Copyright question, please?

[SmallTownGirl]

Have you sought legal advice?
JM

No, it's just something I'm curious about.  It's the fact that the images are so old, i.e. 100years+, that got me wondering.   

[KGarrad]

Generally speaking, copyright ownership remains with the creator.
It stays with them until 70 years after the death of the copyright owner.

But, having said that, copyright is a legal minefield!

Essentially you do not have the right to copy an image you find on the internet, unless you get permission to do so.

[majm]

Have you sought legal advice?
JM

So why don't you ask the website owners for their permission to use the photo ... you may find they are willing to share, subject to specific terms and conditions that you may be happy to agree to.

JM

No, it's just something I'm curious about.  It's the fact that the images are so old, i.e. 100years+, that got me wondering.   

Sorry for typing reply in middle ... I am a novice with new e reader   

[SmallTownGirl]

Thanks for all the replies peeps.  Been very instructive.

STG 

[confusion]

Copyright subsists in intellectual property for the lifetime of the author/artist/photographer etc
and seventy years after their death. Sometimes copyright is owned by a corporate entity
this also lasts for the lifetime of the company and seventy years afters it's demise.

Perpetual copyright is possible via corporate entity who can re-assign copyright to
a new owner in the event of the sale of any undertakings (i.e takeover of assets).

The late Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatles songs amongst others, 
in 1985 from ATV Music for $47.5m. Michael Jackson's estate sold them to Sony
in 2016 for $750m.

If in any doubt, contact the website owner for permission/license to use the said work/s
In most cases all they might ask for is a credit for it's use.

Copyright law is very different throughout the world and what would be acceptable
wherever you are maybe unlawful elsewhere.

Jim


 
 

[Mike Morrell (NL)]

Copyrights to photos is a complex subject so if you're able to come to sort of 'limited use with attribution' agreement with website-owner, that's always preferable to copyright wrangling.

A good overview in the UK is at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works. The first answer to any questions about photo copyrights is usually "it depends".

In general, Malky's right. The photographer (or his/her employers) normally hold copyrights to the content of the original photo. One or more prints/copies of these might have been made over time but these don't affect the copyright. So the website owner is unlikely to be able to claim copyright of a 'photo found in the attic'.

Two possible exceptions are:

• The website's owner's ancestor in the WW1 photo was also the photographer (or owned the camera) or purchased the copyright.
• The website's owner's ancestor commissioned the photographer to take the photo. In that case the copyright would lie with the person or organisation that commissioned the photo.

.

So normally, copyrights would pass to descendants of the photographer, not to those of people in the photo. The photo may (legally) still be copyrighted somewhere by someone but unless the photographer is known and copyright holders can be traced, then the copyrights are 'orphaned'.

The number of years copyrights may exist are in the PDF for published and non-published photos. I doubt whether the website counts as "publication" since no permission was given by a copyright-holder. As the PDF says, it is unlikely that a 'retouched/restored' version of the original can be claimed as a 'copyrighted' new work.

A separate issue is - if you were to copy the photo from the website - the website owner could claim you were copying part of his/her website design or content. He/she does hold copyrights to the website as a whole (design, text, etc.). I've idea how the photo copyright fits into this.

Bottom line: try and come to an accommodation for limited use with attribution.

Mike

PS. https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2012/03/06/copyright-and-the-old-family-photo/gives a good overview (based on US law).

...

It's not my photograph.  It's an image I have seen online from WW1 where the website owner is claiming copyright because they have a copy of the photo (either inherited, purchased or sent to them by someone else) and have uploaded it to their website.

[Billyblue]

If it's a photo from World War I there is no way the ORIGINAL is still in copyright.

Copyright on photos did not exist until the 1960s sometime

What can be copyright, however, is the way it is published.
So you could not claim copyright of the picture, but you could claim copyright if you published it in a book / changed it in any way (photoshopped it)

As said by another, it's a bit of a minefield.

Dawn M

[Ian999]

I really did try to stay out of this thread but I cannot:

1.   Dawn M (Billyblue) says that copyright did not exist until 1960s sometime.
Please provide references to support this as I believe it to be flat-out wrong, at least as far as UK Law goes. Copyright on photographs has existed at least as far back as 1912 and referred to in legislation.


2.   Jim (confusion) is also wrong as far as UK Law and others is concerned. Perpetual copyright was a very special and very rare category, but all provisions granting copyright in perpetuity were abolished by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

[Billyblue]

Ian
Different jurisdictions have different laws.  I guess I was quoting from experience with Australian laws on copyright, and assumed it would be similar in UK.
Not sure about your 1912 date though - perusing the gov.uk. site on copyright can find no mention of that date
It would be very hard to discover who owned the original photo from WWI, that STG found in her granny's attic (even hypothetically), I should think.
the UK 'perpetual copyright' has apparently been abolished
And if the holder of the photo photoshopped it then put it on the web, that VERSION would be his/her copyright.
Dawn M