I’m still of the belief, from what I am told/have read that Crown Copyright lasts only 50 years from the date of original creation of the work. So technically anything older than 1960 is still belongs to “the crown” but is able to be reproduced without the need for permission.

Example:

I am told that places like the PRO/IWN have simply rolled up their collections into a “product”. Effectively what you are paying them for is the right to reproduce images from their collection, i.e. their “product”.

I have a two prints of of a Miles Master at Farnborough. One copy of the print is produced from the IWN collection and stamped as such on the back. The other is an original 1942 Air Ministry issued press photograph marked as such on the back as Crown Copyright. Both prints are identical.

If I wanted to reproduce the IWM sourced image in a book I would be required to pay the IWN for the right to use the image from their collection.
However if I choose to use the original AM issued photo I do not as it’s from a source outside of their collection.

Again, you are only paying the IWN for access to the collection and reproduction of prints/media from it. If you manage to obtain the same picture elsewhere you own nothing to the IWN. The picture is and always will be crown copyright and that expires 50 years after creation.

I was told this by someone who had recently been through these hoops – They had published a photograph that the IWN recognised as being from their collection. The IWN approached said author, asked where they picture had come from. He said it was an original AM print he purchased from eBay and showed them it – complete with AM stamp and date of issue on the back. They quietly backed of – it didn’t come from them and the picture was out of copyright so they had no recourse.

I personally think the obligation would sit with the IWM or collecting institution to prove its claim, rather than the user be forced to prove his source.

Copyright expires under legislation, its not extendable or protectable by contract or agreement, these institutions are using reproduction agreements to limit use and circulation of their collections without due payment, a reasonable cost recovery for the operation of the archive and access service provided, however the bluff that they retain copyright is only that.

If a photo is clearly of an age that its legal copyright has expired, the IWM’s rights only exist if an author/publisher has:
1. sourced a copy of the image from them under a reproduction agreement

and 2. utilised it outside the reproduction agreement that was apparantly signed between the publisher/author and the IWM.

In my mind it is rediculous for public institutions to assume they are the only holders of copies of such images and to be trolling through publications trying to police usage?, other than where publications are re-using images previously provided for “single” use?

regards

Mark Pilkington