Copyright Daily Mail/Crown?

[centurion]

I've a WW1 post card on it is printed "Daily Mail, Official Photograph, Crown Copyright". Who is/was the copyright holder ~ the Daily Beast or Her Majesty?

[seaforths]

Daily Mail had His Maj's Crown permission to use their official photograph?

[spof]

'Crown Copyright' is a relatively new concept. 'Official Photograph' suggests aproved by the War Office and released at the time. If the DM has paid for a recent electronic image of the photo, then they hold copyright of that image.

A WW! postcard with Crown Copyright on it isn't an original postcard.

[centurion]

'Crown Copyright' is a relatively new concept. 'Official Photograph' suggests aproved by the War Office and released at the time. If the DM has paid for a recent electronic image of the photo, then they hold copyright of that image.

A WW! postcard with Crown Copyright on it isn't an original postcard.

Crown copyright was defined (and limited) in the Copyright act of 1911!

[spof]

Fair enough. I wouldn't rely on the 1911 Act though.

Without any more details, talk to TNA and explain your intended use.

[Phil Evans]

The answer probably is that it could be either, depending on the agreement the Daily Mail had with the Government. Although I would suggest that as Crown Copyright has been endorsed on the card, that is the governing factor.

"........... any work prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department "shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty". (Interpretation of the Copyright Act 1911).

Phil

[martin_sole]

If the photo was published in the Daily Mail, doesn't the image pass into public domain 50 years later?

[John_Hartley]

If the photo was published in the Daily Mail, doesn't the image pass into public domain 50 years later?

Grey area, I think. I think that if the photographer is named, then it doesnt become copyright free until 70 years after the photographers death. On the other hand, an unattributed photo is OK after 50 years from publication. I suspect attributing the photo as "official" with the mention of Crown Copyright puts it in the category of anything else with Crown Copyright.

[auchonvillerssomme]

You can use the images under the terms of the Open Government License.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/government-licensing/faqs.htm

[centurion]

I own the card and I might use the picture in something I may write (bit vague at the moment but I just want to be sure) Here's whats on the back

Wording on the front is Daily Mail Official Photograph Crown Copyright Reserved

[EastSurrey]

I have another card in the same series that I have submitted to my publisher for use in a forthcoming book (diary of a Gallipoli and W.Front M.O.) It seems to me that the copyright claimed was by the Crown, which has,in this case, long expired.

Michael

[Terry_Reeves]

The Daily Mail paid £2,500 for the right to publish these cards. There were 176 of them published in a number of series, the fee being donated to service charities. Quite a number of them have been used in postcard and other books over the years so I doubt very much if there are any copyright problems, but the Crown held the copyright, it just licensed the DM for publication.

For those interested in the DM series, you can get an e-book called Guide to the Daily Mail Official War Photographs. The download comes with three other WW1 publications.

http://www.worldwar1postcards.com/daily-mail-war-postcards.php

TR