Don't want to go into detail about copyright: my experience is with written texts, except for the question of cover photographs etc. When I speak of publishing the item I'm assuming it's the author technically who publishes, and the copyright remains with him / her unless the actual, practical publishers state otherwise, and claim copyright in contracts with the author, as they increasingly do these days, because there's a lot of money in secondary publishing, particularly from restricted access sites on the net. Bear in mind though, that ownership of a photo and possession of its copyright are not necessarily the same thing, unless you took the photo, or inherited it as a family snapshot privately taken. Copyright is assumed to reside in the 'author' unless otherwise indicated, so technically doesn't need to be announced, but it's sensible to do so. Until the mid 1990s, copyright in the UK expired 50 years after the death of the author, not 50 years after the publication of the text, unless that text was published posthumously, of course. As a result of European Union negotiations, this was extended to 70 years, based on a desire to regularise the different laws in each of the member countries (the French, for example, added the years of WW1 and WW2 to the 50 years, though of course for 4 of the latter years - those of the Vichy regime, they were technically at peace - but that's the French). I was about to publish an edition of an author who'd died in 1940 and whose copyright lapsed in 1940, but publishers' delays meant that, by the time the book was ready for publication, the author had returned to copyright because of the change of law. Copyright law is confused and confusing because no one has ever attempted to try it out at law. Instead, publishers have agreed on a 'fair dealing' agreement, never as far as I know pursued legally, as they're all afraid of being clobbered themselves in turn if they win a case for infringement against a fellow publisher, as they all play tricks at the edges. Faber and Faber, for example, started unilaterally rewriting their interpretation of fair-dealing in the 1980s, when they decided that, with regard to poetry, the restriction on publishing more than a quarter of the text, or 25 lines maximum, whichever was the lesser, could be used to cover a whole book of poetry, and not just individual poems, as heretofore. At exactly the same time, their own advice to Faber authors, of which I have a copy because I wrote a book for them, spelt out fair-dealing in the normal agreed way - so they were operating a differential system in both cases of greater advantage to them than to the other party! Needless to say, this didn't stick, but Macmillan, for example, went ultra-cautious and refused to print quotations well within fair-dealing limits for fear of being pursued. This is why publishers now increasingly require the AUTHOR to clear copyright permissions, whereas their own legal depts used to do it, predominantly. Under fair dealing, you don't need to seek permission to reprint less than a quarter of a poem, or 25 lines, or a maximum of circa 850 words from a prose text, no chunk of which should be longer than 250 words, providing you give full details identifying author, name, publisher, place and date of publication, either in a note or bibliography. This is the honest arrangement. I don't know how far this extends to photographs in the public domain, etc., in terms of dates and acknowledgment: obviously, you can't really quote a quarter of a photo. I know that big photographic houses like Magnum, Frith etc, charge a lot. Magnum's fee took up the whole art budget for a book of mine for a single small portrait photo of the author I was writing about. If it's a question of a private photo one's taken oneself, or one's relatives or others have, then there's no problem. If you want to retain or declare copyright, all you have to do is announce it alongside the photo or text, giving name and start year. , indicating whether you have an objection or not to other people using it. This is probably the most appropriate thing for the present enterprise. A photo which has never before seen the public light of day, can be copyrighted to 2007, even though it was taken in 1907. Copyright doesn't start till an item enters the public domain. Photos taken by others, particualrly professional photographers, are a more dodgy issue. Most local professional photographers, partic from before the War, have cased to exist, moved elsewhere, died, etc, so if you've tried to identify a source and failed, that's sufficient. A proviso saying you've tried to track the artist might be a useful addition, if you're nervous, and if you're extra nervous, you can invite the putative photographer to contact you. Lots that get's published on the internet is actually not kosher, and I know of various societies and COPYRIGHT HOLDERS etc who have pursued offenders. Stay clear of the big international names like Magnum unless seeking permission. Otherwise, I'd expect the expiry times set out by Sharon to be in operation. (This turned out to be longer than I expected!) Stan -----Original Message----- From: eng-lan-warrington-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-lan-warrington-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sharon Pritchett Sent: 26 February 2007 04:13 To: eng-lan-warrington@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LAN-WARR] copyright Dear Stan, I am in the US. I understand most countries do have copyright laws. I don't really know if they are identical to ours, or simply similar. I haven't studied the international agreements. In the US, it is 75 years to enter the public domain. The attorney I quoted indicated it was 75 years from date of creation. That attorney was answering questions for creative people, not publishers. The formal proceedure of the publisher who has purchased the rights sending two copies of the publication to the Library of Congress ensures copyright to the publisher, and that is a different issue. That countdown begins at the time of publication, and usually the rights belong to the publisher, not the author or artist, unless the author or artist has a clause in the contract to retain rights themselves, which I promise is not the usual contract with a publisher. A publisher only has rights if they have been purchased by the publishing corporation. Anyone can publish something that is in the public domain. My understanding is that if a publisher publishes something in the public domain, the work remains in the public domain whether or not it has previously been published. But that isn't an issue I dealt with in the course of my professional life, so you might want to check more closely. But we are talking about pictures which I suspect were published in Great Britain, if they have been published at all, and nothing about them is going to attract significant attention, as I see it. I'm guessing that most of the pictures that were not taken by the people on the list were collected from sources that published them in public outlets. If you are going to fuss about getting copyright clearance, you are going to have to sort them into those that were published before Feb 1932, which would be in the public domain, and those published afterward, for which permission would have to be sought. Those that have never been published would need to be sorted in to those created before 1932 and those afterward, I presume, and gain permission for the use of the latter. Since I lack professional experience with the copyrights of unpublished works, I am a little sketchy on this last part, but that is my best guess. Which brings up something that was on my mind: How about a little more information on the pictures than just the name of the item being photographed? The date the picture was taken, even if it can only be approximated or given a range, the photographer's name if possible, and the source the picture was published in, if it was published. And a statement regarding copyright permission would be appropriate. I don't suppose this information will be available for all the pictures, but it would be nice if it were included when it is. Frankly, I can't imagine that many people would care much about our using their work in such a small publication as family historians usually produce. It isn't like they are undercutting publishers or record labels a la China or napster. From what I've seen family history publications don't make a profit. But it never hurts to be as careful as we reasonably can be, and anyone who has considerable resources is always wise to protect themselves from opportunists. I'm afraid if you want a definitive answer, you will have to consult someone who knows more than I do, perhaps an attorney. I can't see this being much of an issue in reality unless some of these pictures are coming from fairly significant sources. I don't know how far you want to pursue this, but good luck with all this legal muck. Sharon Newton Pritchett >From: "Stan Smith" <stan.smith1@ntlworld.com> >Reply-To: eng-lan-warrington@rootsweb.com >To: <eng-lan-warrington@rootsweb.com> >Subject: Re: [LAN-WARR] copyright >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:20:19 -0000 > >Careful here. In the realm of written work, Works PUBLISHED more than >70 years ago may be out of copyright, but newly published work, even if >written that long ago, only enters copyright domain once it's been >published. So a photo from that long ago, by analogy, if only now >entering the public domain, would - if the publisher so declares - >commence copyright from the year of first publication. With written >works, the death of the author is the point from which copyright years >are counted. > >Stan > >-----Original Message----- >From: eng-lan-warrington-bounces@rootsweb.com >[mailto:eng-lan-warrington-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sharon >Pritchett >Sent: 26 February 2007 00:33 >To: eng-lan-warrington@rootsweb.com >Subject: [LAN-WARR] copyright > > > >When You Don't Need Permission >You don't need permission to photograph a work that is not protected by >copyright (in "the public domain"). Works fall into the public domain >for several reasons, one of which is expiration of the copyright term. >In 1997, works created before January 1, 1922 are in the public domain. >Also, works created by federal government officers and employees as >part of their official duties are not protected by copyright. (This >rule does not apply to > >works created by state or local government officers and employees). > >So, that is the date for what is in the public domain. >Sharon Newton Pritchett > > > >From: Alan Bennett <alan_bennett@email.com> > >Reply-To: eng-lan-warrington@rootsweb.com > >To: eng-lan-warrington@rootsweb.com > >Subject: Re: [LAN-WARR] Photobucket - link > >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:39:25 +0000 > > > >The photos are fantastic and it has given me a slight issue that we > >need to resolve. > > > >What are we going to say about the copyright of the photos? > > > >Do we treat them as public domain so that we can all use them in our > >family tree reports/web-sites as long as they aren't for commercial > >purposes. > > > >What think you all? > > > >Alan > >** PLEASE CHANGE YOUR SUBJECT HEADING WHEN E-MAILING THE LIST ** > >** PLEASE REMOVE "signatures" from your e-mails to facilitate easier > >searching of the archives ** > >------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >ENG-LAN-WARRINGTON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >without > > >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >_________________________________________________________________ >With tax season right around the corner, make sure to follow these few >simple tips. >http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationT >ips.a >spx?icid=HMFebtagline > >** PLEASE CHANGE YOUR SUBJECT HEADING WHEN E-MAILING THE LIST ** >** PLEASE REMOVE "signatures" from your e-mails to facilitate easier >searching of the archives ** >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >ENG-LAN-WARRINGTON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >** PLEASE CHANGE YOUR SUBJECT HEADING WHEN E-MAILING THE LIST ** > >** PLEASE REMOVE "signatures" from your e-mails to facilitate easier >searching of the archives ** >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >ENG-LAN-WARRINGTON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _________________________________________________________________ Dont miss your chance to WIN 10 hours of private jet travel from Microsoft. Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0540002499mrt/direct/01/