Unknown – English Spitfire airplane

Dear Vin1,

Sorry your first post turned into a discussion, but please remembers that it’s not directed at you personally. The copyright discussion turns up on this forum from time to time; it’s something there are strong feelings about, because we all share a passion for historic aviation.

This forum have a large group of very knowledgeable members (not me, I’m just here to gawk at the anoraks) and they always share freely of the information they possess. Imagining it otherwise might seem odd, but it’s the natural extension of the current negative trend in personal copyright “enforcement”.

People here have spent years obtaining and processing information and in many cases have unique insight into certain things. This could be considered their personal information, just as an image could be considered a personal item. However, the information is always forthcoming and no question is ever asked about its use.

Many people in the historic aviation community feel likewise about imagery (there are also people who feel different, but I’m not among them and can’t speak for them). Owners of historic pictures should be considered merely custodians of the items, as they truly belong to history and our common aviation heritage. Also consider that very few actually holds the official copyright, possession is not the same as copyright ownership. If someone can use the image for anything, even commercially, there is no reason to withhold it from use, or demand specific copyright entitlement. These images, in their digital form, do not represent a value – unlike their period prints, which are collectables.

The US government automatically place any piece of work produced by its departments under public domain (unless otherwise classified). This means that every WWII image taken by a US serviceman is free for everyone to use. These include nearly every US image currently offered on Ebay – you are buying the print, not the image. Many of the images are even available for free online (in high quality), in the various libraries, including every NASA image and hundreds of images from the wonderful test-flight era of the 50’s and 60’s. Anyway, true public domain entitles anyone to use them, even to print them and sell them.

The official tendency, except for the Imperial War Museum (and please remember that IWM material from WWII is now also in public domain, as the Crown Copyright has expired), is to push these historic images online, so researchers have a decent chance of studying them, without traveling from one end of the world to the other. Currently many official collections are therefore being digitally processed and brought online for everyone’s pleasure. Personally I feel strongly about doing the same with private collections.

I hope you understand the feelings involved and don’t take the discussion to heart – deep down, we are all a happy bunch and always welcome new members.

Indeed – thread closed.

Bruce

Once again the forum welcomes a new member with open arms; for here lack of knowledge, or inexperience, are no hindrance to happy inclusion and the tactful sharing of information by the forum regulars that make those first few posts truly memorable…

…nice one guys! :rolleyes:

I was at the Tate Modern the other day, and I bought a postcard of Roy Lichtenstein’s ‘Wham’.

If anyone is interested in using the image for any commercial purpose, please contact me, since seemingly I now own the copyright ! 😎

Thank you Barry!

I can now sleep soundly, safe in the knowledge that my proprietorial interests have been valiantly protected by Spitfireman!! 😀

This one?

Just for the record, I “own” an identical copy of the same print Vin1. Sepia toned. Period image. Approx 10 x 8 inches. With a pasted on caption to the reverse (in German) and German PK censorship stamps. It is, exactly and precisely, the same image you have although showing a little more sand and sky.

folk really get bent out of shape over this, I mean, I’ve had photos nicked off the net before & used on other sites, really I do not give a monkeys.

Hear, hear.

I met one veteran once, and we spoke about pictures and credits to them. He didn’t even know you had to ask for permission or credit the photo in publications. He didn’t give a rats ass who used his photopraphs from the war, as long as it was for a good cause (books about veterans and the likes).

So I scanned his entire collection following another veterans collection. I have them on my PC. Lots of unpublished stuff. I even posted a whole bunch of them online. People started to call me about them, asking if I could share. At first I hesitated, as it was “my treasure”, but then I came to my senses and just shared and gave to anyone interested in this little special field of interest of ours.

FFS! you have been told MULTIPLE times that you do not own the ONLY copy of the print. It’s already in a frigging BOOK.
I don’t need to prove a damn thing to you. Stop being an argumentative prick.

Copies of photographs were shared around during and after the war. Several pictures I got hold of were just copies of other pictures. I’ve seen photos being credited to a wide range of people, from the air force to a family in Kent to some kid in Montana.

Think it’s quite settled now that this photograph can’t really be traced to the original source, so no need to plaster watermarks all over them. Spoils the fun!

Jesus – who cares? It doesn’t really matter. Haven’t you lot got anything better to do?

Yes, but I’m scared of posting photo’s now in case someone else says they own them:D

Regards,

kev35

Jesus – who cares? It doesn’t really matter. Haven’t you lot got anything better to do?

Oh Dear!

Vin. I really think you are making too much of this. You have been told that the exact same photograph already exists in a book. You own one copy of that particular image. Prints were probably widely circulated during the war. A Spitfire on the beach at Dunkirk. There may have been two printed, or twenty, or two thousand. The whole point is is that you will never know. And to be honest you own one copy of that image and you should be pleased. Just remember it is certain that there are other copies of that image about.

Regards,

kev35

What they are saying is that you apparently own ONE copy of the photograph. Other people apparently own other copies of it.

Who has the original negative?

Maybe it is better to prove me that someone else have the negative….
Or an copy of the photograph.
At least I already have an real photo from the ’40

So untill you prove me I am not the only one, I think this discussion is closed!

(this was my last reaction on this off-topic waste….I can use my time better that this…)

Yep, let’s just get on with it, I care not for copyright, never have, I’ve posted pics all over the place that weren’t mine, plus I have no idea who’s they were in the first place,in the rare occasions questions are asked I always blame an old mate of mine (Commander Powell) who went missing years ago:D folk really get bent out of shape over this, I mean, I’ve had photos nicked off the net before & used on other sites, really I do not give a monkeys.

If Vin1 wants to mark photos as his, no worries, if he wants to mark mine as his still no worries as in most cases they weren’t even mine in the first case, & I was just using them with Commander Powell’s permission:D

I have the photo here, so what is the problem?
Let them prove me, that the copyrights belong to someone else.
Then I will remove it…..
Until that, I do not see the problem….

What they are saying is that you apparently own ONE copy of the photograph. Other people apparently own other copies of it.

Who has the original negative?

And if someone likes, he must open an topic about copyrights…..

Such a thread is now open for business…..enjoy! 😀

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=96685

Yes, it certainly is…..it happens here from time to time!

Don’t take it personally…..we should be more gentle with our new members…

…how about it guys! :rolleyes:

Just stay on topic….
And if someone likes, he must open an topic about copyrights…..

Vincent,

I think what people are pointing out that you put “(c) Vincent van Rijn” over your photograph.

I think I understand why you did it – so that you could show people to ask the question without allowing anyone else using the picture themselves without asking you. This is totally understandable.

I think the confusion is that you’ve marked the photo as being copyright to you when in fact, legally you do not own the actual “copyright”. That would be he held by the original photographer or the person they were employed by at the time.

Anyway I think maybe it’s a case of things getting lost in translation 🙂

The best advice is that when posting pictures that you don’t want other to use, simply put a few red lines or other pattern across it so that it would be hard to reproduce and just not your name on it. Putting the copyright word or symbol on a picture you don’t actually own copyright too could get you into all sorts of legal trouble.

I have the photo here, so what is the problem?
Let them prove me, that the copyrights belong to someone else.
Then I will remove it…..
Until that, I do not see the problem….

This all is off-topic.

Yes, it certainly is…..it happens here from time to time!

Don’t take it personally…..we should be more gentle with our new members…

…how about it guys! :rolleyes:

Vincent,

I think what people are pointing out that you put “(c) Vincent van Rijn” over your photograph.

I think I understand why you did it – so that you could show people to ask the question without allowing anyone else using the picture themselves without asking you. This is totally understandable.

I think the confusion is that you’ve marked the photo as being copyright to you when in fact, legally you do not own the actual “copyright”. That would be he held by the original photographer or the person they were employed by at the time.

Anyway I think maybe it’s a case of things getting lost in translation 🙂

The best advice is that when posting pictures that you don’t want other to use, simply put a few red lines or other pattern across it so that it would be hard to reproduce and just not your name on it. Putting the copyright word or symbol on a picture you don’t actually own copyright too could get you into all sorts of legal trouble.

Yes, and you also WANT information from other people so you can use it in YOUR publication.

For what it’s worth I have seen that picture more than once on Ebay.

Peter

Whats your problem? The copyrights was from the begin on the picture in this topic. So if that was a problem to help me with information….Why did you give your help anyway? I do not understand that…..

Like I said, everyone can have an digital file of my photo. Just mail me…..
But I do not want to place my photo on the internet without my name…..