EU copyright law question

I think the only means of redress they could use would be by contract law. For example, if anyone on WW2Talk asked me a question, and I told them that I could give them the answer but it would cost them £75, then if they were foolish enough to agree they would have effectively accepted a contract and would be liable to pay up the money. The IWM Non-Commercial License seems to be constructed in such a way as to suggest that in using an image you are agreeing to use it in certain ways and not others, which might be construed as a contractual agreement. The opening paragraph is interesting:

Basically all their photographs are marked as © IWM, which means that they are adding their own copyright to the reproduced image, although their legal basis for doing this I suspect is very iffy.

However, it is notable that Wikipedia in reproducing IWM photos add their own disclaimer which states that:

Wikipedia also quote the straight-from-the-horses-mouth ruling on this from the HMSO as follows:

If someone wants to be ultra-cautious, I would suggest two possible actions that might be taken. One would be to quote any photograph being used as being from e.g. Wikimedia Commons and not from the IWM. The other would be to visit your local Citizens Advice Bureau and see what they advise - they can certainly give advice on contract law, and may have a lawyer in house who has at least some experience with copyright law. It might be possible for them to provide a letter giving their interpretation of the law that can be fired off as a first line of defence if it is needed. I once worked at the CAB, and let me assure you that other organisations are absolutely terrified of it.

If one of us has a local CAB that tends to be quiet and is desperate for something to do, it might be worth the effort of popping in to see them on this issue in any case.

 

I totally agree, which is why I try to grab as many of those old Newspaper archive photos, that are relevant to my interests, whenever they appear on eBay. I'm building up a small but useful collection of original photos that are now part of my archive! It's important to make sure though, that you are buying original photos and not modern scanned and reproduced copies, as there is no way to prove where these came from.

There's also the interesting question of these images that do appear on eBay. Most sellers do watermark them, but once in a while you get someone who puts up on eBay (or a forum like this) really good quality scans, front and back, without watermarking them. Clearly the original photo belongs to the seller\poster, (until he sells it), but what of the clear digital copy that he has now published on the Internet, without an ownership watermark, and which is now out of copyright? Are these now freely reproducible as long as you can show they have been freely 'published' on the Internet? I think this is a question that would need a copyright lawyer's opinion.

 

I have a very good friend who works in the CAB. Their own (short handed) staff are dealing with a blizzard of people who are having financial, marital, property/landlord/eviction problems as we move through this covid world. You may find that they don't just have the resources to give you the answer you want.

 

This sort of thing is all why I asked in the first place, because I was under the impression that at least in EU countries these "reproduction fees" would go the way of the dodo.

There are quite a few interesting photos taken by Dutch civilians which I have not seen in books. But if anything the reproduction fees are higher than what I've seen quoted from UK archives, which is a damn shame.

 

What also irritates me is the websites that plaster their logo all over well known photos and maps, obscuring them past the point of usefulness.
What are the bastards trying to accomplish besides annoying the hell out of the reader?

 

A simple tldr applies here.

UK national museums have been selling images on the basis that each time they digitise an image this creates a new digital copyright and thus allows them to extend it in perpetuity because... it is 'work'. This equates the photographer's 'work' in creating the image as being the same as the copying, which - lets face it - is obscenely stupid.

This is the reason you can't take photos in most historic art galleries as it's about copyright control, not about increasing engagement.

The legal basis this is all anchored on is pretty much bullshit given the IPO etc.

EU Copyright Directive drives a freight train through much of this, hence some institutions uploading lower and lower quality images to the extent an early 2000s Nokia would offer better quality. This is also why some have sought to block access to their original images as... well, they don't want anyone else gaining new copyright.

But again, IPO stated all this is bullshit.

If the images by Dutch civilians were uploaded online and used by someone in the EU, they'd be fair game for free reproduction.

The whole situation is a mess, and frankly one amounting to about two decades of miselling by our major national museums.

There's also anecdotal evidence that all WW2 images etc were meant to be used by historians freely, so to promote discourse and engagement among future generations. Allegedly a letter/memo from Churchill states this but I have never seen it, and the historian who allegedly used it has sadly passed.

I also cannot begin to understate the sheer amount of headache this has caused me over the years, as a few people here will know.

US/Canadian/EU copyright laws (but also the attitude of institutions within) are much more conducive than UK. Our institutions have become QUANGO-businesses, who put our heritage in a firm, firm second - if not fourth place.

 

This is often the case, but there are basically two types of CAB - those in poorer areas where there is an abundance of clients but a shortage of well meaning middle class volunteers, and those in wealthier areas where there is a shortage of clients but an over-abundance of well meaning middle class volunteers.

 

It's the willingness of volunteers to work in offices at the moment with members of the public that is one problem. They have gone on line to answer calls but are stressing out the volunteers, some of whom are throwing in the towel. They are under pressure across the UK.

 

Hello - I have one question regarding Crown Copyright. If HMSO states the following:
"Crown copyright protection in published material lasts for fifty years from
the end of the year in which the material was first published.
Therefore, to use your example, material published in 1954, and any
Crown copyright material published before that date, would now be out
of copyright, and may be freely reproduced throughout the world."

Does that only refer to publications by HMSO or other Crown agencies? Or any publication whatsoever?

 

I know I was originally asking about EU but - oh well I can share my experiences so far.

One local Dutch archive only wanted 2 euros per photo. How lovely!
One had released their photos under the Creative Commons license - free to use!
Two want 70 euros per photo(!!!!) so I could easily write them off

Every interaction I have had with the IWM has been another turn of the screw. My first understanding of the cost was 26 pounds for a quarter page size in the book - more if you want half page. Then there is another 10 pounds for actually providing each photo. Then it turned out all these prices were before VAT instead of including it. Aughhhh.

I'll also note that the IWM contract requires you to delete the files from your computer after you're done with the project. I think this is in line with the discussion earlier about the use of contract law.

 

I am still wondering: If a photo was published in the "Picture Post" or "War Illustrated" in 1945 or other magazines or books until 1961does that mean it is free to use 50 years on?

That assumption is probably a bit naive... or is it?

 

If a digital image is on the internet it's fair game to me and I'll share it with my friends if I want to. You can't unring a bell, seems to me. I don't sell anything.

 

Dave55, I am afraid this won't work for those who want to publish something commercially...

 

But should it? I'm first to admit I'm well out of my area here. Seems to be closely related to non-fungible tokens, another thing that strikes me as nonsensical. I'm not trying to be flippant but how can something have any monetary value if any five year old can make an exact duplicate of it without any special equipment?

 

If there is demand to own and a limited supply, it has monetary value.

The bizarre part, for me, is that there is demand to own.

The first print of a run of pictures is intrinsically identical to the second, but if it is authentically identified as the first, then it is more desirable and hence more valuable.

In the case of a NFT, blockchain certifies that it is unique and therefore not fungible/interchangeable, and that plus demand is what creates the value.

 

I dare say that if you grab an image from the IWM website they are unlikely to chase you for it. (Unlike AP & Getty who have outsourced copyright infringement collections to some aggressive people armed with bots to sniff out their images.) The big publishers may have had the argument about copyright v reproduction fees and appear to be able to tell the IWM to get lost.

However, most images on the internet are not high enough resolution to be good enough for many publishers. This where the IWM can catch their prey. I needed the RAI to find an extra £800 to cover the costs of war ministry images from IWM for the Regimental History of the RA. .

This is one reason why many books are not as well illustrated as they could be with British images. This raises a question about the role and purpose of national collections.

Should they be part of national Remembrance, telling the world of the British experience made widely accessible?

Or are they an asset to be leveraged to generate an income stream to support a national institution?

The IWM says that "We collect objects and stories that give an insight into people’s experiences of war, preserve them for future generations, and bring them to today’s audiences in the most powerful way possible." Weasel words with the emphasis on their role in curating powerful ways to reach today's audience. i.e. the collections are their precious, precious....

 

The crux is probably 'who took the photo, or paid them to take it?'

Copyright ought to rest with the paper if they employed the photographer. If he was freelance, or a private individual, it would be theirs or the paper's depending on the deal, contract or licence under which it was published.

Now, if it was an official photo, it gets interesting as the image itself ought to come under crown copyright. The paper can't claim it's theirs - they've just been allowed to publish it, they don't own it. 50 years down the line, that image is out of copyright. It shouldn't matter that IWM has the negative in their clutches, they can't claim copyright once it's expired. There isn't any obvious reason why an official image from any source can't be reused. Or is there?

 

Appreciate the explanation. I don't agree with this part though, at least for me. "The first print of a run of pictures is intrinsically identical to the second, but if it is authentically identified as the first, then it is more desirable and hence more valuable."

If someone makes a digital copy of an image of a sailboat or a tank it has the same value to me aesthetically as the original, regardless of authenticity. I agree that an authentic copy apparently has more monetary value but only because people buy into the idea. Sure baffles the heck out of me.

 

Given that all The IWM stuff was given to every news agency during WW2 (for free) then their collections are stuffed with their own 'original' pics that they then charge huge copyright fees for reproduction rights.

 

Crown copyright works Works made by the Crown or an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of their duties (e.g. an employee of a Government department): 125 years from creation.
50 years from commercial publication, if published within 75 years of creation.
Source: Copyright Notice: Duration of copyright (term)

Please help me to understand the above: Does this mean that photos held by the IWM that were published commercially before 1960 (or July 1961 = 50 or more years ago) no longer have copyright restrictions?

This would apply for a large number of images... one would just have to be able to present a book or magazine in which the image was (at least) 50 years previously published.