Author Topic: Crown Copyright  (Read 4091 times)

Offline acorngen

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,222
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Copyright
« Reply #9 on: Thursday 31 August 06 22:58 BST (UK) »
I really see no difference in dating of stratigraphy and the artefacts within it and the dating of text.  I also fail to see how I have proven your belief.  You see you used the terminus ad quem for the date at which the photo must have been taken when in fact it could have been taken 20 years later and utilised old photographic paper which had been pre stamped.  This was and stil is my argument that your use is incorrect and I would think terminus a quo would have been better in this case as it is a date from which the photo must have been taken :)

Rob
WYATT, COX, STRATTON, all from south Derbyshire and the STS, LEI border Burns Fellows Gough Wilks from STS in particular Black Country and now heading into SOP

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Stovepipe

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 904
  • Daddy Stovepipe
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Copyright
« Reply #10 on: Friday 01 September 06 00:42 BST (UK) »
Hi Rob,

I can't really see much point in continuing this thread - it's now gone way off-topic and your perverse refusal to comprehend simple statements leads me to suspect you of trolling (despite the smiley).

But just in case you're not, I'll yet again try to explain the situation in as simple a way as I can.

My "belief" (as you call it) is that terminus ad quem and terminus a quo (for upper and lower limits, respectively) are standard terminology used by scholars of literature engaged in dating texts and other documents.  It may not be the terminology used by archaeologists, but the two disciplines are different despite your failure to see it.  Forgive me if I'm not swayed from my "belief" by your assertion (which I'm happy to accept) that the other terminology is used in archaeology.  I've read enough academic works concerning themselves with dating texts to be sure of the correct usage.

A photograph is a document of sorts, so I used the term that applies to documents, not pottery shards.

Look at your own example again (it uses my term in the context of dating a manuscript) and ask yourself if a manuscript is a document or not.

Please read closely my original use of the Latin term, and permit me to paraphrase it thus: Can the copyright notice be used as a terminus ad quem for the photograph?  Do you really argue that this is incorrect usage because the answer is "no"?  If so I'm at a loss to understand you.  If I was colourblind and asked "is the ball red?" would my use of the word "red" be wrong if the ball was found to be green?

I hope that's clarified things for you.  But if not, please don't expect me to be drawn again.  Feeding time is over.

Regards,
Stovepipe
Census information is Crown Copyright: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline acorngen

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,222
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Copyright
« Reply #11 on: Friday 01 September 06 04:21 BST (UK) »
Stove,

I will say no more as it seems your lack of understanding of what a date before which and a date after which is on show.  Also your lack of understanding latin is also.  I dont see any difference in dating Sherds ( note the E not the A ) and dating text.  We both use typologies and we both suggest dates after which and before which occur.  The Latin quote you made is one which defines that the photograph cannot be after 1940 because of the date on it but I would and do argue that this is the date at which the photograph cannot be before.  With this in mind the terminus A quo is the correct terminology and not the AD.  As you say this as drifted off topic and should stop.  As for your belief that I am a troll you really don't know who I am and should maybe get to know the poster before you make such disparaging remarks.  But so you know.

I am a pro genealogist who gives his time and experience on these boards freely.  Yes I use the wanted boards for my commercial activities but not to offer research for a fee.  I have been a gen hobbyist for over 20 years now and a pro for a quarter of that time.  I am also a fully qualified archaeologist which really for these boards is not important.  Whilst I may not be totally conversant with Latin I am able to get by and I do read Historical Latin ie that from the Firts 420 years of what we in Britain call the historical period.

Anyway back to the original question.  Croen Copyright exists on anything produced by any of the govermental bodies.  Under the recent white paper anything that as not been previously published as the copyright waived for non commercial uses. 

Rob
WYATT, COX, STRATTON, all from south Derbyshire and the STS, LEI border Burns Fellows Gough Wilks from STS in particular Black Country and now heading into SOP

Offline Kernow13

  • RootsChat Pioneer
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Crown Copyright
« Reply #12 on: Monday 05 March 18 14:55 GMT (UK) »
Hi,

There is a simple and fairly straightforward explanation for this. Most soldiers, airmen or sailors with their box brownies or later cameras could hand their roll of film into the photographic department on their base to be processed (but probably not during a war). This brought the department a little extra income, kept their skills up and was a convenience for the service personnel. It also allowed the authorities to make sure that personnel were not photographing anything they shouldn't. The snaps came back with 'Crown Copyright Reserved' on the reverse as standard. This perk no-longer exists

So you can speculate two-things about these family photographs - the photograph was taken in peacetime and was taken by someone in the British Armed Forces. Hope that helps.