RE: Images of War
“1. To be in breech of copyright, you must have copied at least 10% of the entire book, this quallifies the owner to sue for misuse and claim loyalties for which they are entitled to.”
Wrong. You must have copied one image, or part of text. To photocopy more than 10% of a book for private use, then you are correct. You have, by the nature of putting something you have copied into a public place, broken the law. I suggest that you consult the 1988 Patents, Designs and copyrights act.
“2. As the pics are very common, one could say that they came from anywhere, they are freely available on the net as well as the book I got them from, so copyright doesn’t really apply here.”
Wrong. You copied them from a book. Apart from breeching the copyrights of the author / publisher, you have also breached Crown Copyright on some of these. That’s sounds like treason you fifth columnist you. Amount of times published does not remove copyright from the copyright holder. I suggest that you consult the 1988 Patents, Designs and copyrights act.
And before anyone jumps in with the 50 year rule, the images have come from a book – so we have infringement there if not on the originating photographer. Tricky subject. Thats why Boots get sued so often. Take it from a photographer who was threatened with being sued on monday for something that the act showed me to be in the right about all along.
Sign In
