Youtube video - East Riding Yeomanry

[Doctord84]

My attention has been drawn to a video which has appeared on Youtube (as of 29th May) featuring a number of images of the ERY, with names/ranks/ages of soldiers overlain and some background music. The creator is styled "godfox69". Now call me an old stick in the mud, but when you have obviously downloaded images from a variety of sources (including the Council's website) to make such a compilation and not contacted the owners of the images (or us) to seek their permission so to do, would that not be a breach of copyright? I recognise some of them as images we have borrowed from relatives and whilst they were happy for us to use them for non commercial purposes, that would not necessarily extend to 3rd parties. Any thoughts?

[SteveMarsdin]

Hi David,

Have you tried commenting on YouTube to try and get a response from "GodFox69" ?

I've just looked at the short video, after searching YouTube on your prompting and, notwithstanding the concerns you raise, at least it is done quite tastefully.

[Doctord84]

Hi Steve

Hope you are well?

I've no problem with the content, if people want to do tributes then that's obviously their business. My issue is more that if you harvest images from various sources to create such then you should really ask people who own the images (or who have acquired the use of them from relatives) first, as a matter of courtesy. With our own stuff, we generally allow free use anyway providing it is acknowledged (we only make a charge for serious commercial useage), so its not a question of money, just principle.

We can't use Youtube at work, so I had to look at home. Registering and responding in a personal capacity on something that relates to work would be a grey area I don't want to get into.....Mild annoyance will have to do I think, I can't spare the time / energy!

cheers

Dave

[SteveMarsdin]

Hi Dave,

I agree, it wouldn't have taken much to add a final slide with acknowledgements. If I was being critical of the general content it would be that the photos are predominantly taken in the Middle East, implying that's where they were all killed, whereas it was (very roughly) a third in the UK, and a third on the Arcadian.

[nfh249]

I agree Steve, those pictures taken from the East Riding Museum and Pocklington History Forum websites should at least have had an acknowledgement. The ebay ones are obviously harder to acknowledge specifically but there could have been some mention.

N.

[Radlad]

My attention has been drawn to a video which has appeared on Youtube (as of 29th May) featuring a number of images of the ERY, with names/ranks/ages of soldiers overlain and some background music. The creator is styled "godfox69". Now call me an old stick in the mud, but when you have obviously downloaded images from a variety of sources (including the Council's website) to make such a compilation and not contacted the owners of the images (or us) to seek their permission so to do, would that not be a breach of copyright? I recognise some of them as images we have borrowed from relatives and whilst they were happy for us to use them for non commercial purposes, that would not necessarily extend to 3rd parties. Any thoughts?

These remarks apply to UK only. USA law is different.

The owner of a photograph is not always the copyright holder and I doubt whether any council or museum own the copyright to most of the photographs they posses. Ownership of an image (of which there may be many copies) is with the originator of that image ie, a soldier has a studio portrait taken , the picture is then reproduced and copies passed to relatives. Copyright remains with the studio , not with the owners of the copies.

Morally, It should always be that the source of an image should be acknowledged but if someone cries copyright to me, I ask for proof of ownership such as sight of a negative or original digital file, possibly a contract assigning rights to the image holder. Without any of these, they have no rights and can whistle.

possession of a photograph means just that without any other rights implied unless they can be proved. Buy a photo on Ebay? that is what you have bought , nothing else and if you publish it , you may be in breach of copyright and if you superimpose your own mark on, you are breaking the law by claiming to own something that is not yours.

the situation has been very clear for years but is currently getting cloudy due to the 'orphan works' legislation currently being considered by parliament

[Gardenerbill]

There is another consideration here, if 'godofx69' reaches a certain number of views on his videos (he has 19 videos including the ERY one) then Youtube will start placing advertisements on his videos and paying him per view, at which point it becomes commercial use.