I bought a couple of photos, is it ok to post them on RMweb?

[bubbles2]

As the title says, today at Exeter exhibition I bought a couple of black and white prints taken in the 70s, no names or info on them, I would like to share them and ask questions of the knowlegable folk on here but I'm not sure if it is ok to do that regarding copyright. Thanks for looking any help will be much appreciated.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

If, as you say, there are no identification/photographer details on them, then I feel it's fair to put them up on here to see if anyone recognises the pictures. On what basis did you purchase them? If it was on the basis of not knowing who holds copyright, then I can't see a problem posting them to try to find that information.

 

They might be well known photos or in a style we can identify. They might not. As this is for educational/research and could well be seen as part of the due diligence process to determine who might own copyright, then I feel it's OK.

[bubbles2]

Thanks for the reply Peter. I will post them when I have figered out the best way of doing so.

[hmrspaul]

I would wait for approval from the boss. Recent copyright legislation alterations have made the publication of any orphaned work much more difficult. Blame Cliff Richard (I kid you not)

 

Paul

[Andy Y]

Copyright of material is technically only transferred if it is sold or bought so buying a print, negative or slide does not transfer that copyright unless explicitly included. For example I could digitally copy a slide I took, sell the slide as a one-off but retain copyright and the right to publish from it from the digital copy.

 

However I know it's not bubble's intention to circumvent such and it's probably fair to consider the recent amendments which relax some research contexts "Copying works for research and private study Copyright law recognises that researchers and students may legitimately need to copy limited extracts of copyright works for the purpose of their studies. Therefore, the law already allowed researchers and students to copy limited extracts of some types of copyright works (books, plays and musical scores, picture and photos, literary, dramatic musical and artistic works) as long as they are carrying out non-commercial research or private study."

 

This means that some things may be copied but it doesn't necessarily mean it can be published, once again I know that bubbles isn't trying to circumvent that either.

 

So I'd say copy and upload the image(s) so we can advise and if it were an issue (as in copies of originals where someone would know the copyright is held by someone) that the images could be removed and apology given.

 

Again technically if there were any breach that lies with the individual member as being the publisher of the material rather than the site but we do actively work to ensure abuse doesn't happen.

[EddieB]

Without knowing the subject, I'd probably still be interested to see them.  If putting them on RMweb helps to trace the original photographer/copyright owner so much the better.  My concern would be that images can be downloaded from this site and passed off elsewhere - so I would suggest some cropping and low-res scans.

 

In a sense, a photographer who fails to identify their work is risking unauthorised reproduction.  However, we cannot know how these prints came into the possession of the seller and how they came to be separated from caption information and the photographer's identification.