Stolen Images ?

[Nifty1]

I have amended my op by adding a ? in the hope that it better reflects the purpose of my post.
The results are better than expected.
Thank you all.



Although keeping images to oneself largely negates anybody taking them and using them for other purposes, it also negates the possibility of finding other information that could prove useful in one’s research.

[Bee]

Just because you have a photo it doesn't mean that it's the only one in existence.

Several copies could have been made when the film was originally developed to pass onto family members.

[Nifty1]

Going on, as I do, I wonder what people’s views are on websites that take old images from old postcards and other places and then mark the image as if to suggest that they own the copyright of that image?

Not that it matters, my feelings on the matter are similar to Erato’s also Rosinish’s comment about common politeness.

Would it make any real difference in the copyright laws, which, in my view are there mainly for the benefit of lawyers and big business, were abolished completely?

Thin end of the wedge or what?

[Guy Etchells]

About a week ago I posted a photograph that has been in my family since it was taken about a century ago on a local history website in order to find out more about where it was taken from.
There were several suggestions, than just this morning somebody posted a link from the Getty Images of an identical image except that it was ‘stamped’, for the want of a better term, as being copyright.

First your image was not stolen, you still have your image in your possession therefore the person has not permanently depriving you of it.
Second if it was on Getty Images the copy they used would in most cases been taken from an old archive of photos.
For a good understanding on copyright of photos in the UK I suggest reading
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01qft/ 
The section on photographs made before 1st June 1957 is very interesting and is a section many people do not understand, or ignore.

There are also many sites that will give the different rules based on copyright law in the USA
Cheers
Guy

[Treetotal]

If you put your photos out there, or any other information, you can expect to lose control over what happens to it. I have shared Family photos and have accepted that they will share them with other Family members who have that person in their trees.
Carol

[frostyknight]

I have found many photos of family members on various Ancestry trees. I always ask permission before using them, and so far permission has not been refused, for which I'm very grateful. I'm also happy to share my photos with others. My ancestors are also part other people ancestors.

[Maiden Stone]

The photo was taken by Henry Taunt, who died in 1922. He was quite a well known photographer.

The original copyright would have been with him and his heritors for 70 years after his death.

See:
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01qfn/

Henry Taunt began his photographic career as assistant to the first commercial photographer in Oxford. He later set up business on his own account.
Henry W. Taunt & Co., publishers, artists, photographers, picture frame manufacturers. Shop in Broad St., Oxford. Lost lease on his shop in 1894 and filed for bankruptcy. After discharge from bankruptcy he began to work from home on ideas for books and guides documenting counties surrounding Oxfordshire.
 He had no children. His housekeeper was the main beneficiary of his will. Following Taunt's death, many of his  glass slides were destroyed by the purchaser of his house. An Oxford librarian/archivist rescued surviving slides, negatives and photos.
 Majority of Taunt's surviving images are held by English Heritage and Oxfordshire County Council.
Editors of the photo journal "Picture Post" may have paid a licensing fee to one of those organisations or to whoever held the copyright, depending on copyright law at the time. "Picture Post" was published 1938-1957.
There was an exhibition "In the Footsteps of Henry Taunt". The associated website has a photo of Taunt's shop.   

[Gadget]

I think that should finalise it, MS 

[Maiden Stone]

For a good understanding on copyright of photos in the UK I suggest reading
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01qft/ 
The section on photographs made before 1st June 1957 is very interesting and is a section many people do not understand, or ignore.

That explains a complicated subject.
Key section for the haymaking picture is the one about photos taken before 1st July 1912.
  The photographer owned the copyright "unless it was taken under commission for good or valuable
  consideration (money or equivalent payment). In such circumstance the commissioner owned the
  copyright."
We now know about the person who took the haymaking photograph and approximately when he took it. It's likely that Henry Taunt took the photograph for a book he intended to publish. If that was the case there was no commissioner and Henry Taunt owned the copyright. Nifty's ancestor may have bought a copy or been given one by Taunt as a thank-you.

That 1912 date is crucial for my family history. There's a photo of a toddler wearing a unisex frilly smock; I don't know if the child was the one born in 1910 or 1912. Another portrait in a different setting has 1912 baby as a baby + 1910 child in his sailor suit.

Gadget, just seen your post.
 It's been an interesting topic. Two classics of English Literature, "Three Men in a Boat" and "Wind in the Willows" are cited as being influenced by Taunt's pictures.