Copyright

Ok, I will narrow it down, who bought out Aviation Video International (AVI) and Aircraft Projects Production?

Anybody that bought the defunct company or the original owner ??????????????????????????????
Sorry, cant be more helpful than that.

John Dibbs 🙂

thanks for your fast reply.

best regards
Thomas

Try John Dibbs at www.planepicture.com

or Phil Makanna at www.ghosts.com

Best of luck, Mike.

Try John Dibbs or Phil Makanna…

Possibly a bit short of info. for a new member? 😀

Try John Dibbs or Phil Makanna…

actually this is a better link – re. the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary & Artistic Works – gives you further links to all sorts of interesting stuff re. international treaties etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works

Thanks guys for all your contributions to this discussion …

re. Copyright Extension – this from Wikipedia (re. US legislation) says there is no ongoing extension in the USA, merely a one-off from 50 to 70 years (and longer re. corporate authorship) that occured in 1998 – seemingly to harmonise with similar EU one-off extension legislation passed earlier in the 90’s (between 1993 and 1996 it says further down the linked page). There is of course nothing to stop this (one-off extension) being enacted again from time to time.

quote from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Before the act, an author’s copyright would last until fifty years after his death. After the act, an author’s copyright would last until seventy years after his death, while copyrights for works of corporate authorship would last 75 to 95 years. The act also affected copyright terms for copyrighted works published prior to January 1, 1978, increasing their term of protection by 20 years as well. This effectively ‘froze’ the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this act, no additional works made in 1923 or after, that were still copyrighted in 1998, will enter the public domain until 2019. Unlike copyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired. However, the act did extend the terms of protection set for works that were already copyrighted, and is retroactive in that sense. The act became Public Law 105-298 on October 27, 1998.

It certainly was not when I got involved in it.

That’s wrong.

Since 1988, copyright has been for 70 years after the end of the year of the photographers death. That’s the 1988 Designs Patents and Copyrights act. Pre 1988 it was 50 years since the date of creation. However, I believe copyright COULD be reasserted somehow.

Is copyright not renewable like patents? I’m not saying it is, I’m just asking as I don’t know either.

Agreed, I think you have to accept that if you load something onto the internet it is going to get lifted!

Melve

All true in the UK BUT the advent of the internet and the almost impossible task of prosecuting breaches on the net has made a mockery there – I have tried to charge 156 people with breaches of copyright over the past 5 years and not one case has made it to court. This is an issue that will never in my opinion be resolved. The net does not lend itself to this type of legislation.

Regards
John p

Copyright is a mess. The law depends upon when the item was prodiced and varies depending upon what that item was or whether it was made privately or under the Crown Copyright system.

There used to be a very good leaflet available at the Public Records Office that explained all this yet didn’t stop them claiming copyright fees on things that were no longer in copyright.

Photos taken by a serving member of the UK armed forces are Crown Copyright (according to the information I had from the Crown Copyright Officer) even if the person used their own camera and film. Therefore the photos that Great Uncle Rupert took in Palestine in 1946 are Crown Copyright, not his or yours.

From memory I think there was a law change in 1968 but Crown Copyright images are released from copyright on 31 December of the 50th year, therefore on 31 December 2005 all of 1955 came out of copyright. This again does not stop the Imperial War Museum, RAF Museum, FAA Museum, National Archives or others insisting that copyright fees are paid! I know they have costs to cover but they have no right to insist on copyright fees (they call it ‘reproduction’ fees but it is exactly the same thing.) Other countries do not do this, the Canadian National Archives inisted on just a photo credit when I used a pic from them. No fee, just the printing cost on the print.

You can transfer copyright but it has to be implicit. Buying an image DOES NOT give you the copyright even if you have the negative (the recent thread with the Mag Men pictures was a case in point, sorry Gary, they are not your copyright!).

I am not sure if you can reassert copyright. You should not be able to, after all it is copyright for a given period and altering that makes a mockey of the whole system, but one problem with copyright is that there in no definition of what “Public Domain” actually means!

As for the changes since 1986, they are confusing in some cases and the advent of the internet and some of the claims that have been made for photos used without permission is confusing it still further.

Rule of thumb is don’t post other people’s pics, post a link to them. As for wartime pics, post all you like, they are copyright free. If you quote from something then credit it, there is a line in the law somewhere that suggests you can use quotes to illustrate a point as long as the copyright is acknowledged.

Final disclaimer. All of this is from memory from some in-depth stuff I had to do about four years ago. It may be out of date but I am certain the stuff about pre-1968 Crown Copyright is correct.

Melv

Snapper

Hate to disagree, sort of but you are both right – but it depends on the Jurisdiction you are in USA, UK, NZ or Australia – all slightly different – just makes it worse to enforce.

Regards
John P

That’s wrong.

Since 1988, copyright has been for 70 years after the end of the year of the photographers death. That’s the 1988 Designs Patents and Copyrights act. Pre 1988 it was 50 years since the date of creation. However, I believe copyright COULD be reasserted somehow.

Gnome

This is one that we have been over lots and if you do a search here and at WIX you will find a lot on it. Essentially you are correct but in practice the advent of the internet has blown most of this out of the water. Sure you can still “bounce” someone who steals your Intellectual property but who do you prosecute, where do you start and do you have the money to do it.

Unless you are Bill Gates or you understand all the intricacies of each jurisdiction you are taking the action in you are effectively stuffed.

I do this for a living and in the real world if you are not abandoning your claims to you image or text don’t post it – simple as that I’m afraid

Regards
John P