Is copyright damaging the hobby?

[coachmann]

Back in the 1960s I bought some photos of Leyland and Crossley buses from an omnibus society. Shortly after I prepared an article with scale drawing and sent the material along with said photos to a magazine for publication, having first obtained permission from the bus society. However, the Editor said the photos were official Leyland prints and he was not going to pay an organisation that claimed they held copyright. I paid the society myself to save embarrassment but the Editor did have a point.

[PGN]

How nice to see an editor taking such a responsible attitude.

 

I am not only a railway modeller - I also move in equestrian circles. The equestrian world thrives on vanity, which is fuelled by an army of "speculative professional photographers". They will attend an event, blanket-photograph every horse and rider, and then (by arrangement with the event organisers, who hold the competitors' names and addresses) send everyone a marked proof of them doign their dressage test, or jumping the log pile, or whatever along with an invitation to purchase unmarked copies.

 

Look in the back of many equestrian magazines at the ads for horses for sale, and I will almost guarantee you that between 10 and 25% of the ads are illustrated with a photo with "PROOF" daubed across it. The editors ought to reject all of these ads out of hand - because it is OBVIOUS that some poor photographer's copyright is being breached. Even if the photographer WERE prepared to permit his photo to be used in teh ad, he'd SURELY want them to pay for an unmarked copy first ...

[Grovenor]

 

One of the biggest problems I have with copyright is that I could go out "get off my ass" and do the legwork to research say a particular wagon. I could visit a preserved exhibit, take photos and measurements. However, if make a drawing I run the risk of breaking copyright - simply because someone did it before me.

 

This is not correct copyright exists in the drawing which you may not copy without permission, If you make your own drawing then copyright in that drawing is yours.

as I understand it. (How many draughtsmen have drawn some of the more popular locos? They only get copyright on their drawing not on the data used to produce it, and that data can include previous drawings!).

Keith

[Horsetan]

....I am not only a railway modeller - I also move in equestrian circles. The equestrian world thrives on vanity, which is fuelled by an army of "speculative professional photographers". They will attend an event, blanket-photograph every horse and rider, and then (by arrangement with the event organisers, who hold the competitors' names and addresses) send everyone a marked proof of them doign their dressage test, or jumping the log pile, or whatever along with an invitation to purchase unmarked copies.....

 

And here's just one example. It happens to be of me racing an Irish Draught at Northaw PTP course....

[Russ (mines a pint)]

When I 're-'started this hobby as a serious persuit again a few yrs ago I did think the same as the OP - that the amount of out of print books and the copyright on 'getting one photo-copied when you couldnt buy one' made research difficult.

 

you also get the response that there are people out there who view publishing as a money making venture and they dont want their rights eroding.

 

I think there can and should be a happy medium in between, I dont think internet should neccessarily be 'spoon fed' but already 'contributor' sites such as Geograph, Subbrit (disused stations) and Railbrit/Railscot and more localised sites I'll just go with Northumbrian Railways and LNER, West Yorkshire (abandoned) routes sites are starting to get more detail and information than you could get in a book. I think we all need to contribute if we want this to happen if you want to get info out of the web for free then you should put some in too, I have contributed a few articles and photos to some of the sites above. I hope the OP will too.

[Kenton]

This is not correct copyright exists in the drawing which you may not copy without permission, If you make your own drawing then copyright in that drawing is yours.

as I understand it. (How many draughtsmen have drawn some of the more popular locos? They only get copyright on their drawing not on the data used to produce it, and that data can include previous drawings!).

Keith

But the problem is proving that your own drawing is not a copy. If the published drawing of factual measurements and your drawing of factual measurements are both the same how can you prove it? The publisher has the money to start the pack of lawyers threatening you, you have no defense even if your drawing is historically previous to the published version. The published version is accepted as the original simply because it was published.

[tebee]

.

 

I have no problem with a mate photocopying a plan from an out of date mag/book etc for me or vice versa, but there are a significant number of theifs out there who wouldn't steal the cake from the baker's shop, but are happy to use 'artwork', because it's a victimless crime. Well it isn't.

 

Now I have to take issue with this, and please note I speak here as a former professional photographer who had to close his portrait studio down at the end of the 90's, as people where just scanning in our proofs and not buying prints any more.

 

If you steal a cake from the baker, he has one less cake to sell and has lost money assuming he sells all the cakes that day and could have sold one more if he had it. But presumably the artist/illustrator was paid by the original publisher for producing the art work, and it's reasonably safe to assume he wouldn't have produced it if he was not satisfied with what he was being paid at the time.

 

What you are losing by someone making an unauthorized reproduction is the value of some mythical right we have invented. In the original both parties where happy with the deal, the artist got paid and the publisher presumably got paid for whatever the work was used in. Looking for extra fees afterwards is rather like the baker saying you bought that cake from me but you can't give it to your friend without paying me again.

 

In most cases, if the work was commissioned by the publisher the rights would lie with him, so the artist would get no extra fees anyway. In many cases the problem in the artist/publisher is unknown/dead/gone out of business so no one knows who to even ask.

 

The other thing to think about is how much is the reproduction worth to the person who wants to reuse it? If we go back all the way to the original track plan if I were someone publishing a compendium of track plans which I intended to market commercially that track plan my have considerable value, but if I'm just a poor punter who wants to ask a question about it how much is it worth to me to be able use a copy of it to illustrate my point? I've already paid for the magazine to read it in the first place! I suggest that the a fair assessment of the value gained would be so small that distributing it to the people it's due to would cost more than the fee.

 

Tom

[Kenton]

I think the baker and cake is a very bad analogy as a cake is eaten only once.

 

A photo can be sold many times, and due to its longevity, sold over many years.

Each time earning for the originator. The value may even go up, as the original photo might be considered worthless when taken (say a family snap of someone in front of a loco) but when it becomes sought after by a modeling enthusiast it could be the only one available for that loco.

 

But how do you prove it is yours? In the same example I can remember crowds of spotters snapping away at locos - it is not beyond the realms of possibility that other identical photos exist.

[Revolution Mike]

I think the baker and cake is a very bad analogy as a cake is eaten only once.

 

A photo can be sold many times, and due to its longevity, sold over many years.

Each time earning for the originator. The value may even go up, as the original photo might be considered worthless when taken (say a family snap of someone in front of a loco) but when it becomes sought after by a modeling enthusiast it could be the only one available for that loco.

 

But isn't that part of the problem ie the business model that is used for these sorts of works?

 

But how do you prove it is yours? In the same example I can remember crowds of spotters snapping away at locos - it is not beyond the realms of possibility that other identical photos exist.

 

You don't need to - copyright is implicit so someone else would have to prove that you took their work. In your drawings example the mere fact that you would have the drawing file would be more than sufficient. In the photo example I don't see how someone could prove that you weren't also able to take a similar/identical picture.

[meil]

Back in the 1960s I bought some photos of Leyland and Crossley buses from an omnibus society. Shortly after I prepared an article with scale drawing and sent the material along with said photos to a magazine for publication, having first obtained permission from the bus society. However, the Editor said the photos were official Leyland prints and he was not going to pay an organisation that claimed they held copyright. I paid the society myself to save embarrassment but the Editor did have a point.

 

 

And did the society own the copyright? or did Leyland own the copyright and did you breach that by publishing them for commercial gain?

[meil]

 

You don't need to - copyright is implicit so someone else would have to prove that you took their work. In your drawings example the mere fact that you would have the drawing file would be more than sufficient. In the photo example I don't see how someone could prove that you weren't also able to take a similar/identical picture.

 

Having the negative would be a big clue or I suppose, these days, the original digital camera file.

[tebee]

 

One of the biggest problems I have with copyright is that I could go out "get off my ass" and do the legwork to research say a particular wagon. I could visit a preserved exhibit, take photos and measurements. However, if make a drawing I run the risk of breaking copyright - simply because someone did it before me. If my intention is not to profit but to make it freely available it seems the potential risk is even greater simply because there are some over paid laywers gasping for more money hired by the original publisher. After all how is it possible to prove that the photographs that I took were original and the measurements that I took were mine and not just copied from the other guy's. Impossible when you are being threatened by the legal mafia.

 

 

You can't copyright facts all you can have copyright in is the interpretation of facts as expressed by your drawing, So if your drawing did not match the style of the other in things like line weights and details shown there should be no question of breach of copyright. If you think about it most items of rolling stock where originally built to makers drawings so any modeling drawings would be a breach of their copyright if it were otherwise!

 

Were you threated with court action over copyright ? sadly people often use copyright threats to brow-beat competitors even when they have no legal basis.

[Revolution Mike]

Paul

 

I don't disagree with the general thrust of your points, but I think where a licence is being sold eg to use an image for a particular purpose then the analogy falls down.

 

There doesn't seem to be any balance in the system as it clearly fails to protect the smaller end of the artists, nor is there a way for them to benefit from what may be a relatively small interest in their works. Perhaps the problem is particularly acute in hobbies where print runs may be small and authors/photographers unknown or difficult to contact.

 

Particularly for publishers as we move further into the digital age (ie where works are produced digitally) I am amazed that no one has set up a database of articles from old issues and a micro-payment system to allow purchasing of either individual articles or old issues. Sure there is a risk that files will be shared, but if the fee is small enough (but still sufficent to cover costs and some profit) then they can leverage income out of works that currently they get nothing for.

 

Cheers, Mike

[Rock & Rail]

I must admit I find the policy of this website with regard to hotlinking images from other sites a bit odd. It's certainly the only forum I post on that has such a strict approach.

 

As for the OP, yes, I think it will put younger people off. The snail mail/paper catalogue only approach of lots of suppliers is archaic.

[Horsetan]

PMSL

 

I wonder if I should get my image protected against misuse....after all, the original photo is of me and my horse! I don't remember giving permission for our images to be taken that day!

[Kenton]

Having the negative would be a big clue or I suppose, these days, the original digital camera file.

That is not unique it is just a jpg file that can be generated by simply copying someone else's image published on the internet. Or even digitally photographed from another printed copy/book.

 

In copyright law it seems, you don't have to prove that the copies are not also originals - simply because you are the one who got in there first with publication you have the weight of the legal bullies behind you. If that publisher/or you can convince them there is money for them to be made. If you are on the receiving end of one of these threatening letters there is very little you can do. Hence my questions over proving original or duplicate ownership.

 

Mr A and Mr B visit Didcot on the same day. They both take a picture of the shed standing at the same point. The photographs are digitally manipulated to the same resolution. Mr A is a friend of the editor of a MR magazine and offers to write an article for the magazine and to illustrate it with drawings and photographs. Mr B has a personal interest in making a model. They both return to Didcot on separate days, Mr B first, with notepad and tape measure. Both prepare plans that are identical - more than likely as the measurements are factually the same. Mr B puts his drawing on his website along with his photographs and text explaining how he built the model. Mr A's drawing, photo and detailed history of the shed are published in the magazine. The publisher subsequently sees the website of Mr B and brings it to the attention of their lawyers. Mr B is identified as being wealthy (he has a web site so he must be) and is subsequently threatened as breaking copyright of Mr A and the magazine. Mr B cannot prove his material was original or first to be published, takes down his site, everyone now either has to visit Didcot for themselves or find a copy of the out of print, poorly subscribed to magazine.

[Andy Y]

I must admit I find the policy of this website with regard to hotlinking images from other sites a bit odd. It's certainly the only forum I post on that has such a strict approach.

 

 

Hopefully I can clarify this and use an example.

 

Example - You own and manage a website providing specific information. You manage to get a bit of s scoop with a newsworthy item and post an image which is your copyright. You have not discharged any obligations under copyright through a Creative Commons Licence for example. One of our site users decides your image is newsworthy and reports the facts and hotlinks to your image.

 

• By hotlinking the image it is deemed to have been 'published' here without your consent and you could make a claim against me as the publisher.
• You would not have been duly recognised as the originator of the material unless anyone right clicked to find the source of the image.
• Our readers would be using up your bandwidth (as the image is being viewed on your server) which you pay for as part of your website hosting package, that could be expensive or inconvenient to you.

 

The question is, why don't other forums you use adopt the same responsible and ethical approach?

 

 

 

[Kenton]

But its somehow wrong for an artist to sell the image more than once, or over a period of time?

Yet again you misunderstand me.

I have no problem with the original artist making a one off payment or repeat payments.

The problem I have is that this so-called original artist is not original only the first to get his work published on paper.

Every other person who has the same original material and may not have had the insight or contacts to publish is denied their right to also profit from their work or even to offer it free. That is not fair and my principle argument as to why this law is stupid.

 

On the subject of exif data it is cleared by many digital imaging programs and it can be digitally altered. My digital camera does not create any exif data so looking there has no value in proving who's image it is. A similar remastering can take place with watermarking. A digital file is timeless.

[tebee]

This and the quoted section above it, used in a previous discussion show a woefull lack of understanding of UK copyright legislation.

 

 

I stand by exactly what I said there - you cannot copyright facts - although you can copyright a collection of facts sometimes, the so-called "database rights"

 

To quote from the site you gave "To qualify, a work should be regarded as original, and exhibit a degree of labour, skill or judgement."

 

Now merely copying the size on position of a pre-existing object on to paper does not give you the right to prevent others from doing so as no creativity is required. You are only entitled to copyright on that portion of your work which exhibits creativity.

 

If you can point me to a law or ruling that says otherwise I would be most surprised.

 

Tom

[PLD]

Ignoring the arguments of the rights and wrongs of 'copyright' which is not what the OP asked at all...

 

Is copyright damaging the hobby?

Quite simply: NO - there have been no changes to copyright legislation that make 'research' any harder than it was in pre-internet days...

Only thing that has changed is the attitude of a small proportion who want everything handed to them on a plate NOW and are too lazy to go and do proper research for themselves...

You can ask on a forum such as this where information may be found and be directed to the appropriate issue of 'Mineral Wagons Monthly' or whatever knowing that the article will be in that issue when you get your hands on it. With a web site there are no such guarantees that the web site will still be running in 5 years and when it's gone it's gone - there's no 'back issues' of web pages and even the British Library won't have a copy once it goes off line!

 

 

 

[tebee]

I

Quite simply: NO - there have been no changes to copyright legislation that make 'research' any harder than it was in pre-internet days...

Only thing that has changed is the attitude of a small proportion who want everything handed to them on a plate NOW and are too lazy to go and do proper research for themselves...

You can ask on a forum such as this where information may be found and be directed to the appropriate issue of 'Mineral Wagons Monthly' or whatever knowing that the article will be in that issue when you get your hands on it. With a web site there are no such guarantees that the web site will still be running in 5 years and when it's gone it's gone - there's no 'back issues' of web pages and even the British Library won't have a copy once it goes off line!

 

 

Copyright Law may not have changed, but people's expectations have - How many of us would be modeling today if the only trains available where Hornby O gauge three rail tinplate?

[Revolution Mike]

In copyright law it seems, you don't have to prove that the copies are not also originals - simply because you are the one who got in there first with publication you have the weight of the legal bullies behind you. If that publisher/or you can convince them there is money for them to be made. If you are on the receiving end of one of these threatening letters there is very little you can do. Hence my questions over proving original or duplicate ownership.

 

Sorry Kenton but that is just plain incorrect - it is nothing to do with who published first (as demonstrated in your example below).

 

Mr A and Mr B visit Didcot on the same day. They both take a picture of the shed standing at the same point. The photographs are digitally manipulated to the same resolution. Mr A is a friend of the editor of a MR magazine and offers to write an article for the magazine and to illustrate it with drawings and photographs. Mr B has a personal interest in making a model. They both return to Didcot on separate days, Mr B first, with notepad and tape measure. Both prepare plans that are identical - more than likely as the measurements are factually the same. Mr B puts his drawing on his website along with his photographs and text explaining how he built the model. Mr A's drawing, photo and detailed history of the shed are published in the magazine. The publisher subsequently sees the website of Mr B and brings it to the attention of their lawyers. Mr B is identified as being wealthy (he has a web site so he must be) and is subsequently threatened as breaking copyright of Mr A and the magazine. Mr B cannot prove his material was original or first to be published, takes down his site, everyone now either has to visit Didcot for themselves or find a copy of the out of print, poorly subscribed to magazine.

 

This is largely correct until the final sentence - it would be incumbent on Mr A or his publisher to prove (or at the very least convince a court) that they had been copied. Mr B would have his original photo file which if nothing else would show the date it was created as being prior to the publication of Mr A's, he would also have his notes on measurements. The photo might be virtually identical, but it is highly unlikely that the drawings would be even with the same basic measurements.

[Glorious NSE]

That is not unique it is just a jpg file that can be generated by simply copying someone else's image published on the internet.

 

Sorry Kenton, the chances are the photographer *does* have a unique and identifiable file unless they have put their original file online and served it direct to other viewers - i'd suggest that's very unlikely.

 

Most images on websites are *much* smaller reductions of the original, and most photo handling websites don't serve you the original image "neat" without some kind of processing.

 

Mr A and Mr B visit Didcot on the same day. They both take a picture of the shed standing at the same point. The photographs are digitally manipulated to the same resolution. Mr A is a friend of the editor of a MR magazine and offers to write an article for the magazine and to illustrate it with drawings and photographs. Mr B has a personal interest in making a model. They both return to Didcot on separate days, Mr B first, with notepad and tape measure. Both prepare plans that are identical - more than likely as the measurements are factually the same. Mr B puts his drawing on his website along with his photographs and text explaining how he built the model. Mr A's drawing, photo and detailed history of the shed are published in the magazine. The publisher subsequently sees the website of Mr B and brings it to the attention of their lawyers. Mr B is identified as being wealthy (he has a web site so he must be) and is subsequently threatened as breaking copyright of Mr A and the magazine. Mr B cannot prove his material was original or first to be published, takes down his site, everyone now either has to visit Didcot for themselves or find a copy of the out of print, poorly subscribed to magazine.

 

Mr B should still easily be able to prove his image is original assuming he hasn't deleted everything except the reduced image he's used on his website. If he's sensible he will have a copy of the original capture saved somewhere.

 

You would not generally be able to get such a large "original" file from scanning a small image in a book, and even if you had done so it would likely be identifiable as a scan not an original capture from a camera as you would have artifacts of the book printing there - images lose resolution when they are manipulated and one scanned out of a book should have at a minimum two more manipulations than the original does.

 

You can't make small images into good quality large originals either as again, you lose detail when manipulated and you can't put that back in, so nobody can reverse engineer a lower quality book or web image into a higher quality original file.

 

If he has the original file then it should have exif data (yes your camera may not but most - including all the ones i've ever used some of which were very basic - do!) - that data includes a date and time stamp and usually many of the camera details - are you are seriously giving us the scenario that two people will take an identically framed shot from the same spot at the same time with the same camera and with the same camera settings *including* the exact same time setting exact to the same second? If so then there might be an issue - but it all seems well beyond the bounds of what is likely to me. (looking back at the copies of digital photo's sent to us after our wedding some of the guests were unable to get the year set right on their camera let alone the exact time to the second - bless em!)

 

Even after all that if he's done something stupid and thinks he is in an indefensible position then why does he take the whole site down? What's being challenged is that one photo.

 

On the subject of exif data it is cleared by many digital imaging programs and it can be digitally altered

 

Which is just one more reason amongst many why you should keep a copy of the original where it hasn't been?

 

Every other person who has the same original material and may not have had the insight or contacts to publish is denied

 

How would somebody else have the same original materiel unless the originator has shared it?

[PLD]

Copyright Law may not have changed, but people's expectations have

Which is exactly what I said, but how reasonable are those "got to have it all now" expectations, and how widely held are they really? Is it the usual vocal minority wanting everything their own way?

 

How many of us would be modeling today if the only trains available where Hornby O gauge three rail tinplate?

Probably more 'Modelling' and less 'Collecting' (but that's the subject of another thread...)

[Kenton]

Sorry Kenton, the chances are the photographer *does* have a unique and identifiable file unless they have put their original file online and served it direct to other viewers - i'd suggest that's very unlikely.

 

Most images on websites are *much* smaller reductions of the original, and most photo handling websites don't serve you the original image "neat" without some kind of processing.

 

 

 

Mr B should still easily be able to prove his image is original assuming he hasn't deleted everything except the reduced image he's used on his website. If he's sensible he will have a copy of the original capture saved somewhere.

 

You would not generally be able to get such a large "original" file from scanning a small image in a book, and even if you had done so it would likely be identifiable as a scan not an original capture from a camera as you would have artifacts of the book printing there - images lose resolution when they are manipulated and one scanned out of a book should have at a minimum two more manipulations than the original does.

 

You can't make small images into good quality large originals either as again, you lose detail when manipulated and you can't put that back in, so nobody can reverse engineer a lower quality book or web image into a higher quality original file.

 

If he has the original file then it should have exif data (yes your camera may not but most - including all the ones i've ever used some of which were very basic - do!) - that data includes a date and time stamp and usually many of the camera details - are you are seriously giving us the scenario that two people will take an identically framed shot from the same spot at the same time with the same camera and with the same camera settings *including* the exact same time setting exact to the same second? If so then there might be an issue - but it all seems well beyond the bounds of what is likely to me. (looking back at the copies of digital photo's sent to us after our wedding some of the guests were unable to get the year set right on their camera let alone the exact time to the second - bless em!)

 

Even after all that if he's done something stupid and thinks he is in an indefensible position then why does he take the whole site down? What's being challenged is that one photo.

 

 

 

Which is just one more reason amongst many why you should keep a copy of the original where it hasn't been?

On the subject of exif data some cameras do not save any data with the image (mine is a Sony HD Camcorder and doesn't) the file name is generated by the uploading software. I presume you upload your original data from the camera and then delete the image on the camera - unless you buy a new camera when it fills up!)

Exif information is extremely easy to alter so the "copier" could easily forge the information - but then why should he? His photo is also original. Neither A or B can prove that theirs came first only that A published his on paper first.

 

He takes the site down because the lawyers challenge him and threaten legal action, they think that owning a site produces income that can be recovered.

 

What has reduction of the image to do with it? Mr B's image is his own but he is unable to prove when it was taken. It is still irrelevant as Mr A has now published his in the magazine.

 

I'll admit the taking of two identical photos is going to be rare - though certainly not impossible. But in the case of drawings, a line with a measurement on it is going to be the same on both drawings.

 

... anyway it still doesn't get round the problem that Mr B should be just as much entitled to his rights, whether he was first or second, his work is original and he put in all the same "leg work" to obtain it.

 

The onus should be on the owner/publisher to prove that his is both original and the first.

 

How would somebody else have the same original materiel unless the originator has shared it?

Simply both A and B make identical measurements (we have to presume they both can use a tape measure) both produce a drawing with the measurements (guess what they look the same because they ARE both of the same object. Again, the only thing that makes A's drawing copyright is that he published it in the magazine.