Clarification on copyright please

[Steamport Southport]

6 minutes ago, melmerby said:

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.

 

Most now have the "Share" symbol.

 

A random picture which I was looking at. But if you click the symbol which is next to the heart with three "balls" then it gives you a code so you can link to the photo. All pretty legit and no copyright has been infringed.

 

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p603346219/eb9b6a182

 

 

 

Jason

Edited July 3, 2020 by Steamport Southport

[johndon]

6 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Most now have the "Share" symbol.

 

A random picture which I was looking at. But if you click the symbol which is next to the heart with three "balls" then it gives you a code so you can link to the photo. All pretty legit and no copyright has been infringed.

 

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p603346219/eb9b6a182

 

 

 

Jason

 

There is a difference between linking to an existing photo like the one you mention or a photo on Flick that provides a link and downloading a photo from the internet and then uploading it elsewhere.  The linking is fine, the uploading is not.

 

John

 

[Steamport Southport]

23 minutes ago, johndon said:

 

There is a difference between linking to an existing photo like the one you mention or a photo on Flick that provides a link and downloading a photo from the internet and then uploading it elsewhere.  The linking is fine, the uploading is not.

 

John

 

 

I know. I was addressing the idea that all websites want you to go to their home page and not the image. 

 

That's why I was highlighting the "share" symbol which allows you to link directly to the photograph.

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Fenman]

On 02/07/2020 at 19:51, pH said:

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

 

The public policy justification for intellectual property rights is that they encourage human creativity, which is  of wider benefit to society. The grant of a time-limited monopoly to the creator was seen as a good way of balancing rewards to the individual with the wider benefit to society — and the ability to make money from their creations would encourage that person to continue being creative for the public good. These laws were introduced at a time when monopoly powers (usually a royal device to extract cash) were generally considered an evil. 
 

Unfortunately, big corporations have become involved. Companies like Disney now make big money from having monopolies over their IP. The US legislation to massively extend copyright was even known as “the Disney Act”, because one of its primary purposes was to keep Mickey Mouse in copyright so that Disney could keep extracting monopoly rents from it. Otherwise libertarian right-wingers tied themselves in knots over the US constitution’s insistence that all monopolies should be “time-limited”, eventually arguing that giving Disney rights for “infinity minus one day” would be sufficient to meet the constitution. 
 

The UK has not been immune from IP inflation, and the extension of copyright to 70 years after the author’s death was one example: how can a dead author be encouraged to be more creative by an extension of copyright? 
 

The automatic application of copyright law to billions of holiday snaps (or train spots) whether the photographer wants it or not is a legislative hammer to crack a fairly trivial nut. 
 

At least the UK resisted the US’s ludicrous pressure to make copyright breach a criminal offence; here, unlike most of the world, it remains a civil offence. 
 

My understanding (though you should consult a lawyer for your own circumstances) is that copyright claims have to be rooted in the economic value of the item: I can’t just claim that you “stealing” and publishing my photo of a Clayton has robbed me of £50,000 of income. I have to have a realistic claim about the value I have lost. Copyright law then lets me reclaim that value, through the courts if necessary. 
 

Frankly, the economic value of a murky b&w shot of some old locomotive from the 1950s is likely to be modest. The risks you would be running are, from my perspective, minuscule. YMMV. 

 

Paul
 

 

 

 

[Reorte]

5 hours ago, Fenman said:

The UK has not been immune from IP inflation, and the extension of copyright to 70 years after the author’s death was one example: how can a dead author be encouraged to be more creative by an extension of copyright?

 

Always found that one a bit odd really. It's surprising what works are still in copyright, or not long out of it. I fully support the concept of copyright, and if nothing else find it downright rude to simply help yourself to someone else's photo, but it could certainly do with a lot of tweaking.

 

Quote

My understanding (though you should consult a lawyer for your own circumstances) is that copyright claims have to be rooted in the economic value of the item: I can’t just claim that you “stealing” and publishing my photo of a Clayton has robbed me of £50,000 of income. I have to have a realistic claim about the value I have lost. Copyright law then lets me reclaim that value, through the courts if necessary.

 

Unless they somehow managed to make a lot of money out of that photo of a Clayton, which is unlikely. But (and IANAL) I think they'd have  claim from any money you did make from it, e.g. if you put it in a book, and could stop you selling any more of that book unless it's removed.

[PMP]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

 

 

Unless they somehow managed to make a lot of money out of that photo of a Clayton, which is unlikely. But (and IANAL) I think they'd have  claim from any money you did make from it, e.g. if you put it in a book, and could stop you selling any more of that book unless it's removed.

The value is also based on the photographers income. If a claim

is made against an infringement part of the value can be the ‘work’ and costs involved In production of the image. A friend in the business sends an invoice with their day rate as well as the image rate if they find a copied image.

I found one of my images In a magazine advertising an exhibition I had nothing to do with. Not only had they nicked the image, but by using it inferred that the layout would be at the show. They paid an appropriate free lance rate to a charity in recompense. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by PMP

[melmerby]

7 hours ago, Fenman said:

The UK has not been immune from IP inflation, and the extension of copyright to 70 years after the author’s death was one example: how can a dead author be encouraged to be more creative by an extension of copyright? 
 

Paul
 

AFAIK that was done mainly to protect music recordings on which copyright expired 50 years after they were made.

A few extremely rich pop stars IIRC such as Elton John, Cliff Richard, Paul McCartney lobbied for an extension as their early works were nearing expiry of copyright.

Many early pop/rock recordings already had gone out of copyright. (and can't retrospectively be re-copyrighted)

[Fenman]

On 04/07/2020 at 14:31, Reorte said:

 

... But (and IANAL) I think they'd have  claim from any money you did make from it, e.g. if you put it in a book, and could stop you selling any more of that book unless it's removed.

Maybe. But, as always, the law only really works for big business. My (UK-based) employer owns the copyright in a dead author’s unpublished non-fiction works. A serious academic has edited some of them and has asked my employer for a licence to publish. The works are sensitive to a lot of people named in them, who don’t want them published in their lifetimes. There’s no money to be made: it would be a specialist academic publisher and total royalties are likely to be a few hundred quid. 
 

If we refuse a licence, the academic might publish them anyway — maybe overseas. The legal costs of pursuing a claim overseas, for damages that ultimately would likely be trivial, would probably mean we wouldn’t. 
 

The law mainly enables big corporations and the super-rich to extract monopoly rents, while sometimes choosing to withhold cultural patrimony (US-based Warner Bros has refused to release the culturally important British film The Devils because it was successfully lobbied by mainly US-based Catholic organisations who had found it offensive. My view is if a corporate rights-holder refuses to make available a cultural property then, just as with compulsory purchase of land which is needed for the public interest, they should forfeit their copyright).

 

IP law is a mess, distorted by lobbying from major corporations (and a few super-rich artists).

 

Paul

 

 

[laurenceb]

Some organisations are not above claiming copyright on yhings that they have no right to. A gentalman in the US posted material on u tube which a media conglomerate swiped, and then when he reposted it on his own website they made him take it down as they claimed he was infringing there copyright. And I know of an archive who when being loaned material claims all copyright

[Sol]

Well just to muddy the waters more, if I post an image that I took,  on the internet & it was copied & posted elsewhere, I wouldn't bat an eyelid but happy that my photo has got a wider audience.

[JCL]

I think it’s safe to say that British copyright law is an absolute mess, and therefore a goldmine for lawyers. I looked into it with @chris p bacon, and the only thing we could say for sure, as Dave has said, is that pre-grouping is ok.
 

Although the photos are out of copyright, other factors can come into play depending on where they come from. These include the fact that the NRM hold a lot of out of copyright images that have restricted use. You would abide by those restrictions to ensure that you can keep accessing their photographic library.

 

Other than that, there’s the whole concept of first published date to get your head around.

 

Finally, location plays a part. This is quite an Interesting read if you’re bored.

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

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by JCL

[Bernard Lamb]

4 hours ago, JCL said:

I think it’s safe to say that British copyright law is an absolute mess, and therefore a goldmine for lawyers. I looked into it with @chris p bacon, and the only thing we could say for sure, as Dave has said, is that pre-grouping is ok.
 

Although the photos are out of copyright, other factors can come into play depending on where they come from. These include the fact that the NRM hold a lot of out of copyright images that have restricted use. You would abide by those restrictions to ensure that you can keep accessing their photographic library.

 

Other than that, there’s the whole concept of first published date to get your head around.

 

Finally, location plays a part. This is quite an Interesting read if you’re bored.

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

 

Not just the NRM. At one time I had access to a large batch of MOD photographs and there was a long running discussion with a very senior official as to the extent of permitted use. It ended up with a somewhat vague definition about showing to friends being OK. So posting on a closed group was acceptable but posting on an open forum was not. Photographs could under this ruling be posted in Wheeltappers but not in other parts of the forum. A veritable can of worms.

Bernard

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Not just the NRM. At one time I had access to a large batch of MOD photographs and there was a long running discussion with a very senior official as to the extent of permitted use. It ended up with a somewhat vague definition about showing to friends being OK. So posting on a closed group was acceptable but posting on an open forum was not. Photographs could under this ruling be posted in Wheeltappers but not in other parts of the forum. A veritable can of worms.

 

Would MOD photographs muddy the water further by being Crown Copyright?

[Bernard Lamb]

30 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Would MOD photographs muddy the water further by being Crown Copyright?

I did mention a can of worms and I do not know the answer to that point.I had to deal with a department that was responsible for "intellectual property" and they were very strict as to exactly what you could do with material. On the other hand they were very helpful in finding material that you requested. I doubt if they would be so willing these days.

A further complication is that some former MOD material has been released to TNA Kew and the restrictions on use of that material can be different. I have had to sign for accepting limited use conditions for material that is freely available if you visit the archive and on one occasion was only allowed to see a file in a private room under supervision.

Then again I have obtained material from the Parliamentary Archive and the conditions of use for that is different again.

Bernard

[jonny777]

8 hours ago, Sol said:

Well just to muddy the waters more, if I post an image that I took,  on the internet & it was copied & posted elsewhere, I wouldn't bat an eyelid but happy that my photo has got a wider audience.

 

I understand that way of thinking, but many people seem to believe the internet is so huge that they can copy photos from one site and re-post them on another, but then claim the photo was taken by them and the owner will never find out. Presumably their kudos is boosted by the number of 'likes' they get for showing 'their' photos. 

 

 

I have a large collection of images, mainly transparencies, which I have bought over the last 20 years from various auctions and online auction sites. Most of these are originals, but I have discovered a few are copies sold as originals. I have no idea who the photographers were in most instances, or if they are still alive in some cases. 

 

Many slides are sold as "with copyright" but I doubt the vendor has the specific written evidence from the original photographer (or their estate) to prove this. However, I buy them nevertheless if the prices are not too high. If I post them on sites such as RMWeb or Facebook, for the enjoyment of others, I add a note which says they are from my collection and the photographer is unknown. 

 

I am quite happy to remove the images if anyone objects, but I hate to think of interesting images being locked away in cupboards where no one but me could see them because I was frightened of the possibility of breaching copyright. I hope that most owners of original slides (where I have bought the duplicate unwittingly) would understand that no malice was involved on my part, and I am certainly not in the business of financial gain from image posting. I am just rather nerdy when it comes to collections, and can't stop myself accumulating these items.  I would hope others would ask my permission before re-posting my images elsewhere, and I would have no problems with that, if they did. 

 

As usual with most things, it is the selfish and inconsiderate few who spoil everything for the majority. 

 

 

[billbedford]

45 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

 

I am quite happy to remove the images if anyone objects, but I hate to think of interesting images being locked away in cupboards where no one but me could see them because I was frightened of the possibility of breaching copyright. 

 

I hope you would enquire whether whoever is asking for the takedown has documentary evidence for their alleged ownership of the copyright. 

 

45 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

As usual with most things, it is the selfish and inconsiderate few who spoil everything for the majority. 

 

..not to mention the commercially astute. 

[Owd Bob]

On 29/06/2020 at 22:42, DaveF said:

 

 

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

 

David

i can recognise mine easily as well, cos mine are all rubbish! I'm withdrawing from this and some other sites at the end of this week, but all my stuff can stay on, i won't remove any of it, then others after me can either use them for reference or just suffer by looking at them

[kevinlms]

You can have the opposite occurring.

 

A club that I'm a member of, in the early days another member used to take quite a few movies (real film), of the work in progress.

 

Years later, the club was looking at producing a DVD of the club history - 25 years?, and someone remembered that this fellow (no longer a member, as basically too old to travel), took all this film.

 

He was contacted and politely asked if he would make his collection available to copy, at our cost, with acknowledgement of course. He rudely told our club, that all the material was his and no he wouldn't make it available.

 

I'm pretty sure he is no longer with us and his family weren't the least bit interested, in his hobby. So almost certainly the whole lot went in the skip!

 

A real shame, as he did show us some of his early stuff, very soon after taking it. But after that, the rest of the club members never saw anything later.

 

Too bad, we didn't have any of it to break copyright on!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On ‎05‎/‎07‎/‎2020 at 15:01, Fenman said:

...IP law is a mess...

And the messiest aspect of the mess, is that the intellectual property of  invention has very limited protection. And yet it is the inventions that have made IP of 'artistic work' so valuable. The two should be normalised to patent duration.

[Steamport Southport]

23 hours ago, laurenceb said:

Some organisations are not above claiming copyright on yhings that they have no right to. A gentalman in the US posted material on u tube which a media conglomerate swiped, and then when he reposted it on his own website they made him take it down as they claimed he was infringing there copyright. And I know of an archive who when being loaned material claims all copyright

 

Ironically the worst perpetrator of that sort of thing is Elon Musk.

 

It was the "Farting Unicorn" he nicked and created a bit of a Twitterstorm.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44642137

 

 

 

Jason

Edited July 6, 2020 by Steamport Southport

[JCL]

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

You can have the opposite occurring.

 

A club that I'm a member of, in the early days another member used to take quite a few movies (real film), of the work in progress.

 

Years later, the club was looking at producing a DVD of the club history - 25 years?, and someone remembered that this fellow (no longer a member, as basically too old to travel), took all this film.

 

He was contacted and politely asked if he would make his collection available to copy, at our cost, with acknowledgement of course. He rudely told our club, that all the material was his and no he wouldn't make it available.

 

I'm pretty sure he is no longer with us and his family weren't the least bit interested, in his hobby. So almost certainly the whole lot went in the skip!

 

A real shame, as he did show us some of his early stuff, very soon after taking it. But after that, the rest of the club members never saw anything later.

 

Too bad, we didn't have any of it to break copyright on!

Off topic but related, but the chairman of the museum of town life in my hometown threw a good proportion of the town’s historical collection in a skip because the items were either duplicates or of no interest to him. He’d already declared his intention and everyone told him he couldn’t, so he did it on a Sunday when the place was empty.

[EddieB]

On 06/07/2020 at 11:31, jonny777 said:

 

I understand that way of thinking, but many people seem to believe the internet is so huge that they can copy photos from one site and re-post them on another, but then claim the photo was taken by them and the owner will never find out. Presumably their kudos is boosted by the number of 'likes' they get for showing 'their' photos. 

Not quite the same scenario, but nevertheless ironic that an RMwebber had cause to complain recently when he found one of his pictures displayed on this site without his permission.  

 

Of course, it may be “permissable” that photos can be pulled across from another site, and their embedded links point back to the originating site and photographer, but a casual scan of the new webpage does not bring up such information.  To me it would be at least a courtesy to acknowledge the source, so that attribution is clear without having to link through the image.

 

 

[jonny777]

There seem to be a number of people who just don't seem to care any more. I subscribe to a few railway themed Facebook groups and have seen a recent trend to posting images which have been scanned from published books with "unknown photographer" added to the description. I recognise a number of them, because I have the same books. 

 

I even saw a video, taken from Railway Roundabout and uncredited, which seemed to have been filmed from a TV screen on a mobile phone, such was the questionable quality. 

 

I have ceased posting my photos online now (unless they answer a specific question). 

 

[Reorte]

I know of someone with a roads website. He once got sent on a speed awareness course, where they used various photos he recognised as having being taken off his website without permission. It looks like it's not just random indivduals...

 

[MJI]

I supplied a load of video material to a company making films about preserved railways, no money but I got credits and a free DVD.

 

I still have copywrite but I allowed them to use it.

 

Some of the same material is on youtube.