British & Commonwealth Military Badge Forum
ebay
'Badges/Patches' 'Militaria, Badges'    Medals

 Military Badges

 All British  WW1  WW2 WW1   WW2

Go Back   British & Commonwealth Military Badge Forum > Everything Else > Off topic

 Other Pages: Galleries, Links etc.
Glossary  Books by Forum Members     Canadian Pre 1914    CEF    CEF Badge Inscriptions   Canadian post 1920     Canadian post 1953     British Cavalry Badges     Makers' Marks    Pipers' Badges  Canadian Cloth Titles  Books
 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 15-12-17, 06:37 PM
Deejayuu's Avatar
Deejayuu Deejayuu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: County of the White Rose
Posts: 561
Default Copyright Query

I have just purchased from eBay 2 photograph albums dating back to the first world war which have been scanned and put on to a disk. There has been nothing added to the content by the seller, no cover, no contents, no credits page there are just single scans of each page. The CD cover is marked COPYRIGHTS and i am wondering why? Someone has obviously purchased the albums and gone to effort of spending hours scanning the images which i commend as the scanned images can be seen by a much wider audience. My question is can the images have a copyright due to a/ the age of the original images, b/there has been no additional material being added and c/the seller has probably already copied the images from a purchased album that may not have been copyrighted in the first place? There are some very interesting and unusual shots of the West Yorks Regt as well as officers wearing the silver maltese cross (no wreath) of the Leeds Rifles which i would like to share but would appreciate a view on the copyright status before i post them and get into trouble.

Cheers, Dave
__________________
Tha’ can allus tell a Yorkshireman,
but tha’ can’t tell ‘im much.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 15-12-17, 06:46 PM
Mike_2817's Avatar
Mike_2817 Mike_2817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 2,125
Default

This is the 'official' guidance on copyright

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ice-201401.pdf

Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright?

Simply creating a copy of an image won’t result in a new
copyright in the new item. However, there is a degree
of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in
digitised copies of older images for which copyright has
expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may
arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used
to optimise detail, and/or the original image has been
touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases.

However, according to the Court of Justice of the
European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright
can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the
sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’.

Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely
a retouched, digitised image of an older work can
be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will
generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise
free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a
faithful reproduction of an existing work.
__________________
Sua Tela Tonanti
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 15-12-17, 06:59 PM
Deejayuu's Avatar
Deejayuu Deejayuu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: County of the White Rose
Posts: 561
Default

Thanks Mike, if i am reading the document correctly then copyright is for the the life of the creator plus 70 years. As there has been nothing done to the images other than being scanned then they are unaltered so no claim for reworking could be claimed. I have the name of Officer who took the photos as being Lt Thomas Riley with reference to both The Yorkshire regiment as well as the Leeds Rifles though there are many references to the 1/5 West Yorks. The second album was taken in 1919 in Koln so he survived the war. I will have to look him up to see if i can find some more details.

Many thanks, Dave.
__________________
Tha’ can allus tell a Yorkshireman,
but tha’ can’t tell ‘im much.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 15-12-17, 07:06 PM
Mike_2817's Avatar
Mike_2817 Mike_2817 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 2,125
Default

Yes its a useful reference,

Its probably the case that his estate was sold on including the albums on his death by relatives, so I think losing the copyright?
__________________
Sua Tela Tonanti
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16-12-17, 01:22 AM
zob's Avatar
zob zob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 383
Default

Fascinating stuff - but I wonder how this pans out for Pinterest who keep pinching everybody’s pictures, and sticking then on their site with a caveat stating that ‘this image may be copyright’; and all under the pretense they have nothing to do with it? I’ve never seen such wanton plagiarism and theft!

Zob.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 16-12-17, 06:53 AM
badjez's Avatar
badjez badjez is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hervey Bay QLD Australia
Posts: 1,989
Default Copywright

Zob,

I'm not a user of Pintrest, but I suspect that if I were to look at the small print, when joining I give them the rights to use my pictures, but that does not extend to anyone who subsequently downloads them for commercial use.

Remind me to look at the small print of this site with regard to pictures put in albums here...

Stephen.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16-12-17, 12:06 PM
zob's Avatar
zob zob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by badjez View Post
Zob,

I'm not a user of Pintrest, but I suspect that if I were to look at the small print, when joining I give them the rights to use my pictures, but that does not extend to anyone who subsequently downloads them for commercial use.

Remind me to look at the small print of this site with regard to pictures put in albums here...

Stephen.
Hi Stephen,

I don’t subscribe to Pinterest either, but my friends do, and I note that they have literally thousands of photographs and pictures on their which have simply been pinched from other internet users – particularly those of badges sold on eBay.

Zob.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 16-12-17, 04:12 PM
btns's Avatar
btns btns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,164
Default

Here is a page on Pinterest and copyright violations.
https://turbofuture.com/internet/Is-...ght-Violations

Now, if you happen to sell your original badge on e-bay and a Pinterest user pins it, you cannot complain about copyright.
Your picture does not have copyright because it is not artistic.

When FakeBadger puts up his creations, slidder and all, he does have copyright. It is on the badge, a creative object.

(You cannot publish a picture of the the Eiffeltower at night. The tower itself is out of copyright, but the guy who put up the bulbs has copyright)

Most of my Google searches have -pinterest because the site does not contribute anything positive to my query.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 17-12-17, 01:00 AM
zob's Avatar
zob zob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by btns View Post
Here is a page on Pinterest and copyright violations.
https://turbofuture.com/internet/Is-...ght-Violations

Now, if you happen to sell your original badge on e-bay and a Pinterest user pins it, you cannot complain about copyright.
Your picture does not have copyright because it is not artistic.

When FakeBadger puts up his creations, slidder and all, he does have copyright. It is on the badge, a creative object.

(You cannot publish a picture of the the Eiffeltower at night. The tower itself is out of copyright, but the guy who put up the bulbs has copyright)

Most of my Google searches have -pinterest because the site does not contribute anything positive to my query.
Hi,

An Interesting link that clearly states that Pinterest prohibits people pinning images to their site without the permission of the owner to do so, and that in most cases this rule is deliberately ignored, and thus demonstrating a clear indication that Pinterest are complicit in the violation of an individual’s copyright, with the deliberate intention of seeking remuneration for somebody else’s work.

Also, I think you’ve got the bit about copyright slightly back to front if you read the copyright laws posted earlier in this very interesting post, as it states that it is the actual photograph and not the subject, which is deemed to be the intellectual property of its creator. Of course, there are instances where permission should be sort in advance before you take a particular shot, such as somebody's art work etc, but by enlarge, if you take a picture of a genuine or reproduction badge in the privacy of your own home for whatever reason, then that picture is yours by right as its creator, and it is to this image that copyright is attached.

To my mind, it appears that no matter how these companies want to twist it, it amounts to nothing more than outright theft whether an un-consenting individual minds or not if their image has been used without consent, and just goes to show just how low people and society will sink in order to make quick and easy buck off the back of other peoples labour.

Kind regards,

Zob.

Last edited by zob; 17-12-17 at 01:13 AM. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 17-12-17, 09:59 PM
grenadierguardsman's Avatar
grenadierguardsman grenadierguardsman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 1,675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zob View Post
Hi,

An Interesting link that clearly states that Pinterest prohibits people pinning images to their site without the permission of the owner to do so, and that in most cases this rule is deliberately ignored, and thus demonstrating a clear indication that Pinterest are complicit in the violation of an individual’s copyright, with the deliberate intention of seeking remuneration for somebody else’s work.

Also, I think you’ve got the bit about copyright slightly back to front if you read the copyright laws posted earlier in this very interesting post, as it states that it is the actual photograph and not the subject, which is deemed to be the intellectual property of its creator. Of course, there are instances where permission should be sort in advance before you take a particular shot, such as somebody's art work etc, but by enlarge, if you take a picture of a genuine or reproduction badge in the privacy of your own home for whatever reason, then that picture is yours by right as its creator, and it is to this image that copyright is attached.

To my mind, it appears that no matter how these companies want to twist it, it amounts to nothing more than outright theft whether an un-consenting individual minds or not if their image has been used without consent, and just goes to show just how low people and society will sink in order to make quick and easy buck off the back of other peoples labour.

Kind regards,

Zob.
Yes Zob thats how i understand it.
Andy
__________________
Leave to carry on Sir please.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:14 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.