Use of copyright material

Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza

Postby AlanM » Wed May 17, 2006 10:33 am

job78989 wrote:I agree with Schiehallion

All of my "stuff" on this site has no copyright and may be freely used by anyone.

I recognise the point dex makes, but still feel that particularly historical data should be free to use for educational purposes and research. So long as it is not used for profit.


John


If you create a piece of work, be it a photograph, a song a poem or whatever you automatically own the copyright (unless the work is created as part of your normal paid employment, in which case the copyright belongs to your employer), there is no requrement to register it anywhere.

What you then do with your rights to each piece of work you create is up to you, you can assign all of your rights to another individual or organisation, you can make it freely available with no restrictions, you could guard all of your rights jealously or you colud make it available for others to use but limit what they can use the work for.
Who needs a six pack....when you've got a keg!!!
Image
User avatar
AlanM
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:59 am
Location: Knightswood

Postby glasgowken » Wed May 17, 2006 10:36 am

I don't think the News of the World story is a fair comparison. They took those photos, and wrote their article, to flame urban explorers, it wasn't a complimentary, or non commercial, piece.

If they had written something nice about what an interesting hobby, it is, and the great people involved :wink: , i'm guessing he wouldn't have been that bothered about them borrowing a couple of pics.

95% of the photos on my site were taken by me, if someone takes them now and sticks them on their hobby site, I wouldn't be arsed in the slightest. No need to wait until i'm dead (or next Tuesday, whichever comes soonest 8O ).
Any other photos i've deliberately kept small, and are used only in an informative educational way, to explain the history, etc. I feel my stretching the rule is still keeping to the sprit, i'm not selling anything, in fact it costs me money to run my site, and expand the collection, etc.
(I should add, if Scran is watching, i've nothing from their site on there :roll: )

I would only be pissed if someone took my own photos and tried to sell them, or used them against me, or other enthusiasts. You know, the usual "anorak" crap :?
GK
User avatar
glasgowken
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 4478
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:59 am
Location: Glasgow

Postby macca734 » Thu May 18, 2006 6:52 pm

Maybe its me trying to be too logical but stick with me here;

1. If you own a digital scan of a photo or print or picture, do you own the digital scan, the picture etc. or both?

2. What point is there in running a NFPO that claims its an education base if no-one ever gets to see the pictures you hold?

3. Doesnt copyright on piccies expire after some point. If the images are over 100+ years old, surely no one owns them and, as I've said, if they dont own the original, surely they have no claim at all.

Seems a bit of a daft argument this. Kind of like the RIAA or the BPO telling people not to download music. I'll do that when they uninvent CD burners, broadband internet and P2P software. I laugh when I see companies like Sony bitching about how much illegal downloads are costing them but keeping quiet about the fact that sales of burners are up.......
Sui Generis
User avatar
macca734
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:29 pm
Location: G1

Postby Socceroo » Thu May 18, 2006 8:23 pm

I've been dealing with getting the rights to a non - fiction book for about 18 months. The author of the original book is long dead and i wanted to produce an updated version of the book. Copyright does run out on various publications at varying times.

However, the problem with photograph collections is that whoever comes into ownership of them can then apply for Copyright renewal for the original photographic images.

This is stalling with me trying to get my hands on the book. Although there is no live Copyright on the book, the photographs within were only originally used with kind permission etc. So now i need to prove (1) the photographers are dead (2) there is no outstanding Copyright on the photographs.

The last i heard from the Solicitor, before i gave up for a while, was it would be better if there was a live Copyright on the book which i could then make an offer to takeover from the owner, or offer the idea to a publisher and let them do the running.
Last edited by Socceroo on Thu May 18, 2006 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Socceroo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: Mount Flo, Glasgow

Postby Dexter St. Clair » Thu May 18, 2006 8:26 pm

What point is there in running a NFPO that claims its an education base if no-one ever gets to see the pictures you hold?


SCRAN's images can be viewed in thumbs form on their site. And can be viewed in full if you are a library user.
User avatar
Dexter St. Clair
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 6255
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:54 pm

Postby macca734 » Thu May 18, 2006 8:34 pm

Dexter St. Clair wrote:
What point is there in running a NFPO that claims its an education base if no-one ever gets to see the pictures you hold?


SCRAN's images can be viewed in thumbs form on their site. And can be viewed in full if you are a library user.


Yeah, paying money?

My point is that they are supposed to be not for profit so my assumption is that their current funding services their current copyright agreements. If the photographers are long dead and no living copyright exists then who are SCRAN to claim it on them?

As I already asked; is owning the copyright to a digital scan the same as owning the original and if you have just the scan, what rights do you have to people posting copies of it, if they are meant to be representations of an original you dont own copyright on.

Copyright on pics, unless they are high art or of people, is a funny thing for me. If you copy a pic someone else took of a mountain then whose copyright are you busting; the photographers or God's?
Sui Generis
User avatar
macca734
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:29 pm
Location: G1

Postby Socceroo » Thu May 18, 2006 8:43 pm

macca734 wrote:If the photographers are long dead and no living copyright exists then who are SCRAN to claim it on them?

As I already asked; is owning the copyright to a digital scan the same as owning the original and if you have just the scan, what rights do you have to people posting copies of it, if they are meant to be representations of an original you dont own copyright on.


Part of the problem is that all of Scrans photographs are Copyrighted. They have them under a user license agreement from the various collection / archive owners.

Even the older photographs have had their Copyright reapplied. Copyright is on the photograph and all images / copies made from it.
User avatar
Socceroo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: Mount Flo, Glasgow

Postby Dexter St. Clair » Thu May 18, 2006 9:38 pm

Yeah, paying money?


Round our way it's free to join the library and using one of their computers you can log in to SCRAN without taking a subscription to SCRAN.

In most cases Copyright is held by the owner of the original print. Buying a copy of a David Bailey photograph does not give you any copright. Buying a print made from the original negative does not bestow copyright to its purchaser.
User avatar
Dexter St. Clair
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 6255
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:54 pm

Postby macca734 » Thu May 18, 2006 9:43 pm

Dexter St. Clair wrote:
Yeah, paying money?


Round our way it's free to join the library and using one of their computers you can log in to SCRAN without taking a subscription to SCRAN.

In most cases Copyright is held by the owner of the original print. Buying a copy of a David Bailey photograph does not give you any copright. Buying a print made from the original negative does not bestow copyright to its purchaser.


I applaud the free subs for libraries and educational establishments but I just think its a wee bit cheeky for SCRAN to be e-mailing Sharon bitching about copyright when this site is probably responsible for a fair old contribution to their membership quotient.

So, if I buy a copy of a David Bailey print in a gallery shop or something and it comes with no copyright advice am I free to copy it as much as I want? (OK I'm being deliberately obtuse but do you see my point)?
Sui Generis
User avatar
macca734
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:29 pm
Location: G1

Postby dazza » Thu May 18, 2006 9:52 pm

Socceroo wrote:I've been dealing with getting the rights to a non - fiction book for about 18 months. The author of the original book is long dead and i wanted to produce an updated version of the book. Copyright does run out on various publications at varying times.

However, the problem with photograph collections is that whoever comes into ownership of them can then apply for Copyright renewal for the original photographic images.

This is stalling with me trying to get my hands on the book. Although there is no live Copyright on the book, the photographs within were only originally used with kind permission etc. So now i need to prove (1) the photographers are dead (2) there is no outstanding Copyright on the photographs.

The last i heard from the Solicitor, before i gave up for a while, was it would be better if there was a live Copyright on the book which i could then make an offer to takeover from the owner, or offer the idea to a publisher and let them do the running.


I think i know what book you're talking about. With "Two hundred and eighty illustrations" you could take quite a while to establish the copyright on the photos. Best of luck though, it would be great updated.
User avatar
dazza
-
-
 
Posts: 2019
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 4:25 pm

Postby Dexter St. Clair » Fri May 19, 2006 7:57 am

So, if I buy a copy of a David Bailey print in a gallery shop or something and it comes with no copyright advice am I free to copy it as much as I want? (OK I'm being deliberately obtuse but do you see my point)?


No Ignorance of the law is no defence.

The least SCRAN can do on behalf of the copyright holders is to contact Hidden Glasgow. They could have done a lot more thn that. Somebody on here brought it to their attention and they were obliged to act.
User avatar
Dexter St. Clair
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 6255
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:54 pm

Postby macca734 » Fri May 19, 2006 5:00 pm

Dexter St. Clair wrote:
So, if I buy a copy of a David Bailey print in a gallery shop or something and it comes with no copyright advice am I free to copy it as much as I want? (OK I'm being deliberately obtuse but do you see my point)?


No Ignorance of the law is no defence.

The least SCRAN can do on behalf of the copyright holders is to contact Hidden Glasgow. They could have done a lot more thn that. Somebody on here brought it to their attention and they were obliged to act.


Hang on though. How can it be deemed ignorance if you buy something without first being made aware of the copyright issues. CD's are plastered with them but those old repro black and white piccies they sell in galleries tend not to come with any advice at all.
Sui Generis
User avatar
macca734
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:29 pm
Location: G1

Postby macca734 » Fri May 19, 2006 6:48 pm

Most, if not all of the images I've posted here have been taken with my equipment and my hand. If I post something from another source I always acknowledge it. You're right to point out that SCRAN is not suffering a loss of business / good-will / image through us posting and viewing images they hold. I was so close to joing after reading the SCRAN thread. They can fuck off now.

Might I say too that, unless you plan on selling them, use my piccies for whatever you want and as much as you want. As a keen amateur snapper, the more people that see, comment on, and possibly even gain pleasure from my images, the better.

Wullie.
Sui Generis
User avatar
macca734
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:29 pm
Location: G1

Postby HollowHorn » Fri May 19, 2006 9:18 pm

macca734 wrote:Most, if not all of the thoughts I've posted here have been taken with my equipment in my hand

No argument from me, son 8O
User avatar
HollowHorn
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 8925
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:59 pm
Location: Paisley

Postby macca734 » Fri May 19, 2006 10:49 pm

HollowHorn wrote:
macca734 wrote:Most, if not all of the thoughts I've posted here have been taken with my equipment in my hand

No argument from me, son 8O


You sir, are a durty man!!!!
Sui Generis
User avatar
macca734
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:29 pm
Location: G1

PreviousNext

Return to Hidden Glasgow Projects

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests

cron