Copyright go hanged!!

Thought you would all be interested in this link – seems to cover most things:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/copyright

Hope this helps some of you.
Kelvin

Not a bad discription, but they fail somewhat on the “Fair Use” doctrine.

Remember that “fair Use” is US legislation only.

There have been cases about websites using pictures. Some have been judged to be Fair use, others have been judged to be outside fair use (illegal).

There is no fixed difinition of fair use, as its not a law as such, but an “opening” in copyright law, so people can use otherwise copyrighted material (parts of it) to review and discuss its content in another context.

The main idea is that the fair use has to be creative. You can’t just copy a picture, without using it in some connection with the original publication.

Any fair use situation can be tested in court. There is no pre-arranged rules and regulations, so each case has to be judged on its own.

In that light, you should see “Fair use” as a defence. Something to reply if accused of copyright infringements. Its not there to protect the copyright holder.

The main factors in deciding if use is fair are:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Using a private picture of an aircraft, to discuss this aircraft (or the situation in wich the picture taken) on a web based forum (educational purpose) is likely to be considered fair use, in particular if due credit is given to the creator.

However, only a US court can rule if it is or not.

Far too cheap…

I guess asking for autographs purely to resell them is another kettle of fish altogether. They are also copied shamelessly (just try search Ebay) and its pretty hard for collectors to judge (i would think).

I would feel pretty well fooled (to put it mildly), if i was someone people asked to sign pictures, and then found them for sale the next day.

Which is why celebrities from films and tv now sell their autographs at events like Memorabelia. Too many of them were finding out that some sellers were making hundreds of pounds off autographed pictures that they had sent out free on request – “I am one of your greatest fans, could you send me 7 autographed photos for me, my 3 brothers, my aunt Fannny and 2 of my cousins” and not including names so that they were sent undedicated. The celebs also sometimes paying the postage because the “askers” didn’t provide any return postage.

That is one reason Sean Connery gives for not signing autographs these days.

Copyright

Thought you would all be interested in this link – seems to cover most things:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/copyright

Hope this helps some of you.
Kelvin

It appears the photographs are covered by the first publication rights unless they once were protected by crown copyright (in which case you can’t get first publishing rights).

The original text was very specific about photographs everywhere else, but not in the section about publication rights. However, studying Council Directive 93/98/EEC reveals, that this is most likely the case, although only inside the EU.

All this means, that any website outside EU can reproduce photographs not otherwise protected by copyright. You might also find your photo collection included in an american book on the subject, as they don’t recognise first publication rights.

Just to round this up (for my part anyway), here is the British copyright legislation regarding photographs from the world war II era:

Ownership of photographs taken before 1 January 1945

The only way in which copyright can exist for such photographs is where it has been revived.

There are different rules which could affect who owns revived copyright.

Where the person who owned copyright when it expired was still alive on 1 January 1996, that person will own revived copyright. However, where that person died before 1 January 1996, it will generally be the photographer or his personal representative who owns any revived copyright.

Duration.

Photographs taken before 1 January 1945

For such photographs, copyright would have expired on 31 December 1994 or earlier. However, if such a photograph was protected on 1 July 1995 in another European Economic Area (EEA) state under legislation relating to copyright or related rights, copyright would have been revived from 1 January 1996 to the end of the term applying to photographs taken on or after 1 January 1996. In deciding whether a photograph was protected in another EEA state, it is, of course, the law of that state which must be interpreted and the criteria used to decide whether a photograph should receive any protection at all would need to be considered very carefully.

The state where the longest copyright protection may have existed on 1 July 1995 is Germany, which generally had a term of life plus 70 years, but it is likely that not all photographs which qualified for copyright protection in the UK would have been protected in Germany. Copyright law in a number of other EEA states could also have given a longer term of protection for a photograph than in the UK.

Where copyright in a photograph was revived on 1 January 1996, there are transitional provisions and savings for those who were exploiting or want to exploit the photograph.

For private pictures this generally means, that if the copyright owner died before 1996 there is no copyright protection in place.

Furthermore, you do not recieve copyright protection by simply owning a photograph, unless this has been specifically granted by the original copyright owner.

Pictures from that era with no known copyright owner, is likely to be considered used (if used in a non-commercial way) under the fair dealing exceptions to British copyright law. In particular when the use would not have inflict an economical loss, if the photograph is found to be protected by copyright.

Publication rights.

AMENDMENTS OF THE COPYRIGHT, DESIGNS AND PATENTS ACT 1988

16.—(1) A person who after the expiry of copyright protection, publishes for the first time a previously unpublished work has, in accordance with the following provisions, a property right (“publication right”) equivalent to copyright.

16 -(5) No publication right arises from the publication of a work in which Crown copyright or Parliamentary copyright subsisted.

16 – (7) In this regulation a “work” means a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or a film.

This means that photographs are not covered by the first publication rights.

All in all the above is just meant to inform people about their rights to wartime material they use on their websites. Even if people use copyright notices and other copyright marks, this can’t legally prevent others from using the material.

Maybe I should stress, that I’m not posting this to cover my own tracks, or to make it a “free for all”, as I have no intention of using pictures, where the owner specifically has asked people not to use them (even if this has no legal base). Its purely so people are informed about their rights, when posting their wartime pictures online.

Mondariz – got into this post a little late but something you posted above regarding photos taken by USAF personnel “…during a person’s official duties …” is NOT correct.

The phrase you quoted pertains only to official military photographers acting in such capacity, and does not apply to personal photos taken by individual military personnel even if taken while on active duty. Their private photos are NOT entered into public domain but are covered by copyright.

No it pertains to any serviceman who in the line of duty has created the material. It could be debated if a pilot taking a picture of his aircraft, is creating the image in such an official duty. However, even if considered “private”, the image would by now be public domain, as:

“Prior to 1978, works had to be published or registered to receive copyright protection.”

Protection was not automatic, or even if registred for copyright protection:

“Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain.”

In the above text you can substitute “registred” for “published”, as seen in the text further up.

By 1978 the new legislation provided default copyright for any work (also if created before 1978). However, this was a 28 year copyright only, unless the work was renewed.
So any US wartime picture, that was not renewed by 2003 is now public domain. Be they published or unpublished.

On a side note: All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain

Wikipedia link, with links to the actual legislation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Duration_of_copyright

USAF Public Domain

Mondariz – got into this post a little late but something you posted above regarding photos taken by USAF personnel “…during a person’s official duties …” is NOT correct.

The phrase you quoted pertains only to official military photographers acting in such capacity, and does not apply to personal photos taken by individual military personnel even if taken while on active duty. Their private photos are NOT entered into public domain but are covered by copyright.

Far too cheap…

I guess asking for autographs purely to resell them is another kettle of fish altogether. They are also copied shamelessly (just try search Ebay) and its pretty hard for collectors to judge (i would think).

I would feel pretty well fooled (to put it mildly), if i was someone people asked to sign pictures, and then found them for sale the next day.

You should set of your own Ebay shop selling signed pictures of yourself 😉

Thats why it only got £38.00, then, Tim. Now…..had they described you as a Hurricane ace…!!;)

No hijacking involved, Modariz. And thanks all for a useful discussion. I’m sure that I’m not the only one to gain.

I don’t know about photos, but after 30 years in the Fine Art Trade, I do know that signed prints can fetch good money – four figures for multi-signed ones.
This one only, eventually, fetched £38 – I was deeply insulted – especially as I was described as a Spitfire ace!!!

= Tim

Why don’t we get back to basics? If it’s not yours don’t use it. Ask first. Then you don’t get into any copyright or other issues. However I do realise that common sense seems to be less than common these days.

Speaking as someone who writes (primarily for the cash! but also for the enjoyment) it has annoyed me to find some of my articles appearing on the most obscure websites you can imagine without permission. What is even worse is that at least one article involved protracted negotiation with photographers to get rare prints published which were then scanned and distributed across the net without my permission or the photographers. So if it is on the net it does not necessarily mean it is open for sharing.

In New Zealand (probably different elsewhere) copyright for photographs expires 50 years after the death of the photographer. After that time, the images can be freely distributed.
We were fortunate in having a fellow called Leo White who combined interests in aircraft, aviation history and photography to create an unparalleled archive of New Zealand aviation-related photographs and written material spanned the time from the late 1920s to the early 1950s. Leo died in the mid 1950s.
After his death the bulk of his collection passed to a commercial firm who allowed access but charged seemingly high prices for any copyright release.
When the 50 year time span expired, this material was passed to a museum collection and a lot of it has made its way into private hands where it can now be fully appreciated.
This system would seem to have the dual benefit of allowing the original photographer and his/her immediate descendants to enjoy the fruits of the work during their lifetimes and also allow later researchers access to that material without a crippling financial penalty.

On the hotlinking “bandwidth leeching” issue, I don’t know the legalities of it (I doubt it is illegal, more of a policy/irritation issue – some websites encourage it, others forbid explicitly). The way to solve the problem is with server settings – it’s possible to make a server display a substitute image if an image is hotlinked. This can be either in the form of an advertising image, something that will embarass the hotlinker or something else!

Oh, dear! – did I start something? Just as well to know, though??

Although I’m a bit ‘touchy’ about a painstaking creation of my a/c, I suppose that a photograph can be viewed as such a creation. And I suppose that I would be a little offended if someone used one of mine for gain.

= Tim

Sorry Tim, I did not intend to hi-jack your thread, I just got carried away.

Your original post seem to be about a genuine breech of copyright, as the artist is unlikely to have published it under another licence.

I understand people feeling odd about other people having financial gain from their image, but that is also very unlikely, as there is very little money in aviation photography (besides for a few professionel photographers). If you never made a dime on your aviation pictures, its unlikely anyone else will.

Again, consult your artist friend, to see how he would deal with it, if it happens again.

Oh, dear! – did I start something? Just as well to know, though??

Although I’m a bit ‘touchy’ about a painstaking creation of my a/c, I suppose that a photograph can be viewed as such a creation. And I suppose that I would be a little offended if someone used one of mine for gain.

= Tim

It is legal to copy profetional photos that are pre 1985 (I think, might be earlier) as long as they are of family members, this law was changed a few years ago.
I get around having my shots nicked from my site by putting relativly low grade images on, they look good small but any bigger then they are quite poor.

Phill
www.outflankeduk.com

Thats a solution, but you realise that you are lowering the quality of your website, to protect images, that might never be stolen/copied/misused anyway.

Most of your pictures are non-specific aircraft pictures (im not talking about the quality, they are good pictures), which people can get for free on other sites. Few people, if any, would use copyrighted images, if they can get similar pictures without copyright.

A simple copyright notice should work just the same, and should one or two pictures end up somewhere else, I would truely fail to see the big deal.

It seems people somehow consider their pictures a hidden fortune, which evil pirates might make a royal fortune from, unless they are protected by all means. The truth is, that most of our aviation pictures are pretty common and available with no restriction somewhere else. There is not going to be a huge influx of aviation image criminal gangs, who search the internet for aircraft pictures.

If you find your picture used for advertising something, then I might understand, but if someone uses one or two for a private website…..I simply cant see the problem.

It is legal to copy profetional photos that are pre 1985 (I think, might be earlier) as long as they are of family members, this law was changed a few years ago.
I get around having my shots nicked from my site by putting relativly low grade images on, they look good small but any bigger then they are quite poor.

Phill
www.outflankeduk.com

It sure is, but its a view, not anything legal. Im pretty sure I can find plenty articles dealing with the issue from another point of view.

What these sites are concerned about is loss of advertising revenue, not bandwith “stealing” as bandwidth is also used when visiting the site (more even, as you also load all the extras).

People posting on flickr and youtube have agreed to the hosting terms, which also include inline linking. Further more those people are not loosing advertising revenue. They recieve a free hosting service.

If people are concerned about this form of viewing internet content, they should take preventive measures against it, not blame the internet.

The world wide web is a content linking technology, a system of interlinked hypertext documents and files accessed via the Internet.

No amount of moral high ground can change that. If you put it online, people can legally link to it using the means of the technology, including inline linking. You might personally choose never to use inline linking, but you have no basis for enforcing this personal view on others.

However, as a site owner, you might not want users to use inline linking on your site (not from your site, but to your site as I showed above).

I would actually like a moderator to add the Key Publishing forums official policy regarding inline linking. As I naturally would follow forum policy. So please…

This is an interesting view on hot linking –
http://www.webweaver.nu/html-tips/hotlinking.shtml

Well it may not be an issue for you, but if I’m paying for web hosting by the megabyte and a chunk of what I pay is for others to display MY content on THEIR websites without paying a penny for the data transfer then I can assure you it’s an issue for me!

What’s the difference between ‘hotlinking’ to Wikipedia data and ‘hotlinking’ to a photo on another’s website? It’s all ‘content’ whether it be words or pictures and still bandwidth theft no matter what the content.

The wikipedia example i mentioned are sites like answers.com which is basically just a complete wikipedia with another name. This is legal because there are basically no restriction on wikipedia material.

If someone did the same with say BBC news, then they are likely to get in trouble, as court cases have gone against such full scale linking. This is linking on a commercial scale, rather than inline linking of an image, or a video clip. Both flickr and youtube actually encourage people to use inline linking, so as to lower trafic on the main site (as you only download the actual content, instead of visiting the site). These are the terms people agree to, when they post on sites like that (keep that in mind).

When you choose to host something and pay for bandwidth, there is always the possibility that you will exceede the limit. Either by people linking directly, or by inline linking. It is up to the owner of the website, to take measures to prevent inline linking, if they don’t want it. The web works by linking and one way or another, you might get more trafic than originally designed, there is no way of preventing this (well, you can use a printed media), besides using password protection and user areas.

It might be an issue for you (it would be for me too if I had to pay for hosting, but I would take measures to prevent bandwidth “overrun”), but its perfectly legal and something people should consider before choosing to put their material online. If its online people might decide to view it and thus using your bandwidth.

Because you consider it theft, it does not make it theft in legal terms.