Launch of ' The War Graves Photographic Project' website

[BattlefieldPhotographer]

3) The 'charge' is a donation and not compulsory as I understand it.

The "charge" IS compulsory. It is required for one to receive either an electronic copy of an image or a hard copy. 3 pounds for an emailed image. No money, no image. I have exchanged emails with Steve Rogers and we both now understand that any images I had given to the BWMP previously should not be included anymore, as my photos are absolutely free.

There is also a looming issue with copyright. Recently someone placed a large number of photos on eBay and the sale was yanked. Neither Steve Rogers or the CWGC have stated they asked for the removal of the advertisement on eBay, but if copyright was an issue, all should be aware that when sending in images you share the copyright with the TWGPP and the CWGC, and either any of the three do not agree to a given future use of the photo it freezes said use of said photo. For more information one may familiarize further by reading the Berne Convention.

[Terry Denham]

Apologies for not updating my earlier post.

Steve also confirmed to me that there is a 'charge' as stated. The 'donation' is any sum anyone wishes to give to assist in the work rather than for obtaining a photo.

This was not clear on the site.

[BattlefieldPhotographer]

Yes. You will own the copyright of any picture you take with a camera - or draw with a pencil, paint with a brush etc (unless you are doing it as part of paid employment).

It makes no difference if you post it anywhere.

Not in the case of TWGPP. The copyright of images sent to TWGPP are shared by the three parties. When this happens no one party owns the image. People sending in photos should be aware of this. If this matters not, then send away. Just clarifying for the record.

[Terry Denham]

Quite correct.

It was the same with the former BWMP site.

[burlington]

Two points that may have escaped notice.

Firstly, the final outcome or goal of the Project is to create a 100%, yes 100%, archive. I quote:

<start>

The aim of The War Graves Photographic Project is to photograph every war grave, individual memorial, MoD grave, and family memorial of serving military personnel from WWI to the present day and make these available within a searchable database.

</start>

Can that be matched elsewhere? Don't forget that some of these graves won't be around forever, and some are disappearing as I write (read my previous post #88)

Secondly, and this also has been ignored in the general fog, if everything is to be free, who do YOU think should pay for the considerable costs of running the archive. As I understand it, no charitable or other funding is available so, over to you!

We are talking about an archive of some 1.5 million, repeat million, records and images.

Finally, people are quite happy to fork out £3.50 for a copy of the MIC, plus more for other records. Why is this so different?

Martin

[swellal]

Secondly, and this also has been ignored in the general fog, if everything is to be free, who do YOU think should pay for the considerable costs of running the archive. As I understand it, no charitable or other funding is available so, over to you!

I have no problem with charging to have a print sent out, but if the images are posted on the net, what's the problem with allowing someone to download it without the watermark? It costs the organization nothing. You post them in a lo-resolution format so that making a print is difficult anyway.

I have over 1700 photos on my website with no watermarks. I know that people have downloaded some of them and reposted them on their own websites and in some cases they have given credit, and in others they haven't.

Bottom line is, the soldiers are being remembered and that is why we do this.

I have worked as an archivist in a small archive so I know the problems involved in acquiring funding. It's not impossible by any means, just difficult. You make prudent use of volunteers and spend wisely. If you are dependant on selling something for your funding to continue the project, it is doomed, because that doesn't qualify as "sustainable funding".

Don't get me wrong, I wish you well with the effort, it sounds to me that if your finances are going to be dependant on the sale of those photos, you will need a lot of luck.

[burlington]

Al

I think you might misunderstand me a bit.

It is not MY project; I am just one of very many humble volunteers who do what we do for the greater good.

As I understand it, any watermark is only removed prior to transmission.

The pics are taken in a high resolution because a lot of people want actual prints.

Finally, the server costs of holding over a million images plus the visits, enquiries etc are very very high.

Martin

[swellal]

As I understand it, any watermark is only removed prior to transmission.

The pics are taken in a high resolution because a lot of people want actual prints.

Finally, the server costs of holding over a million images plus the visits, enquiries etc are very very high.

The watermark is applied only to the copy that is posted on the website. If someone asks for a copy, they are sent one without the watermark. That is done to prevent someone from downloading the image from the net and using it.

From your understanding of the high costs involved, they are going to be met by selling prints. You will not sell enough prints each year to cover the cost of the project, and if that is the expectation, the project is doomed, that is unless there is some funding that is in place other than the sale of prints.

I would highly recommend that all of the volunteer photographers keep copies of the shots they submit because the ones submitted will be lost when the server shuts it down.

[Anthony Bagshaw]

Can that be matched elsewhere?

Yep and always has been.

[spidge]

It seems to me that all photographs supplied previously to "this" site by volunteers are not their own to do with as they please. Technically, it makes it illegal for them to pass these onto other parties, as they may be used by other websites and made available for free.

Those other sites using said images and making them available to others would also technically, be in breach of copyright.

[swellal]

It seems to me that all photographs supplied previously to "this" site by volunteers are not their own to do with as they please.

If you read the copyright law you will learn that the photographer (or their heirs) owns the copyright to any photo he/she takes for 50 years. If they pass a copy of that photo to another they do not automatically pass the copyright to that photo. The person receiving the photo is restricted to the use specified by the photographer.

Unless the volunteers mentioned above specificaly passed on the copyright when they passed the photo along, they still own the copyright to it. That is the law.

The receiver doesn't get to share in the copyright.

If you come across a photo that was taken over 50 years ago, there is no copyright, no matter what anyone tells you. You can't purchase a 50 year old photo at auction and post it to a website and then claim copyright to it. The law doesn't work that way.

[spidge]

Unless the volunteers mentioned above specificaly passed on the copyright when they passed the photo along, they still own the copyright to it. That is the law.

I bow to your greater knowledge of the copyright law however it seems that is what these people have done albeit unwittingly.

This from post #128

Not in the case of TWGPP. The copyright of images sent to TWGPP are shared by the three parties. When this happens no one party owns the image. People sending in photos should be aware of this. If this matters not, then send away. Just clarifying for the record.

[swellal]

I bow to your greater knowledge of the copyright law however it seems that is what these people have done albeit unwittingly.

If the volunteer doesn't specificaly give the copyright with the photo, the recepient can't just claim it, so they can't unwittingly give it up because they have to specify it.

The copyright of images sent to TWGPP are shared by the three parties.

I'm not a lawyer, but the way I have read the law, you cannot share the copyright. If I take a photo and submit it to them, they seem to think they have a share of the copyright. What happens if I choose to send that same photo to 10 other websites who post it with no restrictions, or if I start selling prints myself, or even give prints away. Shared copyright can't work.

The photos on my website have been posted by me with permission of the photographers, or their representatives. Now the photos that are over 50 years old, there is no restriction on.

I would suggest that those involved, or even those who are concerned about this aspect of the issue, try doing a Google search on "Copyright Law" and do some independent research. There are some good sites that are hosted by law firms that explain it much better than I can.

[BattlefieldPhotographer]

Swellal,

I would recommend Googling the Berne Convention. All countries who were signatories have since amended their local laws to conform to it.

As for shared copyright, it does work. The missing element , not mentione so far, is a CONTRACT. There has never been a contract offered by any of the Projects. An internet contract most often comes in the form of "I have read and understand the rules....etc" and someone clicks a box and receives, most often, software. The party sending the software keeps this "click" on file. If the receiver violates any privisions as described, the provided can take action with weight. Otherwise all that happens is an argument.

[BattlefieldPhotographer]

Finally, people are quite happy to fork out £3.50 for a copy of the MIC, plus more for other records. Why is this so different?

Burlington,

May I respecyfully inquire how you determined folks are happy to dish out the above amount for an emailed image?

Gary

[DMcNay]

I find it hard to understand this "the cost of running the website means we have to charge". If the object was to make the photos available to all then there are ways and means of doing this without the charge for photographs - it CAN be done for free.

The Scottish War Graves Project uses free forum hosting software, and our images are uploaded to a free photo sharing site like Photobucket. These sites are available for anyone and everyone to use. Why are we the only ones to have thought of this?

I dare say we could go down the road of a flashy website, but then there would be a cost involved. I, however, prefer that the images we have on our site are free for anyone to take. The only thing we ask is that you acknowledge the source of the pictures.

I'm rather proud of the fact that since we launched we have asked for not one single penny from the members of our Project.

[BattlefieldPhotographer]

The Scottish War Graves Project uses free forum hosting software, and our images are uploaded to a free photo sharing site like Photobucket. These sites are available for anyone and everyone to use. Why are we the only ones to have thought of this?

DMcNay,

Don't wish to steal your thunder, only share it. What you describe above can also be found within FindAGrave.com. It costs nothing for someone to upload their photos, ten or ten thousand, and there are means for families to contact the contributor and receive the full resolution versions of the photos.

Gary

[DMcNay]

It's good to know that others are sharing information without looking for some form of financial reward.

My thunder, like my photos is available for people to help themselves...

[BattlefieldPhotographer]

Finally, the server costs of holding over a million images plus the visits, enquiries etc are very very high.

Martin

The total space required for 1.75 million images at 1 megabyte each is less than two terabytes. A one terabyte external hard drive costs at most $500 here in the States. Some have been seen on sale for $200. Now all one needs to communicate what is available in the way of images is a datasheet on the web. Excel .csv files are very small. Once someone can merely access a list and determine that their loved one has an image available of their final resting place, an email asking for the image is in order. At least that is more or less how I have been doing it for a couple of years.

[swellal]

But you don't load the hi-res photo on the website, just a lo-res version and keep the hi-res copy on a separate computer belonging to the project. They should only need about 10 gig of space to load 2 million photos of 50k or less.

There is no need to load the 1 meg version, besides, it would take forever to load a page for those on dial-up. 10 gig of space on a website isn't that big a deal.

[BattlefieldPhotographer]

But you don't load the hi-res photo on the website, just a lo-res version and keep the hi-res copy on a separate computer belonging to the project. They should only need about 10 gig of space to load 2 million photos of 50k or less.

There is no need to load the 1 meg version, besides, it would take forever to load a page for those on dial-up. 10 gig of space on a website isn't that big a deal.

I am aware they do not load the larger version. However 1.75 million megs equates to 1.66 terabytes.

[swellal]

I am aware they do not load the larger version. However 1.75 million megs equates to 1.66 terabytes.

Either you don't get the concept of loading lo-res photos or the math in the USA is different than Imperial math. Try 1.7 million times 50 k.

You don't post 1 meg photos, you post 50 k (or less) photos. You use less space on the server and your page loads 100 times quicker for the majority of internet users on dial-up.

It's obvious that this discussion is getting side tracked here. I don't have any bones to pick with anyone. I was trying to be helpfull in the beginning by offering advice based on my experience. Either I'm not getting my point across properly or there is something else going on here.

I support any project that remembers our heroes but not a commercial venture that is only bent on making a dollar at the expense of volunteers.

Consider this my last post in this thread.

[Kirkes Lamb]

I really think the guys who have spent so much time and their own money in setting up these various projects have done a wonderful job and I for one cant and wouldnt knock them.

I know I couldnt afford to do it and certainly havnt got the time to do it either and if I did, I dont hink my wife woulfd put up with it.

Simple gent (and ladies) - if you want to participate-participate! If you dont-dont, but dont waste any more time bickering about it for as you know, at what they are charging, there is no way they will make a profit for themselves!

Hats off to the Roll of Honour and WW1 Cemeteries sites too- they are funding themselves and do a great job too. I am sure forum members will tell us of many others too?

[Dragon]

Unless someone has access to the business plan of this project, no-one knows whether they are making a profit or not. For example, no-one has satisfactorily explained where the sum of £3 comes from. Why £3? Why not £3.25? Why not £4? Why not £1? Recycling the tired, vague and unsubstantiated statements about hosting, server, storage, etc, being very expensive doesn't answer the question. How much are these costing? People are volunteering their time and their images for which someone is making a charge. They are entitled to information about how the charge is justified.

Finding out about the likely cost of hosting, storage, etc is as simple as a couple of mouse clicks. Many people can make educated guesses. It's not a mystery. And the costs of websites have come down rather than gone up. Consequently, I am somewhat perplexed at the charge made.

The whole scale of the project - however many million images - was known from the start. It was predictable. Someone must have done some planning and arrived at the costs before embarking on the venture. Surely....? I'm afraid there is something of an air of making it up as they go along, which doesn't inspire me.

If the organisers don't want to come on the forum and defend themselves (and no reason why they should) and are happy to leave it to a volunteer spokesperson, fine, but they ought to explain everything transparently to their volunteers. As a recipient of their newsletter over several years, I haven't read anything to this effect. Unless the volunteer spokesperson has the business plan, he is unable to give the full picture.

It isn't possible just to say that the organisers are wonderful, public spirited, generous with their time, etc. I have no doubt that they are, but when volunteers are giving time and images freely, and people are being charged for those pictures, a level of accountability comes into it which isn't necessarily required of a self-funded, self-contained hobby.

Gwyn

[burlington]

Gwyn

I don't know who you mean by the 'volunteer spokesperson' but it certainly ain't me.

I am just one of the many volunteers and, to be blunt, I am getting a bit sick of people slagging off this project and I would echo Kirkes Lamb's comments in posting #148.

Accept it or reject it, that is your own decision and that of many of the people who have 'contributed' to this so-called debate.

Finally, and this is my very last posting on this Topic, whatever the volunteers do and spend (yes, we do spend our own money!!) for the Project is done in their full knowledge of what the Project is and does. The phrase 'They are entitled to information about how the charge is justified.' is frankly rubbish.

And, though it may not 'inspire' you, and you are of course entitled to this view, you are at complete liberty to wash your hands of it and retire quietly.

Martin