Imperial German Artillery

[bob lembke]

George,

I'm curious about the practice of watermaking. I see it on a lot of Verdun websites epecially, I guess implying that people stealing images is a problem. I've also seen guys do it (a lot) with photos that have been published before, claiming some type of ownership. I had asked before and been told by one of these fellows that he "owned" the image, which I don't think is correct if I can go down to library and make a photocopy of the same image out of a book that is itself out of copyright. It's an interesting topic, and deserves it's own thread, if it hasn't been covered before.

The image is of 2./RFusa14, which converted to s. 15 cm K's mid-September 1915.

Paul

The topic of copywriting is interesting, not exactly WW I in a narrow sense, possibly a discussion in the Skindles Club would be worth-while. A lot of organizations imply that they "own" the rights to a photo, when they really only possess a copy and will provide you a copy for fees, while the copyright actually rests elsewhere, or has completely expired. A discussion would be quite useful.

Bob Lembke

[Cnock]

Paul,

I never said I 'owned' the fotos.

But having a real wartime foto is always better quality than out of a book.

In fact I should make up a list of people that used of my pics without a source given.

Regards,

Cnock

[wyliecoyote]

George,

I'm curious about the practice of watermaking. I see it on a lot of Verdun websites epecially, I guess implying that people stealing images is a problem. I've also seen guys do it (a lot) with photos that have been published before, claiming some type of ownership. I had asked before and been told by one of these fellows that he "owned" the image, which I don't think is correct if I can go down to library and make a photocopy of the same image out of a book that is itself out of copyright. It's an interesting topic, and deserves it's own thread, if it hasn't been covered before.

The image is of 2./RFusa14, which converted to s. 15 cm K's mid-September 1915.

Paul

I started watermarking a couple of years ago, and it was because there was a rash of photos being harvested off of another website I enjoy frequenting, pickelhaubes.com, where some one was taking photos and using them in phony ebay auctions. I prefer not to have mine used like that. Anyway that is why I use them. As for others? I don't know.

The photo of the 15 cm, does that unit history happen to identify the date and location? I am curious George, after all!

Here's an example in a way regarding this discussion. Several years ago in a thread on the other sight, some one else posted a pic of young soldier / soldiers, and I added a recruit photo I had from 1918, showing very young German soldiers, just kids in costume really, probably they averaged 16. Anyhow, I found my photo used recently by accident. On another website, a fellow left a link for WWI movies on youtube. When I clicked on the link, I saw my photo which is the first one in this short titled Preussens Gloria. I am happy that at least it was used in a constructive project. If the photo was larger, and the slide show slower, I am sure one could see my water mark. It was added already 1 year ago. Here is the link, it will be the very first picture that comes up in this musical slide show:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mMz5aHrBGUU

[joerookery]

This topic used to interest me greatly. I have a website with a lot of pictures on it. I try very hard to give credit and sourcing as required. I do not watermark the pictures I own as for me this is only a hobby. I completely agree with George in that there are multiple copies of postcards. Even some of the most private ones have duplicates. There are also ConMen who copy my pictures and try to sell the items shown. The laws of the USA covering public domain cover most of the World War I stuff that I use. Someone once got very upset about picture on my site. I actually went to downtown San Antonio, and had a two-hour meeting with the copyright attorneys. I learned several things. Copyrights are only actionable if they violate the laws of the nation they are published in. There are no treaties, which will make me for instance responsible to the laws and norms of another nation. Not only must a copyright be violated, but it must be actionable in a legal sense, and the injured party must be able to prove damages. I spoke to Charles Woolley about copyright problems, and he said he never worried about them. So I finally put out a book.

I still ask permission and give credit just to maintain some sort of moral standard. I am sure I have made inadvertent mistakes and will correct them if they are ever brought to my attention. However, I think the issue is horribly overblown. There are some of my pictures in the book on Gew88 George mentioned. Nobody asked me, and nobody gave me credit- I am glad I got to contribute to the research. I do get more touchy about research theory and ideas that are taken over by others. None of it is actionable, and I am too old to get excited about it.

[Paul Hederer]

Thanks for all the answers on photos and watermarking. I've learned a lot.

@Bob--I mean it in the context of 100% Great War. The use of watermarking to show some kind of rights/ownership to images of the Great War.

@Cnock. No, you never said you owned the fotos (I actually said image), which is what prompted my first question about why you are watermarking them. I can take a picture of the Mona Lisa, and I could claim to own the photo, but I sure don't own the image! If you have the original photo of the s. 15 cm K from 2./RFusa14, then, as I wrote before, you have something very unique.

@George and Joe. Thanks for the detailed answers. Since you both seem to be knowledgable on the subject let me ask this--again in the context of the Great War. Is there a market for faked Great War photos? I'm curious, I know nothing about it, but I've wondered before when I've seen this situation. I know for every market there is someone in a basement somewhere working on making things people will buy. I understand the confusion as well. If you find a postcard at a flea-market, for example, how do you know if it's been published somewhere else, or if 1,000 other copies are around, or none?

Very interesting about the copyright and use of images of the Great War. I have often wondered about images found in German books, where there is a great chance that not only the company that published the book, but also the original image was destroyed in the Second War. I wonder if copyrights extend to a new nation--in other words did copyrights from Imperial Germany continue on into the Weimar republic, Nazi Germany, and then into the two Germanies? Makes your head spin.

Back to artillery. George, Unfortunately the photo from the history has no caption (see below). I know it's 2./RFusa14, but that's about all. 2./RFusa14 became s. 15 cm K batterie 7 on 19.9.1915. Expanding on our original subject, it's a good example of how complicated the Fussartillerie is and how difficult tracking its units can be. In the German texts the s. 15 cm K batterien are often referred to by their old titles. Interestingly enough, the map symbol for a s. 15 cm K, is exactly the same as a l. 15 cm K, sometimes with an "M" identifier (not always). The German OH and "Schlachten des Weltkrieges," volumes on Verdun both use the old unit designations, and this combined with the lack of a unique symbol for this type of gun causes all kinds of confusion. It took me a trip to the Stuttgart archives to get the correct information on the s. 15 cm K batterien and their formation. When you look at the notes used to compile the artillery order of battle in the OH, you can see why mistakes were made. I mean, if a unit changed, and then reformed, how to note that? There was another 2./RFusa14 after the original became s. 15 cm K Nr. 7. In the original notes you can follow the confusion of the officers compiling the lists.

These batteries are of special interest to me, as they are a good representative of the efforts of the German artillery to expand in the field of flat trajectory, long range cannons during the war. There was a big expansion of high-angle fire weapons, but a HUGE expansion of flat trajectory weapons during the war. This was a real weak point for the German artillery. This was a very important trend.

Paul

[Cnock]

Hi,

To repeat, it is not about copyright or ownership, but to know where the fotos ends up.

I know very well the difference between a postcard that has been produced in thousands of copies, and original fotos made with a private camera.

The same happens with rare and original WWI maps, also used again, even on frontpages of websites without source been given.

I am free to use a watermark, where and how I want it.

Yes, there are people who produces 'old' pics from new scans.

And yes, on EBAY people pay a lot of money for old fotos, 'especially warplanes and aces, submarines, special guns, etc.)

Regards,

Cnock

[Paul Hederer]

...I am free to use a watermark, where and how I want it...

Regards,

Cnock

Don't remember anyone saying you weren't. Seems to have touched a nerve with you, so probably better we drop it, eh?

Paul

[Cnock]

Paul,

no problem

by the way, in the past several people asked me a high resolution scan of fotos I posted, and they were always served.

from a private foto album ( how many copies left?)

firing 17 cm railway gun during 3rd Battle of Ypres.

Cnock

[Paul Hederer]

Eddy,

I apologize if I upset you. That sure wasn't my intention. I think we had the mingling of two or more different subjects, which is a bad habit of mine, even in real life, my mind jumps back and forth between subjects--in this case asking you about your watermarking, asking about your s. 15 cm K picture (which is one of my big loves) and discussing photos and copyright in general.

I know you are generous with your photos and we have some mutual friends who speak very highly of you.

Paul

[Cnock]

Paul,

I can assure You we have no problem.

Regards,

Cnock

[Cnock]

3rd Battle of Ypres

15 cm L/45 of Schwere 15 cm Kanonen Batterie nr.21

Cnock

[Cnock]

German retreat october-november 1918 in Flanders

Left behind : 15 cm Kanone 16 L/43

Cnock

[delta]

Daft question (perhaps)

what is the difference between HEER and Armee?

Stephen

[Cnock]

15 cm L/40 guns (naval)

barrel was transported on a separate carriage(left of pic)

This pic could have been take after armistice somewhere in Germany ( anybody can give a clue?)

Regards,

Cnock

[bierast]

The man in your picture is quite possibly Walter WIEGHARDT, great-grandfather of the present managing director of painters/decorators Wieghardt & Sohn GmbH, in Lüdenscheid. See wieghardt.de > Wir über uns > Geschichte. The firm was founded by Walter's father Carl in 1891.

Absolutely amazing! How wonderful it would be should your suggestion prove to be correct - I shall write to them this week and let you all know if I hear back from them...

This card has been in my collection for years - originally from a postcard fair in Margate IIRC!

On the vexed question of Feldartillerie (as opposed to Fussartillerie) carbines - it occurs to me that whilst the gunners and drivers of the batteries would be equipped roughly according to the regulations (i.e. with handguns), an FAR would also have additional ORs at abteilung and regimental HQ, and that these men would carry carbines.

ARL

[wyliecoyote]

Daft question (perhaps)

what is the difference between HEER and Armee?

Stephen

Not daft at all!

The Heer was term used for the German armed forces between 1935 - 1945. Wehrmacht was the term used for the German Armee 1935-1945.

Armee or in English, Army, is the term used for the Alte Armee before 1919. Reichswehr was the term used for the Versailles restricted National Defense Army 1919-1935.

This is becomming a really good informational thread. Keep it rolling folks!

Cnock, you have some outstanding photos, I am really enjoying you posting them for us, thank You!

[Cnock]

Fussartilleriebataillon 124 (staff)

[Cnock]

Early 7,7 cm AA gun (1915)

Cnock

[bierast]

Early 7,7 cm AA gun (1915)

This awkward temporary conversion of the 7.7cm FK was the standard AA artillery arrangement for most of the war IIRC. The history of FAR48 makes several references to the allocation of guns for this, typically half a battery (2 guns) as a flakzug. There is a mention in my notes on the May 1915 section in the book that a specific order had been issued 'forbidding the conversion of light howitzers (i.e. 10.5cm lFH) to the AA role', though at what level this order originated is unclear.

ARL

[Cnock]

HI Andy,

already in 1914 light 10,5 cm howitzers were used as AA (see pic)

Their muzzle velocity was to low to chase after planes, so in 1915 they were only used for their intened role.

Regards,

Cnock

[bierast]

already in 1914 light 10,5 cm howitzers were used as AA (see pic)

Their muzzle velocity was to low to chase after planes, so in 1915 they were only used for their intended role.

Ah I see...hence the ban. I had assumed it was merely because this was considered a waste of the field artillery's 'big guns', but the velocity / trajectory issue definitely makes sense.

[Cnock]

Andi,

as You said another reason was the waste of field artillery, which was badly needed and lacked in numbers.

Cnock

[Cnock]

Captured French 7,5 cm gun converted to AA

Cnock

[Cnock]

old German 9 cm gun used as AA.

Cnock

[wyliecoyote]

Here is something absolutely splendid, a F.A.R. 49 kugelhaube, kratzen, waffenrock, posted by Tony & Kaiser over at pickelhaubes.com. Link here. I had to pop my eyeballs back into their sockets prior to posting this!