MondarizIt 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.
MondarizJust 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.
MondarizMondariz – 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
MondarizThanks for the insights Scotty.
I remember a navy Lynx (Danish navy) which was dunked in the sea back in the 80’s. They recovered it pretty quick, but it had already serious gearbox and rotorhead corrosion. Despite the navy Lynx being desinged for operation in a salty environment (although normally above water).
MondarizIf you consider the size of wartime RAF (from pastry chefs to the Marshal), I think you might find that the majority never flew. Im pretty sure that there is even plenty who never wanted to fly.
Or are you thinking of pilots who never flew?
MondarizGreat job!
Am I right in assuming, that this is the static from Hendon?
MondarizI found another:
MondarizNaturally the women could do more than hold a rivet gun. Aviatrix Elizabeth L. Gardner of Rockford, Illinois, WASP (Women’s Airforce Service Pilot) pilot, takes a look around before sending her plane streaking down the runway at Harlingen Army Air Field, Texas.
MondarizFar 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 😉
MondarizNon-destructive training can be surprisingly destructive.
Good you got the pictures before they are ruined.
MondarizOh, 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.
MondarizPerhaps the Spanish Air Force should just take their unwanted gift back. 😉
As unexpected as the Spanish………:dev2:
MondarizIt 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.
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.
MondarizIt 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…
MondarizWell 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.
Sign In
