Question regarding copyright on old photos.

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

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.

So who would i contact to find out then please, can you help me on this if poss to find the right avenue to go down…….. The pics are so awesome it would be such a shame not to be able to share them.

I won’t name them but it is nice to know there are humans in these places who will help, although the subject of his exhibition/website obviously played a big part.

I’d second that. I’ve had remarkable support and help from many organisations, and if you are thoughtful, it is often possible to negotiate. (Some wouldn’t give you a hand if you were drowning, of course.) IMHO, it’s always worth opening a discussion.

On the other hand, even the biggest publishers can’t track rights on everything prior to publication, and some carry a disclaimer offering to rectify any accidental breeches. I don’t want to have to test it in court, but showing a ‘reasonable effort’ to establish rights prior to publication is a defence in law. That effort might net you a free copy & use, so it’s all good.

I can’t see how you can pay a CC fee, unless it has come from a museum or collection?

I would start with OPSI – Office of Public Sector Information, who, I believe, issue CC licences. Or better, might be to talk to a publisher who has done it! I haven’t.

Example, I have a 1954 Shackleton picture in my own collection that is Air Min CC, who do I contact and make a charge to?

My reading (I am not a lawyer and the final decision is yours;)) is that 1954 material passed out of copyright in 2004. However, were it 1958, you should make an approach and find out if licence fees are due.

But don’t stress about it, ask them for help. A good friend recently uncovered some photos he really, really wanted to use for a Holocaust project he was working on. The National Collection he found them in informed him there were no Crown Copyright fees due & waived their own licensing fees for reproduction rights. They then sent the prints and refused to take payment for having the prints done. I won’t name them but it is nice to know there are humans in these places who will help, although the subject of his exhibition/website obviously played a big part.

AK

Sorry guys as i started this all off again, but i dare not post the pics on if i may get in the brown stuff for it, also dad would want it all above board, military stylee bless him.

Julie

Also there is a slight difference when it comes to using existing Crown Copyright pictures which are obtained through a museum collection or archive (TNA, RAFM, IWM etc), as those institutions have their own copyright stipulations – personally I think that is where the issue gets cloudy, and I wouldn’t post a picture without relevant permission.

In general when you look closely they are charging you for reproduction costs (making one for you) and reproduction rights (using something they’ve provided) rather than dealing with actual copyright. If the same image comes from another source, such as via a private collection, you wouldn’t owe them anything.

Adrian makes several good points, too. Obviously publicity shots provided by a manufacturer or national body are expected to be used, and without payment, but that equally doesn’t apply to anything else released by the same body for other (not publicity) purposes.

Right, so am I reading it wrong that all Crown copyright pictures are free to be in public domain if 30 years or older?
I can’t see how you can pay a CC fee, unless it has come from a museum or collection?

Example, I have a 1954 Shackleton picture in my own collection that is Air Min CC, who do I contact and make a charge to?

I love this CC debate which gets raised every now and again. As an author and journalist, I have used CC photos and paid MoD, RAFM etc. for the priviledge. However, speaking to a very well known aviation journalist and author, he was shocked and said he has never paid any fees for CC photos, as they come under the ‘PR and fair use’ bracket and has never been chased for them. Now playing the devil’s advocate, in realiity, I don’t think MoD, IWM or anyone else, has the staff to pour over every magazine or book published and try and identify any photos that may be CC, or perhaps came from them. If you have a photo with a CC or IWM stamp on the back, what’s to stop anyone scanning it, making another print and then publishing that print? If either of these agencies decided to challenge this use, you could just show them the copy print with a blank reverse? With thousands of negatives on file,IWM or anyone would have a hard job proving the origin of any print without a stamp on the back.

As regards the use of colour slides, I have successfully challenged the unauthorised publication of one of my slides, by showing the publisher my sequence of original slides, all with Kodak processing numbers on their mounts, so there was no doubt where ‘his’ shot originated from. I can’t see any official bodies being so thorough.

Alan, what is the significance of the 1957 cut off date?

I think that might be something to do with the 1956 Act coming into force on that date – see IPO website But I really don’t know. I only obey the law, I don’t understand it.

AK

Edgar that only applies if the requirement was stated as part of the commision.

I did photography, during the 60s & 70s, and the understanding, then, was that copyright remained with the originator/negative, not the print. However, if the work was commissioned (e.g. a wedding) although the copyright remained with the photographer, he could not use the resultant print, without obtaining permission from the originators of the commission.
Edgar

I did forget to mention in this thread (although I have in the other), that I would annotate the photograph ‘crown copyright’ if it is within the past 30 years period, personally I would be happy to post a CC picture up from any period, but credit the picture.
Alan, what is the significance of the 1957 cut off date?

Also there is a slight difference when it comes to using existing Crown Copyright pictures which are obtained through a museum collection or archive (TNA, RAFM, IWM etc), as those institutions have their own copyright stipulations – personally I think that is where the issue gets cloudy, and I wouldn’t post a picture without relevant permission.

Hi Alan thanks for your help on this,

Photos from the Air Ministry, in common with Ministry of Aircraft Production and all other government departments, are covered by Crown Copyright.

Briefly, anything before June 1957 will be out of copyright (Pagen’s shorthand loosely covers that, although the Air Min survived until 1964. :))

A fuller explanation is in the handy guide Alan Clark mentioned before (post 8), the National Archives copyright guidance document (pdf format). There is a handy flow chart in appendix I which covers Crown Copyright material. More on copyright generally is available from the archives here.

As for whether people will copy them – yes some will sadly. They will be low resolution and you could write something across them to hinder copying, it is up to you.

HTH
AllanK

Can anyone get copies of them from this site of them though as dont want that really as only want to share with certain sites, if you know what i mean as they are precious,

also how do i upload them if i do lol

Post em, the Air Min dosen’t exist anymore:D
I think you’re safe, especially if they are old enough for that stamp.

What if the photo contains an air ministry stamp on the reverse stating that ti cannot be reproduced unless air minsitry permission has been obtained then?

As the ones i have have this stamped on the reverse of them. These were taken in the 1950’s – 60’s

Oh, dear – (Happy New Year!) – I seem to have transgressed?

I have not only offered photos taken by me while in Goverment Service, but also those taken by an AM Photographer 68 years ago, which I believed were out of Copyright.

Oh, dear!!

= Tim

ah yes Tim, but therein lies the rub… there is no one today enforcing any regulation dictating that the snaps you took are Crown Copyright… those are your snaps and will always be your snaps. Much the same for those of the early RCAFers whose snaps we’ve used in the most recent and forthcoming volumes…

There has been a few threads on AiX over the past year regarding copyright, they may help;

http://www.airfieldinformationexchange.org/community/showthread.php?t=1754&highlight=copyright

http://www.airfieldinformationexchange.org/community/showthread.php?t=1815&highlight=copyright

http://www.airfieldinformationexchange.org/community/showthread.php?t=694&highlight=copyright

Cheers