Copyright Rules

[beast66606]

hi, im a bit confused here, cos im still trying to get used to how to navigate the site...

 

i have just uploaded some pictures and i need to put my name as the copyright holder, as they are my own photos but i do not know how to do this.

 

any help would be appreicated,

 

many thaks,

Bruce.

 

Ideally you should edit them before you upload and add either a watermark or a copyright notice - the implied copyright is with you unless you state "used with permission of xxx" - if anyone downloads your photos then without a copyright notice they can pass them off as their own, however it's not that hard to remove a copyright notice anyway (unless it's an intrusive one), so I no longer bother, if I was that worried about people reusing my photos I wouldn't post them in the first place.

[martin_wynne]

This from the OS "Get-a-map" terms of use:

 

You are authorised to download a maximum of 10 images from the Get-a-map service for use on your web pages, providing the following credit appears below all images:

 

Image produced from the Ordnance Survey Get-a-map service. Image reproduced with kind permission of Ordnance Survey and Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland.

 

Where Get-a-map, Ordnance Survey and Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland are hyperlinks to http://www.getamap.co.uk, http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ and http://www.osni.gov.uk/ respectively.

 

There are recent government proposals to allow more free use of OS data -- see: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/1411177.pdf

 

See section 7.6 of that document:

 

"1:25 000 Scale Colour Raster" = Explorer maps

"1:50 000 Scale Colour Raster" = Landranger maps

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Western Star]

I have read through all of this thread and I am not sure that I have found an answer to my question on this subject. For reasons of historical research, being the establishment of date and time for photographs in support of the creation of a time-specific model, I wish to seek the opinions of others on some photographs which are thought to be of the Edwardian period (that is up to and not beyond 1910). Many of the photographs are from the Pouteau lists and carry that gentleman's publishing details, all of the subjects are of GWR engines which were withdrawn or likely to have been withdrawn before 1935.

 

The opinions expressed here indicate that placing these images on a RM Web thread, with appropriate acknowledgement, is in line with the spirit and intent of the rules of the forum.

 

Yes? No?

 

thank you, Graham Beare

[Ramblin Rich]

This from the OS "Get-a-map" terms of use:

 

 

 

There are recent government proposals to allow more free use of OS data -- see: http://www.communiti...pdf/1411177.pdf

 

See section 7.6 of that document:

 

"1:25 000 Scale Colour Raster" = Explorer maps

"1:50 000 Scale Colour Raster" = Landranger maps

 

regards,

 

Martin.

 

Errrrr - we've been playing the "One Square" game on Wheeltappers for some time now, does this mean we should include copyright admissions on all the posts where map excerpts have been uploaded?

[ants]

Hello

 

This is from UK STATUE LAW data base

 

Criminal justice act 1972

 

They state payment or not.. A railway exhibition is a public place.

 

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=59&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1374772&ActiveTextDocId=1374792&filesize=2360

 

Regards

 

Ants

[martin_wynne]

They state payment or not.. A railway exhibition is a public place.

Only for the purposes of the Public Order Act 1936, which does not concern itself with photography:

 

An Act to prohibit the wearing of uniforms in connection with political objects and the maintenance by private persons of associations of military or similar character; and to make further provision for the preservation of public order on the occasion of public processions and meetings and in public places.

Section 9 (1) of that act says:

 

In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them

 

Martin.

[Burkitt]

I have read through all of this thread and I am not sure that I have found an answer to my question on this subject. For reasons of historical research, being the establishment of date and time for photographs in support of the creation of a time-specific model, I wish to seek the opinions of others on some photographs which are thought to be of the Edwardian period (that is up to and not beyond 1910). Many of the photographs are from the Pouteau lists and carry that gentleman's publishing details, all of the subjects are of GWR engines which were withdrawn or likely to have been withdrawn before 1935.

 

The opinions expressed here indicate that placing these images on a RM Web thread, with appropriate acknowledgement, is in line with the spirit and intent of the rules of the forum.

 

Yes? No?

 

thank you, Graham Beare

 

Copyright normally expires 70 years after the death of the author, so they are in the public domain and can be posted online if the photographer died before 1940. Otherwise they can only be put on the forum if you own the copyright or have the permission of someone who does. With photographs, owning the only copy sometimes seems to include owning the copyright, but I'm not clear on exactly how the rules work there.

 

Paul

[shortliner]

Paul, I'm afraid that the first part of your post is not quite true, as copyright can be assigned by the copyright owner to another person, in which case it becomes 70 years after the death of THAT person - copyright law is a minefield! I believe that it was part of the problem involved in getting "The Lord of the Rings" to the movie screen, as copyright had been assigned to the estate.

[bertiedog]

I stand to be corrected, but I think basic assignment of the copyright does not provide an automatic extension of copyright, otherwise it would be infinite extension without limit. Statutory limits apply on the final lapse of rights.

 

Assignment is usually used for Estates of a deceased Author or Artist, a specialist agent may be appointed, but the termination of the copyright still applies, before which the estate becomes the soul beneficiary. But a Court may extend the lapse date due to circumstances that would make the beneficiary suffer losses, a temporary halt whilst things are sorted out.

 

Assignment is also use on sale or disposal of debt and seizure by Courts etc, and again the original date of expiry remains in force. The length varies, as the law has extended some types of copyright, and this has affected famous estates like author H.G. Wells and artist William Heath Robinson, both in the hands of the same agents, who pursue copyright very fully indeed.

 

The complexities often come with poor wills, and multiple beneficiaries, and the property already being in the control of a literary agent with a contract to manage the copyright material.

 

Giant mistakes can be made, Hollywood basically forgot to re-new copyright, despite Congress giving them a clear warning, and lost all pre 1950 film copyright due to not applying for it. Now, the companies go for the seperate musical copyright, an issue that plagues You tube, where the image is allowed, but not the music!

 

Stephen.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Maps-well OS ones are Crown Copyright, but you are able to use 'extracts' public libraries commonly define this as up to A4 as obviously most people photocopy in that context, the 'one square' quiz shouldn't be on shaky ground then!

 

The other thing which you can use freely as long as you credit correctly (creative commons licence)- there are instructions on site is Geograph which is incredibly useful for pics of old (and present) railway environments and their surroundings, this site and others like it are salvation for those with an interest in historical and geographical research without the constraints of overzealous copyright.

[ants]

Hello

 

I found 2 web site with some info about copy rights

 

This one talks about the digital economy bill,

 

http://copyrightacti...raphy-in-public

 

The 2nd Photographers rights

 

There are no general restrictions on taking photographs while on private property as long as you have permission from the owner to be there, the owner must have also given you permission to take photos on their property.

 

http://www.eandl.co....graphers-rights

 

Regards

 

Ants

[Mod6]

Hello

 

I found 2 web site with some info about copy rights

 

This one talks about the digital economy bill,

 

http://copyrightacti...raphy-in-public

 

 

Which in the first paragraph says

 

t introduces orphan works usage rights, which - unless amended, which HMG says it will not - will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search. That is potentially about 90% of the photos on the internet.

 

I presume he means 'diligent' and not 'negligent' - unless it's a wind-up.

 

Either way the forum rules will remain the same until further notice.

[modelmaker87]

Gentlemen,

 

Very interesting reading and I appreciate the varied and well thought out opinions of the posters. I was looking for an answer to a question I have about copyright and my own personal right to post on RMWeb material that I have written and photographs that I have taken on my property of my model, all of which made up an article written by me and published in 2002 by BRM.

 

I appreciate the RMWeb copyright rules that Andy has set up and have no wish to cross them. So to be clear. Am I permitted to scan/photocopy the relevant pages of my published material and post them on RMWeb...?

 

A simple Yes or No response will suffice.

 

Thank you,

Tony

[Andy Y]

Am I permitted to scan/photocopy the relevant pages of my published material and post them on RMWeb...?

 

A simple Yes or No response will suffice.

 

Thank you,

Tony

 

I wish I could give a simple yes or no answer Tony.

 

 

It is dependent on any reproduction or limitation of use clauses that a publisher may have put in place in publishing the work for you. If you were the publisher then it is wholly your decision, if however the articles were written for a magazine the permission of the editor/publisher should be sought - some may permit the use and some may not, some may agree to it after a period of time has elapsed etc.

 

Although the words and images are technically yours, the subsequent usage could be restricted by a publishing agreement. It certainly should be checked with the relevant publisher.

 

 

[modelmaker87]

I wish I could give a simple yes or no answer Tony.

 

 

It is dependent on any reproduction or limitation of use clauses that a publisher may have put in place in publishing the work for you. If you were the publisher then it is wholly your decision, if however the articles were written for a magazine the permission of the editor/publisher should be sought - some may permit the use and some may not, some may agree to it after a period of time has elapsed etc.

 

Although the words and images are technically yours, the subsequent usage could be restricted by a publishing agreement. It certainly should be checked with the relevant publisher.

 

 

Thanks Andy, appreciate your swift response.

 

Cheers, Tony

[modelmaker87]

All is cool, I've handled what I wanted to do without breaking any of Andy's rules.

 

In answer to one of your comments, FWIW, I didn't sign anything at all with BRM, never have.

I'll add my experience dealing with the company, contacting BRM rarely produces a return communication.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Cheers, Tony

[Dave777]

Couple of queries relating to stuff I'd like to put in my blog - scans from old catalogues (Hornby, Lima, etc, circa late 70s) and scans of old adverts from 50s, 60s and 70s magazines (many from companies that have long since ceased to exist, although I guess the company name and/or products may have passed to a company still trading).

Would these be okay or likely to fall foul of copyright?

 

Strangely, I can't see anything relating to copyright in the old catalogues, there's just a statement that it supersedes the previous version.

 

Obviously if I'm on dodgy ground with these then I won't go anywhere near the idea. Any ideas?

[Andy Y]

Would these be okay or likely to fall foul of copyright?

Technically it would be a breach but in the case of Hornby and Lima (although more of a grey area if it is advertising content) I would suggest it would be polite to contact Hornby (PM me if you need contact info) and see if they'd permit the usage.

 

 

 

[nerron]

Hi Andy,

 

Apologies for my breach of copyright by posting the photo from the Talbot book.It didn't occur to me that a photo taken almost a century ago would have anyone able to claim copyright and I would think that Talbot does not have the copyright. As an academic aware of copyright issues I presumed the 10% rule applied as it does in Australia.Best to be safe than sorry I guess.

 

Ron.

[Andy Y]

As an academic aware of copyright issues I presumed the 10% rule applied as it does in Australia.

 

Thanks Ron,

 

Some thoughts here on the 10% - http://www.magnumip....yright-10-rule/ - from Aus.

 

In publishing the content to here I then become liable if any claim were to be made.

 

If the works are printed express consent should be sought from the copyright holder quoted on the printed page and also the publisher if you were using a copy from the book/magazine as opposed to obtaining a copy direct from the copyright holder. Even if a book publishes an image that is out of copyright period it doesn't mean that element of the book itself can be copied until their copyright period has ended.

 

If works are published elsewhere on the net it is permissible to link to that source but not to display it on this site without express consent. You wouldn't believe the amount of time I had to waste on this a couple of weeks ago because a claimant didn't understand some basic principles.

 

Even though the law can be factual there will still be test cases that add or subtract from it in due time.

[nerron]

[some thoughts here on the 10% - http://www.magnumip.com.au/copyright/copyright-10-rule/ - from Aus.

 

Thanks Andy,

 

Some food for thought there for me and my colleagues.What a minefield!

 

Ron.

[modelmaker87]

Hi Andy,

 

I should really be modelling, shouldn't I, here's a thought.

 

I purchase a book, the book belongs to me and is my property - all of it. I open the book and take a picture of one of the pages. The photograph and everything that shows in my photographic image is my property. My copyright in fact. I post my artistic impression of the page from the book on RMWeb. The photograph is my copyright but the content of the image came from a book that although was not written by me, does belong to me.

 

Does this, or would it, violate copyright law as far as RMWeb is concerned...? Taking that thought a tad further, cos its fun, If I take an image of a locomtive with a company badge/logo image of some sort on its side panels, then subsequently post said image to RMWeb, am I violating copyright laws..?

 

Have fun, if you have time, or care to even, send over your thoughts. That applies to anyone reading this most fascinating thread.

 

Cheers all, Tony

[bertiedog]

Hi Andy,

 

I should really be modelling, shouldn't I, here's a thought.

 

I purchase a book, the book belongs to me and is my property - all of it. I open the book and take a picture of one of the pages. The photograph and everything that shows in my photographic image is my property. My copyright in fact. I post my artistic impression of the page from the book on RMWeb. The photograph is my copyright but the content of the image came from a book that although was not written by me, does belong to me.

 

Does this, or would it, violate copyright law as far as RMWeb is concerned...? Taking that thought a tad further, cos its fun, If I take an image of a locomtive with a company badge/logo image of some sort on its side panels, then subsequently post said image to RMWeb, am I violating copyright laws..?

 

Have fun, if you have time, or care to even, send over your thoughts. That applies to anyone reading this most fascinating thread.

 

Cheers all, Tony

 

Copying a copyright item carries forward the original rights of the originating owner, modifying it does not remove the rights. You gain no rights to an image in a book by purchase, you would have to purchase the rights to the book from the author or the Literary Agent.

 

A simple example would be the purchase of a photograph, with transfer of negative, and the assigned rights, to you, then you can publish and treat as your own.

 

Loco liveries, logo, signs, especially US ones, are all copyright, or trade marks, etc., and the rights could be pursued, although all they could do in practice would be to stop commercial exploitation.

 

Stephen.

[modelmaker87]

Copying a copyright item carries forward the original rights of the originating owner, modifying it does not remove the rights. You gain no rights to an image in a book by purchase, you would have to purchase the rights to the book from the author or the Literary Agent.

 

A simple example would be the purchase of a photograph, with transfer of negative, and the assigned rights, to you, then you can publish and treat as your own.

 

Loco liveries, logo, signs, especially US ones, are all copyright, or trade marks, etc., and the rights could be pursued, although all they could do in practice would be to stop commercial exploitation.

 

Stephen.

 

Thanks for that Stephen, much appreciated. Clears a bunch of areas up. Not that I had or have any notion other than to post my own work here on RMWeb. Fascinating nonetheless.

 

Later, Tony

[Katier]

I was curious about one point - hotlinking. Flickr for example allows hotlinking, likewise if I was running my own website I would hotlink direct off it.

 

Flickr DOES ask for a 'link back' but that's easy enough with a (url=)(img)(/img)(/url) configuration. They do state you can't hotlink for commercial and/or logo hosting - but obviously that wouldn't be the case here.