Copyright Rules

[Andy Y]

It's a valid point Katier.

 

Hotlinking from your own site with content you hold the copyright to is fine.

 

Hotlinking to your content on Flickr or similar is fine as you hold the copyright and they give consent to hotlink the material.

 

Hotlinking to content to which you don't hold the copyright (despite the hosts saying hotlinking is permissible) should be avoided.

 

Hope that helps.

[Katier]

Thanks Andy

[Kenton]

Surely the issue with hotlinking (displaying images hosted on another site) has more to do with theft of bandwidth. The bandwidth being paid for by someone else. If that someone has given permission - or is yourself paying the bill then it doesn't matter. This was the problem with the image hosting sites, everyone was linking to them.

Also it is worth remembering that this bandwidth use occurs every time the page containing the hotlink is used/reloaded/viewed and it is inherently slower the more servers are involved in completing the page. That is unless RMWeb is caching them first (I doubt).

 

The other alternative is to provide a simple text link (preferably visible) giving the viewer the choice if they follow it or not.

 

A default 'link back' is provided by either mechanism and does not involve the use of the bbcode

[url=http...][/url]

in fact, bracketing images rather than simple text

[url=http...][img=http...jpg][/url]

can be considered bad practice. There are many security systems that see this double linking as deceptive as the internal link may be what the user sees but the click through takes you elsewhere. They sometimes handle this by simply removing both codes so neither the link or the image is displayed.

 

The best solution is to upload the image to RMWeb. As you own the copyright and are choosing to display it Andy/RMWeb is paying for the bandwidth - it is the fastest solution and may enable server side compression (even faster)

 

The next best (from the viewer) is probably your hosted images, again there should be no doubt of your copyright, you are paying, and in theory it should still be fast.

 

After that it is probably best to simply provide a link giving the viewer the option to follow it or not. As has been seen with Fotopic and others longevity can be an issue. The link can go completely out of use or the page may just change but a broken full text link is much easier for viewers to seek out and resolve than a broken embedded link that just returns "Posted Image" place holder.

 

[James]

One thing I've been wondering is if you have a copy of a photo, print or digitally and you genuinely don't know who hols copyright, can it be displayed on here?

 

Is it similar to when a book appears and a photo is credited to 'Author's Collection'?

 

I was thinking a lot of us must have prints we've bought in connection with projects which may be of interest and some (though the minority of purchased prints) don't have any information with them, not even a stamp on the back with the owner's name or jpegs where the original source is unclear.

 

Are images like these permissible or if you have any doubt should you not upload or display them?

[SeanNeedham]

One thing I've been wondering is if you have a copy of a photo, print or digitally and you genuinely don't know who hols copyright, can it be displayed on here?

 

Is it similar to when a book appears and a photo is credited to 'Author's Collection'?

 

I was thinking a lot of us must have prints we've bought in connection with projects which may be of interest and some (though the minority of purchased prints) don't have any information with them, not even a stamp on the back with the owner's name or jpegs where the original source is unclear.

 

Are images like these permissible or if you have any doubt should you not upload or display them?

 

Technically no. As a working photographer, I've consulted this legally, and even if the copyright branding, exif data, et al has been removed from my image, and posted or reproduced, and I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is one of my images (or a derivation of that image, like the getty image of Obama recently), I could hold a) the publisher of that image, and b ) the reproducer of that image to task for breach of copyright and unauthorised reproduction respectively.

 

Rule of thumb, if you don't know who owns the rights, or cannot prove ownership to yourself, don't use it.

[James]

Rule of thumb, if you don't know who owns the rights, or cannot prove ownership to yourself, don't use it.

Thank you.

 

One thing which made me think about is that I and countless others must have all sorts of images saved from Fvarious Fotopic sites which have been for modelling projects or general interest where you could pass a link to someone was who also interested but not, obviously, you can't!

 

Shame as so much was lost there.

 

I know in one of my Dad's books, the publisher doesn't credit any photographers as there are many images due to the age where there may even be multiple claims to copyright!

[Mod4]

James

 

Regardless of anyone's interpretation of full copyright law the rule on this site that all members agree to upon registration is unquestionably clear to protect Andy. Simply if you do not own the image or have express permission from the person that does then it can not be posted or hotlinked on here. This is not open to debate again.

[James]

This is not open to debate again.

I wasn't trying to debate it - just clarifying it

[billbedford]

One thing I've been wondering is if you have a copy of a photo, print or digitally and you genuinely don't know who hols copyright, can it be displayed on here?

If the photograph was created before 1 June 1957 then copyright expires 70 years after creation or 70 years after the work was made available to the public if within 70 years of creation, otherwise it is 70 years after the work was made available to the public.

 

Taken from "Copyright for Archivists" by Tim Padfield

[pH]

Is it similar to when a book appears and a photo is credited to 'Author's Collection'?

Can anyone tell me what a photo credit of 'Author's Collection' really does mean? As an example, I have one book, by very respected authors, which has quite a few photos like this. Now, to me, it's pretty obvious who the photographer was for several of these - quality of print, composition of the picture, location/date of the picture - plus the fact that I've seen a couple of these printed elsewhere with the photographer credited! Is it just that the authors did have large collections of prints with no details of the original photographer? How much of a search for the original photographer are people supposed to do before using 'Author's Collection' as a credit?

[shortliner]

Another small (but important) point - if the site linked to is in another country, then that countries copyright laws (all different throughout the world!) come into effect also, meaning that you could be sued several times in different courts ! Copyright is a very specialised subject in law, which is why lawyers, specialising in the subject, charge an awful lot of money for their services. Make your posts with the thought "IN DOUBT? DON'T!"

[bertiedog]

Unfortunately the complex situation is getting worse, as the US allows fair use for educational reference, and research publication, which the UK does not. allow in law, although people have defended themselves with this argument in civil actions.. Many countries have far longer Copyright periods than the US or the UK, and alterations to suit the material. Even the UK has exceptions like the play Peter Pan, with a perpetual copyright granted by Act of Parliament.

The internet has shaken copyright to the core, and thrown up arguments galore, and raised old problems like H.G Well's estate, and photographic publication and reproduction at later dates starting a further copyright period, virtually without limitation.

Rights are extremely valuable to estates, and a nice earner for the Lawyers, the actual beneficiaries get very little in the way of income from the work.

Stephen.

[TheSignalEngineer]

What would be the position on posting a book cover with a picture on it, on the Marketplace or Ebay? Does Amazon breach copyright by this?

[trisonic]

Strictly speaking you would need permission. Amazon probably has but in any event the publishers and author make money from Amazon sales but not from second hand sales like yours (not only that but they could say that second sales nullify a single new book sale which the purchaser of yours might have made from Amazon, for example).

 

Best, Pete.

[Mod4]

What would be the position on posting a book cover with a picture on it, on the Marketplace or Ebay? Does Amazon breach copyright by this?

 

 

If you take a photograph of the book as a whole, for example on your dining room table or similar, to add to a marketplace listing for the purposes of showing the book and it's condition then we consider that as being acceptable, if you use someone else's image of the cover or part thereof then that is not.

 

 

[bertiedog]

When displayed for sale an item may be reproduced to add to say an auction catalogue, it is merely illustrating the item for sale, not the rights to the image, and most auction houses use "thumbnail", altered, or watermarked images to ensure they cannot be copied. London Auction houses re-photograph the item for the catalogue on the principal it is for display purposes, the same as personal viewing of the item.

 

Ebay is pretty free and easy about this, no doubt to the annoyance of rights lawyers and the holder of the rights to the works.

Buying an image does not transfer rights to you, that has to be done by contract with the rights holder, their estate, or the original photographer.

 

On Ebay at the moment are a few questionable listings in model railways , where the seller is advertising photo scans of plans from magazines, which, if they have not sought permission, is totally against the law. They have every right to sell the magazine or drawing to a third party, but not to sell scans etc.,of the material.

 

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

Apologies to Mod4, you posted whilst I was replying, covering about the same points. my experience in this area is due to collecting books etc and illustrations, most of which are out of copyright as they are Victorian. A minefield though with EH Shepard drawings I have, and Heath Robinson original materials, and old railway photos are particularly difficult to determine where the rights lie on modern reproductions.

Stephen.

[billbedford]

Unfortunately this is far too simplistic a statement. As always it depends who 'holds copyright'. Suppliers of historic images do hold copyright/licenses for images in excess of 70 years, and that can be legally enforced.

My reply was in answer to the question "What if the author was unknown" This would not usually apply to images held image libraries.

[Kenton]

How much 'search'? Well a reasonable amount,(determined individually case by case), and to be able to show the extent of that, helps if you then come across a licencing dispute in potentially reducing fines levied.

This is a "how long a piece of string" measure and must be impossible to determine.

 

We get offers of photos to display on our site. The claim from most individuals is that it is their photo and that they own the copyright, indeed it is in our T&C that such a statement is provided to us on submission. In several cases we have had our doubts.

 

Now how can we go about determining the true copyright holder's identity and address so that we can seek permission? If we put up such photo in good faith and ask "will the real copyright holder step forth" the submitter (who might actually be the owner) then objects; or we open the flood gates to 100's of individuals claiming ownership and threatening legal action; and then surely we shouldn't have posted it anyway - we had doubts. But what would be the way to contact the true owner?

 

In the past we simply published on good faith with the covering email in our pocket - but since a large number of images have been questioned we have taken a more doubting line.

 

Surely all websites and indeed publishers in that old degrading medium of print have just the same problem? How do they know that the owner of a photograph is indeed the true copyright owner?

[martin_wynne]

We get offers of photos to display on our site. The claim from most individuals is that it is their photo and that they own the copyright, indeed it is in our T&C that such a statement is provided to us on submission. In several cases we have had our doubts.

Hi Kenton,

 

You could ask about the make of camera on which it was taken, or the type of film (normally marked on the edge of the negative). Most photographers will know this information for their own photographs. Others claiming ownership are unlikely to have any idea.

 

Even if they give a false answer, asking such a question would demonstrate that you are making and have made a serious attempt to establish true ownership.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Kenton]

Don't take this the wrong way but a simple email tick 'yes it's mine' isn't a very robust test.

Not taking it in the wrong way, just seeking advice on ways forward. But a little more than a tick box such as a statement even if it included I took this on my Agfa xyz using Kodak abc150 film" All of which is going to be meaningless to me (not a professional photographer) which is why we continue to have doubts about every submission (including the genuine) and can see no way of proving it or taking "reasonable" steps.

 

Although I am not a professional photographer - I did spend many years in student days taking "snaps". I couldn't tell anyone what film was used now or even what camera - I got through several from a rather expensive pre war Zweiss ? of my uncles to a brownie and a whole series of SLRs and instamatics. I used to get through what seemed like 1000's of photos, developing and printing my own in a converted cupboard (darkroom) at home and the "studio" darkroom at school. Like most hobbies I gave it up at university. So if I was asked a similar question about my photographs (and I have had a couple published) I would be unable to answer. In fact I would be very hard pushed to even prove they were mine.

[trisonic]

If you take a photograph of the book as a whole, for example on your dining room table or similar, to add to a marketplace listing for the purposes of showing the book and it's condition then we consider that as being acceptable, if you use someone else's image of the cover or part thereof then that is not.

 

 

 

Mod4, Have you actually checked this? It's a bit of a grey area but I've noticed on recent reality shows that even some peoples T-Shirt logos have been "fogged out" - and not necessarily due to bad language either...........in other words a published photo of a copyrighted item may cause issues.

 

Best, Pete.

 

 

 

[billbedford]

The fact the author is unknown is irrelevant.

But it is very relevant. The class of works where the author is unknown includes all those made by employee in the course of their normal work. It means that any photograph, drawing or written work that was offered to the public by the railway companies, or any other company for that matter, before the end of 1940 is now out of copyright. This will include adverts, public timetables and other publicity works and official photos and drawing published in various trade magazines. The same is true of the internal paper work of any company that was made available to the public, e.g. by an archive, more than 70 years after it was originally produced.

[bertiedog]

TV shows are not normally selling items that are on display, the "blanking" is done under other regulations on the BBC and ITV, and for contractual reasons with program sponsors, this is entirely different to copyright. restrictions.

 

 

The display and limited reproduction of copyrighted material is allowed when it is for sale, as the copyright is not being sold, only the physical reproduction. It is perfectly fair to display photographs of the items for sale, it breaks no copyrights, as it is the item for sale, and the copyright is transfered with the item after sale. The person holding the rights will be the seller, and the Auction House usually seeks a waver on the catalogs and online publishing of images.

 

There is another grey area and that is contract law, where reproduction rights may be included in the contract and override normal copyright law. In effect a seller of the item and copyright by contract could place restrictions permanently on the material. Items like this are offered with conditions, which must be observed.

 

In a famous fiasco in the US all the 1930's and earlier films have ended up in public domain, due to Hollywood not replying to the US Government in time about the issue of copyright extension, but now the lawyers have found a way around it and it is the music content, and this s a separate copyright, and can be imposed on public domain films. Of course they only go for the better known films, but as most are heading for DVD nowadays it is coming up more and more, especially on YouTube..

 

Silent films are exempt for obvious reasons!!!!!!!!! all are public domain in the US.now.

 

One of the reasons film colorisation and digital restoration is popular with producers is that a new copyright is established with the process.

 

This applies to old railway photos that are age lapsed, if re-published in a new book a new copyright on them exists as part of the book. For you to use the picture you would have to own an original copy of the lapsed image, not a copy from the book, (or the net).

 

Stephen.

[trisonic]

All the more reason to get out our own cameras and take our own photos for RMWeb - some day this will be the golden era for someone.........

 

Best, Pete.