Greetings good people
posting this topic or the advise of Simon, to hopefully tap the knowledge for the collective membership to help me and others stay within the law of theses matters

the question is what can you post in terms of scans from books etc. without copyright infringement?

i have quite a few surveys from rare books i would like to post or images that i can compare to my own present day shots to explain remains etc. i know carnkie and a few others are often posting pics from books etc to make a point etc. and as fare as i know its legal as long a as you put the copyright is acknowledged particularly if the works are old:

"Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works
Copyright expires 70 years after the end of the year of the author's death. If there is no known author, copyright expires 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or 70 years from when the work was first made available to the public."

also found this:

"Fair dealing

Limited copying of certain works is possible under an exception known as 'fair dealing' for:

* the purposes of research for a non-commercial purpose
* the purposes of private study. "Private study" does not include any study which is directly or indirectly for a commercial purpose
* criticism or review
* reporting of current events

Fair dealing is not a legal right but it can be used as a defence. The exclusion of 'commercial' copying noted above follows a change to the law that came into force on 31 October 2003.

You can make one copy of part of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (this includes books and journals but not films, broadcasts or videos) for research for a non-commercial purpose or private study. The amount that you can copy is not defined by the Act but the extent of copying must not harm the economic interests of the copyright owner. Commonly accepted practice is that copying should not exceed:

* a chapter of a book or 5 per cent of a book, whichever is longer
* one complete article from a journal issue
* a maximum of ten pages of a poem, short story, or other short literary work, taken from a volume of short stories or poems
* up to 10% (maximum 20 pages) per short book (without chapters), report, pamphlet, or standard specification
* one separate illustration, diagram, photograph or map up to A4 size, but, if an integral part of articles/chapters, they may be included in the extracts identified above"

i don’t want to get anyone least of all Simon or the forum into any trouble but some of this stuff would be very useful to others i think sop what do people know about this?

cheers ferret

This is a minefield in practice.
I get involved in this alot due to my job in tech sales...., manuals, drawings etc for railway equipment.... In my experience its tended to work that where you are passing bits and bobs between just a couple of mutually interested parties the copyright owners are usually fine as like you say its limited.... but be very careful what you post on the internet and especially on sites like this and certainly if its ever proven you copied something for gain there is no defence if IPR or copyright belongs to the owners. Some copyright owners believe that basically even if You have taken only one copy -every time your copy is re-used/viewed or downloaded or even looked at their copyright has been breached and that you are fiscally depriving them of revenue they could have earned and believe me in modern photographic circles they will come after you, even if it is virtually impossible to prove mostly. If you managed say to find an image of an old mine on the web, not marked copyright and you display it or use it you can argue 'How was I too know' and agree to take it down if challenged.
The way our company lawyer put it to me was there is a huge difference using a page of a GM loco manual emailed to someone to help them solve a problem or for discussion than compared to copying the whole manual and putting it out for everyone on the Web to look at or selling it. I have also seen it argued that if you copy a picture from a book you are still infringing the rights of the publisher by copying his book (I suggest cropping)even if the pictureis over 70 years since death/taken. I asked recently re the Ordish pics if i could use one in an article for a magazine and got a firm No, unless I paid!
I don't think you infringe copyright on the forum as its not for commercial gain directly or otherwise but I think the 70 year rule is worth keeping in mind. And if you don't know who an author is say so and apologise if you think there is a risk the image or doc may be in copyright.
A lot of this comes down to fairplay.... As a railway/airline photographer and someone who does a little writing I would not like it if someone stole my pictures etc for gain, hence I alway ask myself if by copying and posting something is the owner likely to be alive, has it been in common domain a long time (70 yr rule), has it been published by multiple authors etc before or on the net for free or just unlikely that the owner will ever be found? I recently found a diagram I needed for a walk on a mine site, it came from a book still in publication etc but I simply re-drew it in my own style (which is legal) formatting the public domain info contained therein in my own style.
Re the odd old survey etc and odd old pics they will belong to someone in some collection somewhere, I don't think people really worry unless you started uploading huge amounts of them such that it compromises their value, the question being that how does anyone know if you or the items previous owner (say 10 years ago) had been given permission.

Like I say its a Yeuch field...
:surrender:

---

I quite agree it's a complete minefield. Strictly speaking if you upload a photo or page from a book, even if attributed, it's in breach of copyright (assuming permission hasn't been granted) as it's no longer for personal use. Although fair use could come into play here. I recently uploaded some of Burrow's photos but did get permission from the British Library to do so. If it's only a couple of paragraphs I don't see a problem because authors often quote from other authors providing the correct ref.
The OS are slightly different in that anything over 50 years is okay but permission required if not.
The BGS are different again and quite hot on this. Their rules are a bit vague but generally the 70 year rule applies. If any doubts contact their Copyright Service Advisor:

Gill Church
[email protected],uk.

This site may help.

http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/ 

---

Well put Carnkie, it looks like horses for courses here! I am not condoning copying of books or anything else unless by permission or at least taking care and putting a bit of thought into its source etc.
Sounds like if its over 70 years old for pics, docs etc, or over 50 years old for OS etc you should be fairly ok given discretion on your sources, otherwise apply fair use or get permission.
Just use your head!

---

Just use your head!

Some time ago I was talking to a chap who owns an antiquarian bookshop and for some reason this subject arose. He said he once had a client who bought a fairly rare and quite expensive book off him, took it away, and photocopied the whole book and then sold it back to him! Why the bloke felt the need to admitting breaking copyright law is outside the scope of my imagination.

---

thanks guys
this do's help i know its a grey area or at least a complicated one.
keep up the good work guys and will try and follow the above rough rules and may post some stuff soon which are ok by those being old and long out of price with disclaimer to copyright owners whoever there maybe that i'm not deliberately breaching it just trying to make use of the valuable information image for others benefit

now now.... say that fast if you can! :thumbsup:

---

Just to really muddy the waters, where do we stand with a reissue of something old? I've got a copy of a 1948 private reprint of Hopkinson's 1644 treatise on the Low Peak mineral laws and customs, which I keep meaning to scan and post online. The author has been dead for well over 300 years, but could the person who had it reprinted (or more likely, their descendants) sue me for copyright infringement?

---

Can't see how they could to be honest.... however if asked you scanned the original might be the right response.... :angel:

---

As I understand it, if someone republishes a work the copyright clock starts again.

For instance, if you obtain a very old photo (an original that is) the copyright will have expired. However, if you then copy it and offer it for sale etc, the copyright of that repro is yours. So, say someone has an original of the same photo, and one of your repros as well, they can reproduce the original without your permission, but cannot reproduce your repro, even though it is of the same subject taken at the same date etc.

So make sure you copy a very old original.... that is my point and if you were going to copy a later copy make sure that it isn't obvious at least.... not that I condone such copying....or wish to be seen to be encouraging such activities... :angel:

---

Had this discussion with a person at the Cornwall Studies Centre this PM. She photocopied a a few pages of J. C. Burrow's 'how to use the camera' for me. Fascinating as you know and I uploaded it. She did it from the Barton 2nd edition (1962) I think, but they have the original which was 1893. I just said say you used the original if asked which I very much doubt. Although I agree with ICLOCK I think one can worry to much about this providing, as he said, you apply a little common sense. :blink:

---

As I understand it, if someone republishes a work the copyright clock starts again.

For instance, if you obtain a very old photo (an original that is) the copyright will have expired. However, if you then copy it and offer it for sale etc, the copyright of that repro is yours. So, say someone has an original of the same photo, and one of your repros as well, they can reproduce the original without your permission, but cannot reproduce your repro, even though it is of the same subject taken at the same date etc.

That is to a certain extent is true. For example if a photo collection is deposited in the CRO (out of copyright) or is it because it's owned by descendants or somene else who purchased the copyright, you would need the permission from the person who owns the copyright, not the CRO, to use the photo. Indeed a minefield. As a matter of interest how can the original and your repro be the same date?

---

there could be another way round it,some sites disable right cliking on photos/scans so technicaly you cant copy them,wouldnt that satisfy copyright laws,i know you can take a screenshot and cut pics out but if the website wont allow you to spread the info about wont that protect the webmaster in some way.

---

The right click disable only applies to Internet Explorer IIRC, other browsers ignore the script, and there's many ways you can still get the image; from grabbing it from your browser cache to screen grabbing the whole screen and cropping it out as you said. It's good for deterring opportunistic downloading, but doesn't do much if somebody's determined to grab an image. That's why the supersize images on here have the watermark embedded at runtime, that and to reassure the photographer or copyright owner that the image is still their copyright.

---

I don't think we should get too paranoid here.... has there been many examples where stuff has been demanded to be taken off by the Copyright owner??? As long as you are clear that you as site owner are not responsible for any copyright breach by your members and that you make a clear statement members should take every care not to breach copyright laws as members of this site etc in a publicly accessible statement...
say labelled Adit Now Copyright policy-

"Aditnow cannot be held responsible for any copyright material uploaded by its members. Adit now requires that members are expected where possible to ensure that any material uploaded to the site shall not fall foul of copyright or IPR laws both private and statutory. In uploading of material to this site any member shall accept the full consequence of their own breach of any copyright or IPR and shall not hold Aditnow responsible for said breach. In return Aditnow shall seek to protect the copyright of all its members where members have uploaded images, documents etc however in uploading material to the Aditnow site the members agree that they shall not hold Aditnow responsible in any way should their personal copyright be breached by use of the Aditnow site"

Phew.... That should just about do it as a policy statement. It should give you some protection and make everyone who contributes responsible for their own actions. Hope you like.... :smartass: Sorry if you think this is a bit much but I write this stuff in contracts all the time. Its kind of a members contract with Aditnow.... after that its business as usual!

---

on the front of copy right two photos of mine and one from another member have been used from adit now ond placed on another persons web site but not from the large image section
but right clicking on the image ang going save as seem to work.
Thorpey :guns:

---

I posted a photo of Mt Wellington on here and it appeared a couple of weeks later in a news letter no watermark on it, nor even a credit. The irony of it is, I'm a member of that society and received one of the newsletters direct through the post.
It makes you reluctant to publish them at all when they start popping up in other places.It could even hinder your chancees of publishing them as part of a book because they would have already been used in another publication.

---

But Roy this happens all the time and as a regular rail and airliner photo contributor on any number of web sites I'm afraid there is always that risk..... i just accept it, seen this debate so many times and just like you it p**ses me off when people take my pictures and they appear on some site in the US showing whats happened at East Midlands Airport. Despite whatever any site owner does it never seems to stop it. Many sites have actually said if you put it on there is a risk you will get it lifted. 😞

---

its just annoying that you find pictures for one article all taken from the same place. without even some acknolegement or at least an e mail.
Thorpey

---