Old, out of date railway publications and Copyright issues

[rodent279]

Are old railway publications, such as timetables, STN's, Weekly Engineering Notices, WTT's etc, subject to copyright? As the information contained in STN's & timetables at least, would not be current, would there be any infringement of copyright if they were published on the internet?

[john new]

If they are Crown copyright (e.g., BR publications) on paper and issued before midnight on 31 Dec 1970 they are out of copyright. Anything after that, and any subsequent digital reissues, are still in copyright. If you do republish it on line then the new compilation and digital impression of the data (but not the original paper issued data) becomes copyrighted to you unless you declare it public domain or use the Creative Commons options. The quick snap I’ve just taken is therefore in copyright to me but neither the copyright on the original document (1957 NE Region BR Summer timetable) nor the data visible has come under my copyright control.

 

Logically BR took on the previous companies stuff so I guess the Crown’s 50 year copyright also applies.

 

Non-Crown rights material is IIRC 70 years from date of death of the originator; a BR timetable from 1969 would therefore be out of copyright but not say an ABC guide.

Hope this helps.

 

EDIT 18 Nov 2022 - sadly the photo reference shown did not lead me to the file in my stored archives. It is therefore lost.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by john new
Photo not reinstated post crash - image has been lost.

[rodent279]

So does that mean it's infringing copyright if I scan in and publish online, either here or on say Flickr, an STN from 1985? Or a Sectional Appendix from the same era?

[john new]

The answer to your question has an absolute yes; Crown Copyright is 50 years and IIRC, like other copyright time limits, expires at the year end turnover so up to and including 31 Dec 1970 is now clear but post-1 Jan 1971 isn’t yet.

 

The secondary question is whether the rights holder would (a) ever find out and (b) do anything about it even if they did? That is a completely different issue, nor do I know which residual body would be appropriate to ask for permission in this post-privatisation era, although probably NetworkRail. I was recently asked this question regarding logged signal box data for an article in the SLS Journal, luckily the data was just clear and we ran the article inclusive of it. For your 1985 data I would have to initially say no, unless NetworkRail (or?) were able to say yes OK.

 

Ultimately it is your gamble whether you do it or not, and my personal opinion is no one will chase you up as an individual about it, but on the Society’s behalf I would have to play it 100% safe.

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by john new

[corneliuslundie]

if you retype a short extract form a document as a quotation you should be OK.

The whole issue of Crown Copyright of railway documentation, photographs, drawings etc is an issue as the National Railway Museum seems to try to claim Crown Copyright on anything and everything it has been given. This is of course because it has been starved of funding and has to raise money somehow.

And sometimes it can be difficult. There was an employee of the LB&SCR who took photographs as part of his job with the company but also ran a photography firm and published his photographs as postcards. He also lived to a good old age and published material late in life. So which of his photographs are crown copyright and which were his, for which copyright expired a little while ago 70 years after his death.

By the way, for copyright material produced by an employee of a company, the copyright belongs to the company but expires 70 years after the item was produced.

The attached two documents (both public domain) may be helpful. There is more on line. 

But the whole subject is a minefield.

Jonathan

crown-copyright-flowchart.pdf Exceptions_to_copyright_-_An_Overview_Leaflet.pdf

[Miss Prism]

5 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

... as the National Railway Museum seems to try to claim Crown Copyright on anything and everything it has been given. This is of course because it has been starved of funding and has to raise money somehow.

 

Perhaps if the NRM got off its god-given arse and did something about the photographic stuff they've been sitting on for decades, they might get a bit of money.

 

 

[Oldddudders]

This ought to help, but doesn't seem to, much.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRB_(Residuary)_Limited

[Oldddudders]

I suspect that the real test of whether anyone would object is whether they could demonstrate that they might lose value/income through your publication. STNs, P/EWNs and similar ephemeral and highly perishable documents strike me as most unlikely candidates for commercial reproduction, while timetables obviously have a rather broader appeal. But the odd page or two would seem reasonable, even then.

 

Robert Carroll's excellent coaching-stock site makes legit use of many old publications, for each of which he has obtained proper permission. Big tick, thankyou, Robert! Again, if you were challenged, I suggest noting that he makes info available on strict terms but has a 'licence', as it were, to do so, might tell against any claim. In other words, loads of such cognoscenti-focussed data is already available gratis, under certain Ts & Cs, so your publication of a tiny amount unlicensed might be regarded as trivial. 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Would Bradshaw's timetables now be out of copyright, or at least those before 1951?

Edited January 29, 2021 by Peter Kazmierczak

[Pacific231G]

I'm not sure what happens to the seventy years after death of the originator rule when a work has been created by a corporate body that either still exists or has disappeared.

There are rules for using so called "orphan" works where the copyright holder cannot be traced and these are designed to ensure that the untraceability of the creator of a work doesn't make it unusable,  but I don't know whether these apply to companies that cannot be traced because they no longer exist. , Also, when a company closes, does that count as its "death" so far as the seventy year rule is concerned? 

[sir douglas]

with the Bradshaw, reprints are still being published so the current publisher probably holds copyright

[john new]

7 minutes ago, sir douglas said:

with the Bradshaw, reprints are still being published so the current publisher probably holds copyright

I think it will depend on the version, example I have the Tomlinson NER history as an original copy, employees edition with a soft back (out of copyright) and a hard back copy reprint (in date range for copyright).  I use the reprint as my working resource but if I ever needed to publish then a copy taken from the original is OK. 

[john new]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

if you retype a short extract form a document as a quotation you should be OK.

The whole issue of Crown Copyright of railway documentation, photographs, drawings etc is an issue as the National Railway Museum seems to try to claim Crown Copyright on anything and everything it has been given. This is of course because it has been starved of funding and has to raise money somehow.

And sometimes it can be difficult. There was an employee of the LB&SCR who took photographs as part of his job with the company but also ran a photography firm and published his photographs as postcards. He also lived to a good old age and published material late in life. So which of his photographs are crown copyright and which were his, for which copyright expired a little while ago 70 years after his death.

By the way, for copyright material produced by an employee of a company, the copyright belongs to the company but expires 70 years after the item was produced.

The attached two documents (both public domain) may be helpful. There is more on line. 

But the whole subject is a minefield.

Jonathan

crown-copyright-flowchart.pdf 214.12 kB · 1 download Exceptions_to_copyright_-_An_Overview_Leaflet.pdf 1.24 MB · 1 download

If it is a new copy image or photocopy they are supplying you with then yes they are technically correct. Many museums also put restrictions on what they allow you to do with what you photograph or copy when you are allowed access to their collections or premises. 

As you say - a minefield.

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by john new

[JimC]

15 minutes ago, john new said:

If it is a new copy image or photocopy they are supplying you with then yes they are technically correct. 

There are potentially two varieties of copyright on any work. The first is the authors copyright, which expires at authors death + 70 as described. The second is copyright on the actual presentation. 

So if I make a new issue of a book written 40 years ago I have to have permission from the author or their estate to reproduce their words. But say my new issue contains illustrations I have selected, a layout  I have carefully worked on and so on, then I have copyright on my layout. 

 

So if in 5 years someone wants to publish a facsimile edition of my version of the book, with my layout etc, then they have to seek permission both from the original author and from me. If they want to produce a brand new edition with their own layout they only need permission from the author. When NRM claim rights on the reproductions of material they produce its the second type of rights thay are claiming, not the first. 

 

Yes, it all seems irksome, but turn it around, why on earth should the people who did all the hard work, be it authorship back then or layout more recently, be the only ones who don't benefit from the sale of a work? 

 

An example of the limits of the second style of copyright is that when I produced illustrations for my book I used as source some drawings sourced from the NRM. But because I redrew each illustration completely there were no copyright issues, because I wasn't reproducing the NRMs copy. If I had wanted to use the original drawings, rather than draw them myself then I would rightly have had to seek permission and pay. 

 

It does hurt, though, that the publisher wanted me to include a limited number of original photographs, and boy did they make a hole in my income. I don't really begrudge photographic libraries their money, because keeping a library together is a serious piece of work, but the disparity in what they made for each illustration in my book, and what I made for each illustration I drew or took was not a happy calculation for me! 

 

JimC

[Peter Kazmierczak]

So if I have an original copy of a Bradshaw from 1945 (not a reprint), if I copied it, I'd have the copyright of the copied version. Is that correct?

[john new]

14 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

So if I have an original copy of a Bradshaw from 1945 (not a reprint), if I copied it, I'd have the copyright of the copied version. Is that correct?

Sort of, see my picture of the 1957 timetable above.

 

yes - on your image. If google picks that image above up so it shows in the google image searches and someone reuses it they are in breach of my copyright.

 

No - I don’t now own the copyright of the original book thereby stopping any future reproductions by anyone else.

 

However - if you come to my house to photograph my copy of the book I could say OK but you can only access my library shelves to do so if the resultant pictures are for your own personal use. (What libraries and archives often do). 
 

I think this answer is correct but, as @corneliuslundie and @JimC outline above, lots of anomalies and complications. If in doubt don’t.

[2251]

20 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

So if I have an original copy of a Bradshaw from 1945 (not a reprint), if I copied it, I'd have the copyright of the copied version. Is that correct?

That depends on whether it is an original artistic work (sections 1 and 4 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988).  

 

There is a copyright in, for example, a photograph of St Pauls' Cathedral.

 

But the requirement for originality means the creator must exercise substantial independent skill, labour, judgment etc. So a photocopy made placing a timetable, drawing, or whatever on the machine and pressing the button results in no copyright in the copy. It might be different if skill and labour in assembling the thing to be photocopied were involved, or special skill (etc) in setting up the equipment to get a good copy.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Bradshaw's, or rather the publishers) used data supplied by the railways. Though often the railways used the Bradshaw format. Bit of a two-way thing. 

All very interesting...

So am I for the gallows for posting this?

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Peter Kazmierczak

[2251]

I am far from clear why it has been assumed that Crown Copyright is relevant to such things as BR timetables .

 

Crown Copyright applies where the work is created by a servant or officer of the Crown in the course of his duties.

 

When the railways were nationalised, they were neither owned nor run directly by the Crown, but by two statutory corporations, first the British Transport Commission then the British Railways Board.  The relevant individuals were the employees of those corporations, not servants of the Crown.

[corneliuslundie]

As I stated above, where a copyright item such as a photograph or drawing is produced by an individual as part of his/her employment, the copyright belongs to the organisation, and expires after 70 years.

Beware by the way that many local authority archives are now claiming dubious reproduction fees on material which has been deposited. One is Gloucestershire archives which has the Gloucester RCW collection. Many of those photos are over 70 years old, so as above are now out of copyright. However, I have known Gloucestershire to ask for a reproduction fee in addition to a fee for supplying a copy of the photo.

This is a dilemma for the HMRS as much of the material in its collections is not its copyright, being copies of originals held elsewhere. The problem often is knowing if there actually is an original still and who has the rights.

As far as I can see Orphan copyright is one way out. However, local authorities have seen it as an income source and instead of charging the fees as intended when the Act was passed often charge an individual admin free for each item. I have given up trying to use it.

You may note by the way that  a few railway publishers (I will not name any) have a very lax view of photograph copyright.

And back to the timetables, the copyright is in the publication not the information therein if that is in the public domain.

A minefield.

Jonathan 

[D9020 Nimbus]

I'm pretty sure that at least two different publishers have produced Bradshaw "reprints", around the time that Michael Portillo's series was first broadcast. And notice all the photos in various railway journals credited to "so-and-so's collection". What's the copyright status of such items?

[2251]

35 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

As I stated above, where a copyright item such as a photograph or drawing is produced by an individual as part of his/her employment, the copyright belongs to the organisation, and expires after 70 years.

 

 

This is not quite correct because it confuses two separate things -- ownership and duration.

 

If an individual produces a copyright work, copyright subsists until 70 years after the calendar year in which that individual dies (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 12(1)). If he produces it in the course of employment, the default position is that the employer is the first owner (CDPA, section 11(2)). But that ownership position does not affect the duration of the copyright.

 

The problem is that such works often do not identify the author. In that case, section 12(3) applies, and copyright expires after 70 years from when the work was made/ first made available to the public

 

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by 2251

[JimC]

Well, if you buy an original copy of Bradshaw then copyright has expired and you can copy it as you like. However depending on how much work you do preparing it for printing there may be some copyright in your presentation of it. So publisher B can't reproduce your version of Bradshaw, but they can reproduce the original. 

 

So and so's collection is a decidedly dubious area. Just because I have a print - or even an original negative - I may not own copyright on the original, and in some cases the copyright owner may be near enough untraceable. However if I make reproductions of the original, especially if scanned, cleaned up, altered colour balance etc, then I'll have copyright on those reproductions, but if someone else also has a copy of that print nothing I do with reproducing my print affects what he can do with his print.

 

Other than that I don't know about the precise legal status of 'xx collection'. I suppose if you can't credit the actual copyright holder its the next best thing, and stating where you got it might prevent others who have a print from getting excited. Can anyone comment.

 

[2251]

29 minutes ago, JimC said:

 

So and so's collection is a decidedly dubious area. Just because I have a print - or even an original negative - I may not own copyright on the original, and in some cases the copyright owner may be near enough untraceable. However if I make reproductions of the original, especially if scanned, cleaned up, altered colour balance etc, then I'll have copyright on those reproductions, but if someone else also has a copy of that print nothing I do with reproducing my print affects what he can do with his print.

 

Other than that I don't know about the precise legal status of 'xx collection'. I suppose if you can't credit the actual copyright holder its the next best thing, and stating where you got it might prevent others who have a print from getting excited. Can anyone comment.

 

 

The fact someone owns a print or negative does not mean he owns the copyright. An assignment of copyright must be in writing and signed by the assignor (CDPA 1988, section 90(3)) and very few people bother to take a proper assignment. 

 

So in most of these cases, the copyright remains with the author or, if he is dead, with whoever took under his will or under the rules as to intestacy if he died without making a will.

 

 

[corneliuslundie]

the "xx collection" is where Orphan Copyright should be used.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/copyright-orphan-works

And regarding copyright material produced as part of one's duties for an employer, the individual will normally have no claim on the copyright which will be with the employer, unless there is an agreement otherwise. But as in the case I mentioned the water can sometimes be muddy. The funny part is that the NRM does not have copies of some of the photos this person produced, but until it discovered the fact claimed them as its copyright.

Jonathan