Copyright of old photographs

I asked the original question regarding copyright and official Crown photographs, with the aim of designing, printing and selling a simple postcard, featuring four historic photographs pertaining to an individual aerodrome.

In using any photograph, not taken by you, there are two issues to address: (a) acquisition and (b) copyright clearance (which itself concerns permission, accreditation and payment for reproducing the said image).

Acquisition

As you are aware there are several sources of ‘official’ photographs in the UK, including the RAF Museum, Imperial War Museum, Ministry of Defence (including the Royal Air Force itself and the Air Historical Branch) and The National Archives (the Public Record Office at Kew). I understand that most photographs held by these institutions are considered “Crown Copyright”.

Photographs (.jpeg) can also be secured independently from the internet or as photographic enlargements secured from a variety of sources (eBay to collector’s fairs, etc). Question: if I have an existing print of an image, whose negative is now held by the IWM (or other), do I need to contact the IWM (or other) and seek their permission or do I simply have to accredit the image as being Crown Copyright?

Copyright Clearance

Now, am I right in saying that if a photograph is over 50 years old, I technically do not require permission to use said image on a postcard, but it must be accredited to both the Crown and holding institution? Are monies payable for an image over 50 years old?

Any image taken within 50 years (after 1956) would require permission for me to use on my postcard, with monies payable to HM Government (or RAF Museum or IWM). Correct?

Payment is another issue. Now I don’t mind paying what is due, but if you use four photographs on one postcard, it all becomes extremely expensive, especially when you add on add in other factors, like print costs and limited demand. Am I right in saying that a fee is not payable for an image that is over 50 years old (pre 1956)?

Also, can a commercial photo agency demand payment for reproducing an image, whose negative is owned by the IWM or RAF Museum? I know of one agency who has a number of Crown Copyrighted images on their website.

My nightmare is that I reproduce four images on a postcard. The images are over 50 years old (so I don’t need permission to reproduce them (or do I?); from a variety of un-official sources; but are credited as being “Crown Copyright”; but then I get stamped on my the IWM, RAF Museum et al, because they own the original negative and they demand payment.

I hope someone can advise?

Phil Rhodes

The AJ Jackson collection website is run by David Jackson on behalf of Brooklands. The pictures are obtainable from David but the reproduction and copyright fees are negotiatated directly with Brooklands (Julian Temple).
It is a superb collection and I used a few in my book.

Likewise Old Git. Both 1Group and myself have included a couple of photos from the Collection for our forthcoming book on RAF Ashbourne and Darley Moor and they were more than helpful. As long as the photos were credited appropriately AND they were mentioned in the acknowledgments they were fine about it. That and us reciprocating with some free copies but that isn’t a problem! More than happy to do that.

We also found that the Caterpillar Club and Airborne Systems (Irvin Airchutes) were happy for us to use a promo photo of the gold Caterpillar tie-pin, free of use so long as it was properly credited. Again a reciprocal arrangement was made (they were quick to respond too!).

Interesting discussion, if only to show that the issue of copyright can be a grey area which I think is largely due to differing copyright laws in different countries. Perhaps one area where new authors/researchers (such as ourselves) may be tempted to “cut corners” is on grounds of cost. We found some superb photos of Albermarles which would have been perfect but sadly, the cost to use them is for us, for the time-being at least, prohibitive (there are, as many on here have found, plenty of other items when writing a book which can eat a meagre budget!). Sure, we could have copied them and used them anyway, but why take the risk!

I’m sure the more seasoned writers/editors can comment.

Chris

We have debated this issue MANY times on this forum and a lot of rubbish has resulted. However, this time round it it refreshing to read some genuine useful and interesting facts from Don and JDK in particular. As one who has published much over the years, I also have had experience of various copyright issues. However, publishing a copyright photograph without permission is one thing, but ‘proving’ ownership is quite something else. You can be stood side-by-side with someone shooting an aircraft and take identical shots. Could you prove which one is yours? Secondly in this wonderful digital age of technology, whereas an original ‘Crown Copyright’ photograph would be stamped on the reverse, these can be scanned, cropped and reprinted, so in effect it is not the same photograph. For anyone disputing that, run that photo through Photoshop and add a ‘spot’ and you have created a new image. Thought I would just play ‘devil’s advocate’ to see where we stand with that?

Ar you certain? With the expiration of CC the photograph is no longer copyrighted. This effectively means it enters the public domain (although it is by no means self-evident interpretation). It’s true that the expiration of copyright does not mean that the author’s intellectual rights, such as having his/her name credited with the photo, no longer apply. However, maybe it’s the original author of the photo that should be credited and not the CC.

/Martin W
The Spitfire Site

I was given this information directly from the horses mouth so to speak. To be honest, all I wanted was a ‘Yes you have our permission to use it.’ Beyond that I really did not care. Provided I had something in writing I did not delve too deeply. In fact the more I looked into it, the more complex it became.

Copyright does seem to be a grey area.
Where, for example, does the Brooklands Museum stand with copyright on the AJ Jackson collection. I assume that some of those photos were taken over 50 years ago but as far as I am aware the copyright was owned by the Jackson family and presumerably passed to the Brooklands Museum along with all the original negatives.
If copyright expires after 50 years then it appears anyone who acquires copies of photos from the AJ Jackson collection (from whatever source) can use them at will provided they can establish that the original picture was taken over 50 years ago.
If the aircraft pictured was scrapped / written off over 50 years ago then proving the age of the original photo would be easy.
Is this interpretation correct? If so it seems unfair on both the Jackson family and the Brooklands Museum who have, over the years, borne the cost of maintaining and storing a significant photgraphic collection.

The AJ Jackson collection website is run by David Jackson on behalf of Brooklands. The pictures are obtainable from David but the reproduction and copyright fees are negotiatated directly with Brooklands (Julian Temple).
It is a superb collection and I used a few in my book.

Martin’s quite right on his last point, from when I last looked into this particular side of things the copyright would still be held by the original creator unless the new work was substantially different from the original, rather than just a copy. A good guide to this sort of thing is “Copyright for Archivists and Records Managers” by Tim Padfield, he’s looks after (or did) these things for The National Archives.

If copyright expires after 50 years then it appears anyone who acquires copies of photos from the AJ Jackson collection (from whatever source) can use them at will provided they can establish that the original picture was taken over 50 years ago. If the aircraft pictured was scrapped / written off over 50 years ago then proving the age of the original photo would be easy.

In my opinion your interpretation is correct except for the duration of the copyright. It is only for Crown Copyright that the protection of the image applies for 50 years from the year the picture was taken. For all other photographs in the UK, including those taken by professional photographers and individuals, the work is copyrighted for the life of the author plus 70 years. For example, I believe that this would be the case with Charles Brown collection in the custody of RAF Museum.

Greyer heads may recall the nonsense of the 388th BG pictures that I scanned from an album held at the Swan Inn at Coney Weston. Taken by a US serviceman on duty in 1943 they were well out of copyright, but there was all manner of whinging from various directions in case the low res images I posted here were used by unapproved authors without permission. Now if you check the 388th web site you will see there is some odd ‘copyright’ notice that seems to imply the creation of a ‘new’ copyright since the expiry of the old one and to somebody who was not the creator.

A action wouldn’t stand an earthly under UK law as I understand it, but apparently works in the US.

In fact similar practices are fairly widespread around the world, only manifesting themselves in different ways. Many image agencies, museums, archives and private collectors have large stocks of pre-WW2 and WW2 images which have either already passed to public domain or will do so in the next few years. These have traditionally brought steady revenue to these organisations, meaning that there is an incentive in preventing or delaying their use in public domain. Some of these institutions try to limit user’s rights in other ways than copyright. One example would be requiring you to sign a form to get access to images, asking (in a legally binding way) to specify how you intend to use the material – and be charged accordingly. Another would be banning the copying of the material entirely, such as in the aforementioned cases. The third approach is making an impression that posessing a negative, high-resolution copy or similar entitles the owner to some special ‘new’ copyright.”

Purely an observation of course but, who owns the copyright if someone has taken eg a digipic of an original, especially where retrieval systems are concerned and the item can be downloaded to a computer but deleted from your card reader/sim card.

My 2 pennies here. Mere reproduction of a work does not usually mean that author of the copy gains any rights over the copied image or document. In US this has been tried in court in the publicised case of Corel vs. Bridgeman Art Library, which curiously involved also interpretation of the British law. The case itself was the result of Bridgeman Art Library questioning the right of Corel Corporation to reproduce high-quality photographic slides that the Library had made from original paintings which were in the public domain. The court established that the labour and judgement involved in the creation of a high-quality photographic copy of an image does not constitute new work subject to own copyright. There’s a good Wikipedia article on this case, but you will see that it really does not bring definitive answers to anything.

That’s more about the grey zones of copyright.

/Martin
The Spitfire Site

Copyright does seem to be a grey area.
Where, for example, does the Brooklands Museum stand with copyright on the AJ Jackson collection. I assume that some of those photos were taken over 50 years ago but as far as I am aware the copyright was owned by the Jackson family and presumerably passed to the Brooklands Museum along with all the original negatives.
If copyright expires after 50 years then it appears anyone who acquires copies of photos from the AJ Jackson collection (from whatever source) can use them at will provided they can establish that the original picture was taken over 50 years ago.
If the aircraft pictured was scrapped / written off over 50 years ago then proving the age of the original photo would be easy.
Is this interpretation correct? If so it seems unfair on both the Jackson family and the Brooklands Museum who have, over the years, borne the cost of maintaining and storing a significant photgraphic collection.

I have attached a pdf from the national archives which details copyright, there are two flow charts for Crown Copyright and Personal Copyright towards the end of the document.

Should help answer the questions.

Quoting Crown copyright

I was told that any Crown Copyright photo did not require permission to be used if it was older than fifty years BUT I had to acknowledge that it was Crown copyright in the book.

Ar you certain? With the expiration of CC the photograph is no longer copyrighted. This effectively means it enters the public domain (although it is by no means self-evident interpretation). It’s true that the expiration of copyright does not mean that the author’s intellectual rights, such as having his/her name credited with the photo, no longer apply. However, maybe it’s the original author of the photo that should be credited and not the CC.

The same applies for images comissioned by companies.

Properly crediting old photographs is a known pain in the … for archivists, and archives are frequently fairly liberal in their interpretations (see your LW example credited to CC. Wikipedia has a Charles Brown photo of Spitfire MK XII credited as a “work of US government employee”, just because the copy of the image was obtained from US public archive!)

Any further input would be appreciated. I’m still sorting out details of copyright legislation, and there seems no end to it.

/Martin W
The Spitfire Site

John, the type of media doesn’t affect copyright’s application.

Essentially, unless one is an employee (or commissioned) to take the photograph by someone else or a buisness, a photograph belongs to the person who clicked.

If you offered the photo to the BBC copyright was yours, but may be asserted by the BBC against anyone else (except you!)

But again, don’t listen to me, check the government website for the law.

Purely an observation of course but, who owns the copyright if someone has taken eg a digipic of an original, especially where retrieval systems are concerned and the item can be downloaded to a computer but deleted from your card reader/sim card.

I had this happen to me with the BBC when they took a digipic of one of my photos, they didn’t ask to take the pic and I didn’t object, just seems to be a bit of a grey area.

Some very interesting points made on this thread. It would have made my life a bit easier if I had known some of this a few years ago. The other issue along with copyright is cost (as mentioned by JDK). Some people/organisations were more than happy to let me use their photographs free of charge. Others quoted costs and agreements for use that would have put Shylock to shame. In fact, some of the prices I was quoted by a couple of organisations were nothing more than sheer greed and in no way reflected the value of the pictures themselves.

Greyer heads may recall the nonsense of the 388th BG pictures that I scanned from an album held at the Swan Inn at Coney Weston.

Taken by a US serviceman on duty in 1943 they were well out of copyright, but there was all manner of whinging from various directions in case the low res images I posted here were used by unapproved authors without permission. Now if you check the 388th web site you will see there is some odd ‘copyright’ notice that seems to imply the creation of a ‘new’ copyright since the expiry of the old one and to somebody who was not the creator.

A action wouldn’t stand an earthly under UK law as I understand it, but apparently works in the US.

Moggy

For clarity, James, I was particularly careful in my first reply to separately address a) copyright acknowledgment and b) source crediting.

Indeed. Just further comment, and my remarks re German material were directed to ‘Old Git’s’ post, and in addition to that, there are other issues regarding Axis material I’m not really au fait with.

On official reproduction fees, I have some sympathy with your views. However, I should point out that the Australian War Memorial has a very much more relaxed attitude to use of the AWM Photo Collection db online digital images.

That’s good to hear. Likewise the AWM was helpful in arranging a deal for the Stranraer / Walrus book.

All Luftwaffe copyright become the property of the West German Government (I don’t know about the East) after the war and then the property of the German government after reunification.

That’s what they’d like to to think. It’s not that simple.

She ended her e mail by saying ‘I give you permission to use it’.

That’s what matters.

Some good advice above, I’d just add that a credit for a photo isn’t (necessarily) a copyright attribution, it’s just saying where the photo was obtained from.

There’s screeds of rubbish written and misinterpreted about copyright. Two things are worth knowing. The law in your country is based on publicly available data, on the Internet, available with a usually brief search. Secondly it’s unlikely that someone in our arena will get taken to court, although it happens. Demonstrable effort to provide credit and locate copyright holders if you are unlucky enough to get taken to court is helpful.

The deliberate obstruction of proper source and ownership with ‘Xxxxx Collection’ is a mean approach, used by many magazines, and along with the absence of a credit is (IMHO) not professional or helpful.

The demand for significant sums of money for publication rights (not copyright) for state owned photographs by organisations such as the IWM, Australian War Memorial and RAF Museum ensures that many interesting and often privately donated photographs will never be published because publishers can’t afford to pay as much as these monolithic institutions demand. 😡 (Sometimes deal can be struck, but it is an indefensible ‘tax’ IMHO.) The US model is in this case unarguably better.

The RAF Museum’s photographic library remains closed for obtaining copies (you can look, but you can’t buy) and is another disgraceful aspect of that museum’s continuing mismanagement.

Photographic Collection

The Photograph Collection of the RAF Museum covers the history of British military aviation. It contains about 250,000 images in a variety of formats but most are black & white prints.
Royal Air Force Museum Collection
The collection covers the history of aviation in Britain from the 19th Century to modern times. The earliest photographs show the Royal Engineers’ ballooning activities from 1890 to 1893.

Charles Brown Collection
The aviation photographer, Charles Brown, was active from the 1920’s to the 1960’s. His collection of aviation photographs is one of the largest compiled by a single photographer.

British Aerospace Kingston Collection
The British Aerospace Kingston collection covers the history of the Sopwith, Hawker and Hawker-Siddeley companies especially at the former factory in Kingston-on-Thames.

The Royal Air Force Museum is unable to supply photographic reproductions.

Because of limited staff resources in our photographic department and the need to target remaining resources on the research for the National Cold War Exhibition being built at Cosford we cannot, currently offer a reproduction service. We are sorry for any problems this may cause.

Two years + of core service failure – and counting. 😡

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/collections/photographic/index.cfm

Rant over.

It may be worth double checking on Crown Copyright. I had a photograph stamped ‘Crown Copyright’ on the back which was a Luftwaffe Target photograph of RAF Turnhouse from early on in the war which I used in my book on the History of Edinburgh Airport. I was told that any Crown Copyright photo did not require permission to be used if it was older than fifty years BUT I had to acknowledge that it was Crown copyright in the book. Any photograph which is Crown Copyright less than fifty years old required specific permission for it to be used. I don’t know if this has changed from 2006.
The Luftwaffe photograph bothered me as it was obviously taken by a Luftwaffe aircraft so I contacted the German Embassy who out me in touch with the responsible department in Germany and the lady there informed me in no uncertain terms that the picture was taken by a serving member of the Luftwaffe in a Luftwaffe aircraft using Luftwaffe equipment and that it was nothing to do with Crown Copyright. All Luftwaffe copyright become the property of the West German Government (I don’t know about the East) after the war and then the property of the German government after reunification. She ended her e mail by saying ‘I give you permission to use it’.

Don

Your analogy of Crown Copyright and Copyright seems spot on. In the RAF we had some weird rules regarding photography, squadron lines were generally no-go areas for cameras due to The Official Secrets Act but cameras in a fitters toolbag was often the case:p But whilst at Wattisham on the Frightnings I never took one pic, otherwise mind yer fingers CLANG, although a lot of bods did take them.

This was always on Air Ministry property and as you say subject to CC, however at Colombo Airport ostensibly this was a RAF Airfield RAF Katunayake, but this was shared with The Royal Ceylon Air Force and The Civvy Airlines so everything was considered fair game.

A passenger on a Super Connie of QANTAS could take a picture of say 4 Vulcans passing through, I would like anyone to try to take my slides and pics off me:D