Guest Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 Hello - I have a question about copyright of WWI Photographs. Many museums and archives (and on occasion some individuals) claim copyright on photographs where the author/originator is not known. From the small amount of research that I have done, I understand that where the author is not known and the image was created before 1st June 1957, copyright expires 70 years after its creation, or 70 years after the work was made public if within 70 years of creation - see link here. This would imply that where the author of a WWI photo is not known, many of these claims to copyright are probably spurious. I have been researching one particular battlefield and have traced three particular photos to 4 different collections, three of which are museums or archives in the UK who all claim copyright - let's call them Archive X, Y and Z. It is very easy to demonstrate that the photos are exact copies of the same original photograph and that none of the collections can prove provenance or primary authorship. The most common claim is copyright attributed to the author of an album or collection in their possession. It is again, very easy in this case to demonstrate in that the photos are in fact copies and that provenance is not established. The existence of a photo in Soldier X's album does not necessarily prove he took the photo, especially where multiple copies exist elsewhere. In this case, the photos have appeared in publications before 1930. It would seem reasonable to be able to use these images for discussion, say, on the GWF. Before I approach the institutions I wondered if anyone on the GWF had encountered this issue before? Regards MG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 A photograph that appears in my book "The Battle for Flanders" is sold by both the IWM and AWM and even (if my memory is correct) the Reichsarchiv. All charge fees for acquisition of a copy and even higher ones for publication rights. I acquired this from the cheapest source. They can't all own it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 A photograph that appears in my book "The Battle for Flanders" is sold by both the IWM and AWM and even (if my memory is correct) the Reichsarchiv. All charge fees for acquisition of a copy and even higher ones for publication rights. I acquired this from the cheapest source. They can't all own it! Indeed. I understand that if one was to publish, they have a case to charge for a copy of the image, but to my mind the copyright is not theirs........ If someone wanted to show a photo that has multiple sources for discussion purposes on the GWF - under the "fair usage" clause (with acknowledgement to the IWM or NAM say for the (paid) copy), do you think it reasonable that they can claim copyright and a fee for this? It just seems to be unnecessarily restrictive and (I think) especially as they probably don't have the copyright to begin with....What are your thoughts Chris? MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Underdown Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 The situation may be changed following the publication of the Hargreaves report today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heid the Ba Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 This comes with the caveat that while I'm a lawyer, I know nothing about copyright law. My default stance in these things is the Bolshie one: "You claim copyright? Prove you have it then." Claiming copyright and actually having it are two very different things, on these here interwebs I once went to a site regarding a technical support problem for Sky tv where the site owner had taken screenshots from Sky broadcasts and put his own copyright claim on the bottom of them. This advice is worth exactly what you have paid for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 The situation may be changed following the publication of the Hargreaves report today Doesn't look like it as he has excluded 'fair usage' as being an American concept that doesn't fit European Law. I've seen the same WW1 photo on a Canadian Museum web site and an Australian State Museum Web site. The Canadians had a notification that all copyright had expired whilst the Australians claimed copyright - go figure. I think some museums are lazy or greedy and automatically claim copyright on everything they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 Heid - I agree. Having been researching for a few years now, it strikes me that many institutions claiming copyright have no idea what they are talking about. When I recently approached one well known institution to discuss this issue, they seemed to have next to no idea what the existing law is. Their default setting seems to be that they claim have copyright over any copy of a document or photo in their possession. David - It was seeing the release of the report that reminded me of this ongoing issue.... MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 Doesn't look like it as he has excluded 'fair usage' as being an American concept that doesn't fit European Law. I've seen the same WW1 photo on a Canadian Museum web site and an Australian State Museum Web site. The Canadians had a notification that all copyright had expired whilst the Australians claimed copyright - go figure. I think some museums are lazy or greedy and automatically claim copyright on everything they have. Centurion - I am sure we will see many examples, the more the better, so thank you for highlighting this. I think some archivists are just ignorant of the laws and as you say are 'lazy', or too just lazy to find out. It seems easier to try and 'bundle' researchers into paying by throwing out 'legal' claims to copyright on the assumption that most will just accept it and will pay an unnecessary fee. I feel that some confuse 'custodianship' with 'ownership' and given the amount of public funding (in the UK) I find it quite frustrating that access is so restricted and costly when their remits are to promote knowledge and access to the public....... I have written to the head of one august institution a number of times on the subject - email and hand-written and have had no reply. I find the TNAs attitude quite accommodating - allowing us to photograph just about anything for our own use and charging a reasonable fee for high resolution digital copies. Contrast with the NAM* or IWM* who do not allow us to take our own photos - even of pages in out-of-copyright books - and subsequently charge a high price for making poor photocopies. The irony being that the process of making multiple photocopies is far more damaging (hot bright lights, multiple handling etc) to the original document than having a digital record that can be easily reproduced and circulated. A greater irony is that I always photograph the photocopy so I can store the document image on my laptop, so the photocopying is ultimately a total waste of their time, paper and limited resources. I have even offered to take digital photos and give a copy to the institution so they can offer a digital copy to others in the future, but that seems to be too complex a concept. I digress a little from the original scope of this post, but they are closely related issues. All very frustrating. MG * It is only fair to say that staff at the IWM and NAM are extremely helpful and in many cases just as frustrated by being hampered by the current rules. The NAM has been telling me for many months that the rules are being reviewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 Doesn't look like it as he has excluded 'fair usage' as being an American concept that doesn't fit European Law. So does anyone know how it works now? If a newspaper publishes a photo of say Mcdonald's logo, in theory are infringing Mcdonalds copyright no? I understood that "fair usage" was in place in the UK but Centurion's post seems to imply otherwise? - I may be misunderstanding Centurion's angle on this.... MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 So does anyone know how it works now? If a newspaper publishes a photo of say Mcdonald's logo, in theory are infringing Mcdonalds copyright no? I understood that "fair usage" was in place in the UK but Centurion's post seems to imply otherwise? - I may be misunderstanding Centurion's angle on this.... MG Only quoting from the BBC interview with the man himself this morning - it seems we didn't have fair usage in the UK we only thought we did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 I understood that "fair usage" was in place in the UK I had a discussion with the Liddle Collection a couple of years back. The upshot was that they took the view, with some decent basis of evidence IIRC, that "fair usage" applied only to quoting from a published source, such as a book, but did not apply to primary documents. That said, Liddle adopts a policy of actually applying the accepted "fair usage" limits to the primary documents they hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 Only quoting from the BBC interview with the man himself this morning - it seems we didn't have fair usage in the UK we only thought we did! Blimey! [Edit - a number of legal websites use the term 'Fair dealing' ... but it looks like a labyrinth of rules and regs. I suspect it is just easier to go straight in and challenge copyright rather than request for fai dealing or fair usage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 I had a discussion with the Liddle Collection a couple of years back. The upshot was that they took the view, with some decent basis of evidence IIRC, that "fair usage" applied only to quoting from a published source, such as a book, but did not apply to primary documents. That said, Liddle adopts a policy of actually applying the accepted "fair usage" limits to the primary documents they hold. "Published source" would tie in with the 70 year rule.... copyright starting from date of first publication and lasting for 70 years if the first publication was within 70 years of its creation..... that said, as far as WWI photos are concerned, assuming the photos had not lain in a box for 90-odd years, many of these 'copyright' photos have been published before. In my particular example, in 1926, so copyright would have expired in 1996..... But nice to hear that the Liddle Collection applies the the concept. It does raise another question... If an archive has a WWI vintage copy of a photo, is that correctly considered a primary document? I suspect they all claim 'theirs' is the original and we get into a situation not dissimilar to the spat between the Louvre and the National Gallery over who has the original and who has the copy of the Virgin of the Rocks by Leonardo. It seems this issue predates 1914..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auimfo Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 The AWM has an entire page dedicated to explaining the copyright of items held in their collection https://www.awm.gov.au/copyright/ But what I have noticed is that the vast majority of photographs they hold from WW1 are acknowledged as 'Copyright expired - public domain' and they explain that as: This term describes material held in the National Collection that is clearly out of the period of copyright protection. Material that has passed out of the period of copyright protection is known as being in the “public domain”. You do not need permission from the copyright owner to copy this image from the Memorial’s web site, or to reproduce it elsewhere. A high quality reproduction of this collection item may be purchased from the Australian War Memorial’s eSales Unit. In this case, a user fee may apply to your intended use of the reproduction. The user fee system is mentioned elsewhere on their website and is determined thus: User fees may also apply if you intend to use the material for commercial use or public dissemination of any kind. I take that to mean that anyone is free to use these photos in any way they wish without obtaining permission. Although I'm not quite sure how that can justify a 'user fee' for commercial use on top of the standard 'production fee' for simply obtaining a copy. If the photo is copyright free and I simply pay the production cost for a copy, what stops me from later using it for a commercial purpose? Cheers, Tim L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 The other point, where say various institutions have "copies" of an image, is that they would presumably have to prove that you took the material from their copy, rather than from elsewhere. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfaulder Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 So does anyone know how it works now? If a newspaper publishes a photo of say Mcdonald's logo, in theory are infringing Mcdonalds copyright no?>><< I think (to the best of my knowledge etc) this is a different problem. If (in England and Wales) I take a photograph of McDonalds® logo, I took the photograph and I therefore own the copyright in that photograph (unless I was commisssioned to take it, when the situation may be different). McDonalds® however may be concerned to protect their trademarks (they claim quite a few including would you believe, twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesoniononasesameseedbun®), and any inappropriate use (in their view) of my photograph of their trademark would probably get me a letter from their lawyers. Similar concerns apply to all logos - but most trademark owners are not as well known for being litigious at McDonalds®. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 The AWM has an entire page dedicated to explaining the copyright of items held in their collection https://www.awm.gov.au/copyright/ But what I have noticed is that the vast majority of photographs they hold from WW1 are acknowledged as 'Copyright expired - public domain' and they explain that as: This term describes material held in the National Collection that is clearly out of the period of copyright protection. Material that has passed out of the period of copyright protection is known as being in the "public domain". You do not need permission from the copyright owner to copy this image from the Memorial's web site, or to reproduce it elsewhere. A high quality reproduction of this collection item may be purchased from the Australian War Memorial's eSales Unit. In this case, a user fee may apply to your intended use of the reproduction. The user fee system is mentioned elsewhere on their website and is determined thus: User fees may also apply if you intend to use the material for commercial use or public dissemination of any kind. I take that to mean that anyone is free to use these photos in any way they wish without obtaining permission. Although I'm not quite sure how that can justify a 'user fee' for commercial use on top of the standard 'production fee' for simply obtaining a copy. If the photo is copyright free and I simply pay the production cost for a copy, what stops me from later using it for a commercial purpose? Cheers, Tim L. Thanks Tim - this is a useful reference point when discussing this issue with some of the British institutions. It looks like the AWM is far more organised and sensible in the way it provides access. I suspect the user fee might only apply to material where copyright has not expired (?).. Regards MG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrB Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 ...Here in the USA, any photo taken by the US government has no copywrite. It is Public Domain. Therefore, any book published which shows a US government photo cannot clain "copywrite" just because the photo was published in their book. Just another way to make money, albeit somewhat bogus,as far as I am concerned. Doc B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 I think (to teh best of my knowledge etc) this is a different problem. If (in England and Wales) I take a photograph of McDonalds® logo, I took the photograph and I therefore own the copyright in that photograph (unless I was commisssioned to take it, when the situation may be different). McDonalds® however may be concerned to protect their trademarks (they claim quite a few including would you believe, twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesoniononasesameseedbun®), and any inappropriate use (in their view) of my photograph of their trademark would probably get me a letter from their lawyers. Similar concerns apply to all logos - but most trademark owners are not as well known for being litigious at McDonalds®. David David... Hmmm .......... Point taken. Maybe I am confusing copyright with trademarks in my (poor) example.. ... either way I know it is a hotly debated issue in the UK for newspapers and 'fair usage' or 'fair dealing'... I am just looking for reference points to present a case to some archives that they might not own the copyright as it has expired. Some seem to think copyright is perpetual. I am only aware of one perpetual copyright (Peter Pan). One of the archivists argued that they might not have copyright of the original but they have copyright of the "digital image" of the copy of the original.... which prompted me to ask them what if I took a photo of their digital-image-of-the-copy-of-the-original-that-has no-proven-provenance, would I then have copyright of my digital image? There was no answer. Their arguments seem to be spurious and I am trying to gently convince some of them to grant freer access to their WWI photos. It is a major issue as I have some original diaries I want to donate to an archive but I am reluctant to hand them over if they just get locked up. Who said print and be damned? MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 ...Here in the USA, any photo taken by the US government has no copywrite. It is Public Domain. Therefore, any book published which shows a US government photo cannot clain "copywrite" just because the photo was published in their book. Just another way to make money, albiet somewhat bogus,as far as I am concerned. Doc B Thanks Doc B. I just spent the last 2 years in NY and I can safely say I have seen more lawyers in those 2 years than in the rest of my life. It is a highly polished art-form in the US. I don't have an issue paying for copies as these institutions have overheads and costs etc... it costs money to store things properly. I have an issue in some (many?) cases with the assumption that they have copyright when I think they don't. ... and the idea that I need permission when (in some cases) I don't. It would be interesting to ask an archive or museum for a list of material in their possession where copyright has expired. ..... MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perth Digger Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 On the general issue of copyright, which totally confuses me, I tried to get a copy of The Police Gazette for 1916 from the Newspaper Library at Colindale. I was told two things: 1. that I would first have to find who currently holds the copyright and get their permission; and 2. that Colindale was stopping making microfilms of materials from the end of December 2010 (and that all copies would be henceforth digital and hugely expensive). They had no idea who had the copyright, so I wrote to the Metropolitan Police (no reply) and to the Home Office. I can't understand why a journal published more than 70 years ago should still be under copyright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 On the general issue of copyright, which totally confuses me, I tried to get a copy of The Police Gazette for 1916 from the Newspaper Library at Colindale. I was told two things: 1. that I would first have to find who currently holds the copyright and get their permission; and 2. that Colindale was stopping making microfilms of materials from the end of December 2010 (and that all copies would be henceforth digital and hugely expensive). They had no idea who had the copyright, so I wrote to the Metropolitan Police (no reply) and to the Home Office. I can't understand why a journal published more than 70 years ago should still be under copyright. I totally agree. It is incomprehensible. Some archivists treat the material as if it their own and no-body has the right to ask for access. I am 99.9% sure that copyright has expired on any published material in the UK that is over 70 years old... that is why we see a plethora of paperback classics by Dickens etc. Hamilton's despatches are a good WWI example that can be downloaded for free. In my experience, when a lawyer is asked to give advice and there is no reference case, they will almost always err on the side of caution. In the cases where ownership is not known, they are terrified of advising archives that they can release these images in case someone comes out of the woodwork and claims ownership at a later date. They are more concerned that they (the lawyers) will in turn be sued for giving bum advice. I understand that the BBC has a huge issue with this as no records were kept on who owned the copyright of early material right up to the late 1970s and 1980s which explains why so much wonderful archive material is never turned into DVDs for example.... so it seems Colindale is at the cutting edge of limiting access. I would suggest HMSO for (past) ownership of copyright for the Police Gazette....but is will have already expired for 1916 editions... but then of course you have to convince Colindale. Maybe the TNA has copies? MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 The other point, where say various institutions have "copies" of an image, is that they would presumably have to prove that you took the material from their copy, rather than from elsewhere. Keith I get your point..... but it seems one would be circumventing the core issue that they don't have copyright. I would rather approach it in a businesslike way, and failing that, 'publish and be damned' and see what happens. The difficulty with the latter approach is that they could just close the doors. I think I have a cast iron case in my example but I fear they will just say, 'fine, but you can't have a copy of our copy...' and apply that going forward. It won't help future researchers. MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfaulder Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 >><< I would suggest HMSO for (past) ownership of copyright for the Police Gazette....but is will have already expired for 1916 editions... but then of course you have to convince Colindale. Maybe the TNA has copies? MG Ah, well that will be "Crown Copyright"; according to The National Archives that is another kettle of fish! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabine72 Posted 18 May , 2011 Share Posted 18 May , 2011 these copy right rules are confusing, here I was told consurning postcards if they are older then 70 years I was safe, but to be double save put unther the card you want to publish that you tried to find the one who made it and couldn't find him. that was in brussels, the officiall office that deals with copyright. but that doesn't work for the Anthony cards since the daughters are still alive and they can smell it when you publish something of their father. Only one the web they don't know sabine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now