <address of their home page>.

 

Other problems that can arise, are, for example if you have taken an existing image and modified it (for instance for comic purposes). The copyright holder may not approve as to what you have done to their image.

 

At what level of modification though can the original image no longer be regarded as the original copyright holders?. 

 

As to the length of time that a copyright should last for, anything beyond either 50 years or within the original copyright holders lifetime, whichever is the longest does seem somewhat excessive. 

 

 

[melmerby]

9 minutes ago, rocor said:

If posting an image from another web site, a note and a link could be provided under the image, i.e. link from <address of image>.

Some sites would rather that you provide a link to <address of their home page>.

 

I would have thought all sites would want you to do that, else you are actually copying the picture which is an infringement of copyright.