Copyright
Can somebody answer this question for me please.
I have an old family photograph probably taken around the beginning of the last century or even a tad earlier. I can't remember who loaned it to me me or who the people are in the photograph. So I uploaded it to a family history website, asking if anyone can date it for me, also explaining I couldn't remember who loaned it to me. The post was removed because I didn't own the original and copyright. Is this correct? I have submitted the image to three local newspapers and none have refused to print it nor asked if I owned copyright.
Were they in the right to remove the post when the original photograph is over 100 years old?
What is the law in this respect?
I have an old family photograph probably taken around the beginning of the last century or even a tad earlier. I can't remember who loaned it to me me or who the people are in the photograph. So I uploaded it to a family history website, asking if anyone can date it for me, also explaining I couldn't remember who loaned it to me. The post was removed because I didn't own the original and copyright. Is this correct? I have submitted the image to three local newspapers and none have refused to print it nor asked if I owned copyright.
Were they in the right to remove the post when the original photograph is over 100 years old?
What is the law in this respect?
This quote from Google search. Just about covers it I think.
For most photographs, the context and nature of the collection in which they sit will help in determining whether they are likely to have been published or made available to the public. If not published or made available in the 70 years following creation, then copyright has expired.
For most photographs, the context and nature of the collection in which they sit will help in determining whether they are likely to have been published or made available to the public. If not published or made available in the 70 years following creation, then copyright has expired.
Thank you.
I also looked on the Internet and found this . . . . "The Berne Convention stipulates that the duration of the term for copyright protection is the life of the author plus 50 after their death. In the UK, copyright generally expires 70 years after the death of the creator. The photograph I uploaded must have been taken at least 120 years ago". As I said in the post, I don't own the original, it was loaned to me to copy years ago.
So in my view. I don't think it should have been removed.
I also looked on the Internet and found this . . . . "The Berne Convention stipulates that the duration of the term for copyright protection is the life of the author plus 50 after their death. In the UK, copyright generally expires 70 years after the death of the creator. The photograph I uploaded must have been taken at least 120 years ago". As I said in the post, I don't own the original, it was loaned to me to copy years ago.
So in my view. I don't think it should have been removed.
Provided we can show that we've made a diligent search for the author, I'd have thought that we'd be on safe ground using a pic that's 120 years old.
Quote:Were they in the right to remove the post when the original photograph is over 100 years old?
Unfortunately service providers can make up any rules they want. They are not a government organisation.
So whether or not it complies with copyright law in a particular country is a secondary issue.
Quote:The post was removed because I didn't own the original and copyright. Is this correct? I have submitted the image to three local newspapers and none have refused to print it nor asked if I owned copyright.
There is data protection to consider as well - a photo is data.
Often detail of name, address etc is confidential under the regulations unless required to complete a contract - as in where to send goods obtained via mail order - where there needs to be adequate delivery detail on the parcel.
Copyright...as defined "the exclusive and assignable legal right, given to the originator for a fixed number of years, to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material"...
or the originator is given a space for the fixed number of years to make money out of it, and after the fixed number of years the idea is for the public to use...to get the copyright, the originator have to record the knowhow of the original work & have to pay a certain sum of money to get the copyright...it is in legal terms...
Copyright is sometime interpreted or misinterpreted in different ways to include everything even a language...I have seen many photographs of a place or of an idea, but they are not copyrighted according to the copyright laws in favour of the originator, according to me only for the reason that the originator had never paid that fees to the proper authority or never recorded the knowhow of the original work...As per Indian Laws are concerned...
So there should be a proper forum & measures to protect the copyright, & the originator must have claimed to get his work copyrighted...
or the originator is given a space for the fixed number of years to make money out of it, and after the fixed number of years the idea is for the public to use...to get the copyright, the originator have to record the knowhow of the original work & have to pay a certain sum of money to get the copyright...it is in legal terms...
Copyright is sometime interpreted or misinterpreted in different ways to include everything even a language...I have seen many photographs of a place or of an idea, but they are not copyrighted according to the copyright laws in favour of the originator, according to me only for the reason that the originator had never paid that fees to the proper authority or never recorded the knowhow of the original work...As per Indian Laws are concerned...
So there should be a proper forum & measures to protect the copyright, & the originator must have claimed to get his work copyrighted...
I do not rely on a third party to make interpretations of copyright law, data protection or anything else.
I have always had my own web space for which I pay an annual fee. On it I post what I please - and no outside body has any say in the matter.
Obviously it is still subject to the laws but that would be between myself and any complainant. Not a service provider.
I have always had my own web space for which I pay an annual fee. On it I post what I please - and no outside body has any say in the matter.
Obviously it is still subject to the laws but that would be between myself and any complainant. Not a service provider.
Quote:I do not rely on a third party to make interpretations of copyright law, data protection or anything else.
I have always had my own web space for which I pay an annual fee. On it I post what I please - and no outside body has any say in the matter.
Obviously it is still subject to the laws but that would be between myself and any complainant. Not a service provider.
Posting "what some people please" on a web site accessible to third parties can sometimes breach data protection legislation with the risk of a prosecution and fine, as well an instruction to remove copyright material from a copyright owner and depending on the situation a claim for damages.
Going back to what started the thread - it was about publishing a photo ON ANOTHER WEB SITE.
Whoever runs this web site not only has the right to determine what perhaps borderline copyright or data is published on it - they did!
Quote:Posting "what some people please" on a web site accessible to third parties can sometimes breach data protection legislation with the risk of a prosecution and fine, as well an instruction to remove copyright material from a copyright owner and depending on the situation a claim for damages.
This misses the point.
It would be between a complainant and myself. There is no service provider involved.
Obviously if something is (eg) libellous, there can be consequences. But it's not up to a third party to decide.
Quote:
Quote:Posting "what some people please" on a web site accessible to third parties can sometimes breach data protection legislation with the risk of a prosecution and fine, as well an instruction to remove copyright material from a copyright owner and depending on the situation a claim for damages.
It would be between a complainant and myself
Perhaps you miss an important point.
It matters little to me - but - like the police - the Data Protection Authorities have a legal right to become involved in appropriate situations - and they can impose substantial fines.
Quote:Perhaps you miss an important point.
No I rather think you have though.
I could take a photo of you and post it online (on my own web space) with the title: "Sad Old Drunk"
That would not save me from a libel action. But no service provider would be involved or demand I remove the photo or indeed remove it themselves. You would have to initiate the action.
Similarly for copyright and data protection. There is no commercial body to make a decision for me. I can choose to publish and be damned as the old saying goes.
Quote:
Similarly for copyright and data protection. There is no commercial body
On a technicality you are slightly right.
Under the Data Protection Act 2018 there is the right by the authorities to take action and bring prosecutions, just as the UK police have a right to take action and bring a prosecution if you break into someones home.
I doubt many would describe either relevant body for taking action as a "commercial body".
Nevertheless the legislation exists.
