Hendon bashing – can you do better?

And inspired by Les’ use of the American spelling of ‘defense’ . . .

I shall have words with my editor about that slip up. Hope it didn’t color your reading of the piece.

But thanks for the correct use of the apostrophe. :rolleyes:

.

However, having said all that, the copyright laws in this country are complex and even arcane. Best to explore and pin down the details of your own need before commiting. Anything said in this thread should be regarded as advisory only, not a legal position. I mean, if you get into trouble it’ll do you no good trying to cite the Flypast Forum in your defense.

Probably the wisest words here! Although I’d love to see the FP forum as a defence aid in court. 😀

And inspired by Les’ use of the American spelling of ‘defense’ copyright is struggling to keep up with the 21st century. It does matter where in the world you publish and how, and the copyright law of that country may well be different to that which you expect. Many Americans think US copyright is international (it isn’t) and places like Canada and Australia which you might think have reasonably similar copyright laws to international stands – don’t. Australia has no ‘fair use’ clause for quotation as the UK (and others do) while right now, Canada is in hot water with the US over piracy currently due to it’s “arcane” copyright laws (in this case to do with DVD and game copying – but there’s problems elsewhere too). While I’m sure you are thoroughly familiar with the copyright of your country, what about the person from somewhere else who helped you out with pictures. What’s he think you are going to do? Make sure you aren’t exceeding someone’s expectation. 😉

Just some general observations.

Pondskater. It’s pretty much as I said in my post. Official photos are Crown, photos by individuals are theirs.

The NA statement “All material from The National Archives’ sources which are published, broadcast or displayed are subject to a reproduction fee” refers to a reproduction fee, not explicitly to a copyright fee. This is perfectly sensible as such an archive/organisation would charge an admin fee anyway (nowt’s for free).

Also, recalling my years as a Technical Author when I had to make, source and use corporate images. Any corporation, company, museum, and even individuals can purchase, or have passed over to them, the copyright rights to negative/print collections. (Albert may know about this aspect). If the copyright issue wasn’t negotiated at the time of purchase/transferr of the collection you need a better lawyer! :rolleyes:

Regarding images from WWII aircrew/personnel, and with regard to time limitations, any official image is Crown; with personal pics by/of/from these chaps copyright is theirs.

Regarding an image taken by an individual. If this individual took the image(s) in the course of his/her work, ie by being asked or tasked to take it by their boss, the image copyright is vested in the company they work for – same as any bright ideas an individual has during employment. I took a couple or three rolls of 35mm of the DeLorean car under developmant at Lotus (did the manual for the thing). They are quite interesting but I cannot readily reproduce them willy-nilly as the copyright is not mine. Even though the images were taken by me for my exclusive use at the time, copyright belongs to the company I worked for. It just so happens I held onto the negs when the company changed a few years later. :rolleyes:

However, having said all that, the copyright laws in this country are complex and even arcane. Best to explore and pin down the details of your own need before commiting. Anything said in this thread should be regarded as advisory only, not a legal position. I mean, if you get into trouble it’ll do you no good trying to cite the Flypast Forum in your defense.

.

wondered where the official line was on how I could use them.

Found it! 🙂

It is buried in the National Archives website:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/legal/copyright.htm
From this page download the “Full Copyright Guidelines” .pdf file and look on page 13. It explains that Crown Copyright expires 50 years after creation. (and thanks to Melvyn for the heads up on that one)

But Steve, since you are in the same position as me with former aircrew’s images, are they Crown Copyright?

The fun with photos is that copyright depends on the law in force at the time the photo was taken. But help is at hand. Look at:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-photo.htm

It explains that photos taken before 1 Jan 1945 are out of copyright (with only some rare exceptions)

For photos between 1 Jan 1945 and 1 Aug 1989 “the owner of the material on which the photograph was taken is the first owner.” Now that could be read to say that photos taken with RAF cameras and printed on Air Ministry paper are indeed Crown Copyright (see attached for example of the paper watermark) and therefore the 50 year expiry comes into play. Otherwise copyright is with the photographer and, if he has given you permission, you are covered that way.

But one small grey area still – the National Archives state that “All material from The National Archives’ sources which are published, broadcast or displayed are subject to a reproduction fee”. That may have nothing to do with copyright but be something entirely separate under contract law. The same probably applies to images from RAFM and IWM. And I know nothing about that – but possibly will fairly soon.

Thanks to James and Melvyn for some useful guidance which led to these sources. I like official sources.

Allan

Oh, BTW, the attached is from May 1945 and claims Crown Copyright so it’s OK to use it here isn’t it? :diablo:

thanks for the all responses to my query, the main reason for my concern is that as many of you know, my personal film project at the moment has involved me interviewed veterans and taking portraits of them. The thing is, I always take along the laptop and a pretty decent scanner and do high res scans of, with the veterans blessing of course, their images and now have over 500 archived and wondered where the official line was on how I could use them.

I think when the time comes Ill get the situation formally clarified by the relevant people,

thanks again,

Steve

Since my current project mostly uses 60 year old material this has all helped, although there are some grey areas I need to check, particularly what was in the fine print of the form I signed to get photos from the RAF Museum.

On the subject of crediting images – a lot are credited simply to acknowledge their source, rather than to assert a claim of copyright. A lot of people who let me copy their photos did so on the basis that they would “get a mention”. Many of those pics were printed on RAF paper with a Crown Copyright watermark. Even though they were personal snaps they could be claimed to be official – but if they are out of copyright now anyway its a bit academic.

Anybody know how to put these worms back in the can?

Allan

There was a very badly written instruction released recently that banned the taking of all photographs, by all means, by all Service and Civilians employed in the MOD of anything MOD. It was basically to stop un-censored photographs taken on duty in certain sand pits from reaching the public domain.

There was a similar situation here where a completely over-the-top prohibition on taking photos was erected at the gate of RAAF Williams at Point Cook. As the RAAF Museum is on the site, and the museum positively encourages visitors to use their cameras, some ~ah~ clarification was needed.

James and Brian, thanks very much for your positive posts. It’s just as I thought, a complete mess and farcical! As for ‘rubber stamps’ on the back of prints, I presume if it doesn’t have one or has been scanned and reprinted, it’s fair game! Much the same as a colour slide being remounted.
It’s pretty easy to prove a photo is yours if you have an exclusive photo opportunity and there was no one else there at the time, like an air-to-air sortie, but impossible with anything else. I’m not sure where we stand since the ‘digital revolution’ as cropping and Photoshopping can all play a part in dispelling copyright protection. A nightmare for all!

Albert, as far as I understand it the ‘rules’ given on Crown Copyright do not apply to any and all photos taken by any uniformed (or civilian) personnel with their own kit. The rules apply only to those photographs taken officially by the service photographic branch (ie, in the RAF, the Photo Section). Personal photos by all and sundry are restricted, yes, but only on a security basis, eg, we were not allowed to take photos of the QRA or nuke areas at Gielenkirchen – happened anyway!

But if Jog Bloggs takes a similar pic when on detachment or something, copyright will be his.
.

Phew, that’s a relief! Thank God common sense prevails, or I would have to recall all my books with my pics taken whilst I was in the RAF and those I have got planned!

Sorry, if I have missed something, but the whole issue is an unworkable farce with far too many ‘grey areas’. This is not doing RAF Public Relations any good.

Albert, as far as I understand it the ‘rules’ given on Crown Copyright do not apply to any and all photos taken by any uniformed (or civilian) personnel with their own kit. The rules apply only to those photographs taken officially by the service photographic branch (ie, in the RAF, the Photo Section). Personal photos by all and sundry are restricted, yes, but only on a security basis, eg, we were not allowed to take photos of the QRA or nuke areas at Gielenkirchen – happened anyway!

Consider, for example, the closing down of 39Sqn last year. There would have been a few RAF Photo Trade blokes dodging about with their digital Nikons – all their images are Crown Copyright and, if printed up, will be stamped as such on the reverse. But those photos taken by, say, Damien, will be DB’s copyright. Same for all those thousands of pics of sqn blokes lined up in front of their aircraft, you know, the Sqn Photo. These are all Crown Copyright. But if Jog Bloggs takes a similar pic when on detachment or something, copyright will be his.

.

Totally agree with everything you say Adrian, it is a very, very dark grey area. Being a Civil Servant, the photographs I take on MOD property can, I think, be classed as Crown Copyright. But then again they might not be. Depends on what you read or who you talk to.

There was a very badly written instruction released recently that banned the taking of all photographs, by all means, by all Service and Civilians employed in the MOD of anything MOD. It was basically to stop un-censored photographs taken on duty in certain sand pits from reaching the public domain. The way it was written though it brought up the situation that if I was to go on a base tour with a group of civilians, which I do, they could take and publish photographs of aeroplanes but as an MOD employee, I could not. I have heard, thankfully, that this instruction is being re-written.

As for your point b): If it is a Crown Copyright Photo then there ‘should’ be an official rubber stamp on the back of it giving the location and the date and it is the time from that date that counts.

Brian

Albert, I’d read it as the usual difference between law and application.

If the decide to catch someone, having a legal position that’s broad-ranging means that they can make it stick. But generally they don’t bother.

This has been debated so many times on this forum and always ends in confusion!:confused: Putting Crown Copyright rules down in a printed leaflet is one thing, but enforcing those rules is another matter.
a) How can it be proved whether a photo was taken by a serviceman in uniform or not?
b) How can it be proved if it was taken before or after 31 December 1956 if the subject was around before and after that date?
c) Of the hundreds and hundreds of photos taken by service personnel over the years and published worldwide, it is ridicuous to assume that MoD can chase after them for Crown Copyright fees! They would not know where to start and can’t imagine they have resources and staff to chase all over the world to do this!
d) If a photo is credited to ‘Joe Bloggs collection’, where do they stand?
Is someone in MoD going to trawl through thousands of photograph negatives to try and prove it is one of theirs and not ‘Joe Bloggs’, employ a solicitor and take him to court for non-payment of the Crown Copyright fee for one b/w photo.

‘Flypast’ regularly publish photos which are easily recognised as Crown Copyright, but credit them to ‘Flypast collection’. Where do they stand?

If a MoD PR photo was published and Crown Copyright fees were chargable, could the publisher make a counter-claim against the MoD for Public Relations & Publicity fees?

Sorry, if I have missed something, but the whole issue is an unworkable farce with far too many ‘grey areas’. This is not doing RAF Public Relations any good.

The information I shared was taken from an old PRO document (part of which appears to be quoted above) and from conversations with the Crown Copyright Officer. If you have a problem with the information please take it up with them.

however,

a) as in so many other caes, they cannot. Can you completely PROVE you took all of yours? Did you lend the camera to anyone? Did someone pay for the film (depending on when the photo was taken this can be an issue)
b) In most cases easier. Most Suez campaign photos were taken in 1956 as I remember.
c) they don’t but there are instances when people have published collections and started photo libraries. That is different
d) Joe Bloggs has no right to list that photo in that way if it is Crown Copyright. If it is out of copyright (after Dec 31 1956) he still cannot, as it has no copyright. Again, you are missing the point, rules is rules. How they are enforced is another matter.

Flypast. Most “Flypast Collection” photos that I have seen are pre-1956 and so see above. Out of copyright, no credit should be taken

Cross charging: In the real world?

It has nothing to do with RAF Public Relations. If anything the ignorance of the rules by such places as the RAF Museum is confusing things still further. As I said, I merely passed on the information given to me. If you don’t like it take it up with someone else.

Some grey areas?I take it the picture left little to the imagination then !

Glad someone was awake David, I sneak these things in and sometimes no one notices.

This has been debated so many times on this forum and always ends in confusion!:confused: Putting Crown Copyright rules down in a printed leaflet is one thing, but enforcing those rules is another matter.
a) How can it be proved whether a photo was taken by a serviceman in uniform or not?
b) How can it be proved if it was taken before or after 31 December 1956 if the subject was around before and after that date?
c) Of the hundreds and hundreds of photos taken by service personnel over the years and published worldwide, it is ridicuous to assume that MoD can chase after them for Crown Copyright fees! They would not know where to start and can’t imagine they have resources and staff to chase all over the world to do this!
d) If a photo is credited to ‘Joe Bloggs collection’, where do they stand?
Is someone in MoD going to trawl through thousands of photograph negatives to try and prove it is one of theirs and not ‘Joe Bloggs’, employ a solicitor and take him to court for non-payment of the Crown Copyright fee for one b/w photo.

‘Flypast’ regularly publish photos which are easily recognised as Crown Copyright, but credit them to ‘Flypast collection’. Where do they stand?

If a MoD PR photo was published and Crown Copyright fees were chargable, could the publisher make a counter-claim against the MoD for Public Relations & Publicity fees?

Sorry, if I have missed something, but the whole issue is an unworkable farce with far too many ‘grey areas’. This is not doing RAF Public Relations any good.

Melvyn, whilst not doubting your word, do you have any advice where this can be found in writing on a government publication/website etc. All the usual places that you would expect to find a clear answer on the commercial usage of such material (ie a book) has left me with more questions than answers,

kind regards and thanks.

steve

Steve

Hope this is of some help. The ‘Official Definition of Crown Copyright’.

Crown Copyright
 Crown Copyright is defined as works “made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties” (Section 163, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988)

 All literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works (including computer software) produced by officers or servants of the Crown (including the Armed Forces) in the course of their duties are Crown Copyright.

 The most obvious material covered includes reports, photographs and films, Regimental badges and other insignia.

 The badges, crests and insignia of HM Armed Forces are Crown Copyright, and not the property of HM Ships, Army Regiments and Royal Air Force Squadrons.

 MOD and Armed Forces personnel can copy MOD Crown Copyright material without limitation, provided that it is in the course of their duties and for official purposes.

 For substantial copying of Crown Copyright from other Crown bodies, the body in question should be informed. This particularly applies where a Trading Fund organisation is the issuing authority – i.e. one where income from their information products is relied upon to fund their existence (e.g. Ordnance Survey maps).

 Crown Copyright lasts for 125 years from the end of the year in which a work was created or 50 years from the end of the year in which it was published.

 In the case of photographs those over 50 years old go out of copyright. Thus a photograph taken on any day in 1953 will remain in Copyright until 31 December 2003.

See Exception 3 HERE

Here’s a thought – why not utilise the skills of a recently retired suitably qualified RAF Officer aged 50+ (ok, probably won’t have the Museum Studies degree or whatever, but the right person would come with tonnes of practical experience, and bring enthusiasm for the service, an appreciation of its history and ethos). Take him on as a civil servant, keep them in “uniform” if they so wish.

In return, a nice job based mainly in the capital, a decent salary to supplement the (retired Sqn Ldr) pension, and god forbid, you’d get a new face in as they would retire every 5-10 years…

Just a thought. I know of a couple of people who’d probably love to do it.

Job seeking

Mennie you should not be put off from sending a cv or application for a job where you do not meet all the requirements 100 percent. The job advert is a request for their ideal candidate, it is not always possible too find enough people for interview. Enthusiasm can come over in an interview.

Some grey areas?I take it the picture left little to the imagination then !

So, that would mean that the photos “FO Prune” shot of his girlfriend skinny dipping in the Adriatic in 1965 is also Crown Copyright. Wouldn’t that also mean that the Crown might find themselves the owners of good old fashioned porn…?

T J

I think there may be some grey areas!

Basically if he was in uniform then yes.

If he was out of uniform it is more likely to be porn . . .

As an aside, I was also informed that anything taken by a serving member of the forces, so pictures of a Lancaster taken by an erk, are also Crown Copyright regardless of who paid for the film or owned the camera.

MH

So, that would mean that the photos “FO Prune” shot of his girlfriend skinny dipping in the Adriatic in 1965 is also Crown Copyright. Wouldn’t that also mean that the Crown might find themselves the owners of good old fashioned porn…?

T J