100 replies to this topic

[Michael Müller]

In the topic “Favourite Motor Racing Photos” the question arises about copyrights. David, thanks for the link, I never visited the “Reader’s Comments” board, so I didn’t see this topic. For all who didn’t read it also, here the main sentence from Bira’s message:

“You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB.”

What to say? Of course Bira is right, it is well known that a hard fight is going on since some months about publishing of – mainly actual - race photos on the web, and any webmaster must be very careful to protect him-/herself. But what does this mean for us “historic” guys?
Most photos are old, some even very old, and unfortunately by reason of age I didn’t had the possibility to visit the 1914 Grand Prix de l’ACF, also not the 1936 Eifelrennen, and even at the 1952 British Grand Prix I existed only in fluid form, so no chance to take private pictures on which I can claim any form of copyright.
A proposed solution is to ask the owner of the copyright for permission, but frankly spoken how to find him? How can we find out whether there is a copyright at all on a 50 year old photo? Most pictures I found on private webpages, where one can be sure that the webmaster has no copyright. A few are located on official pages, others on half-official pages, and of course a lot in hardcopy prints. To find out the copyright owner and asking for permission – if possible at all - will take hours, and getting a reply can be considered as miracle. And all this only to put a picture into a thread to say “have a look”??
And what about text excerpts from books or old magazines? Forbidden of course!
Legally it is not enough to mention “courtesy by …”, you need a permission.

From now on I will stick to the rules, I will not post anymore pictures or text excerpts, and if the other forum members will do the same, this place will loose a lot of its fascination.

[Wolf]

Michael, I think there was thread on this Forum as well (I think it was in all Forums except 'Paddock Club'). The actual issue is, the way I was led to understand) that posting pictures also presents problems for websites on which the images are located- each opening of the thread loads that image, which can lead to traffic jams on those sites. I think contacting admins on the sites we usually post photos (here I mean TNF posters)-Retro, Forix, 8W &c could solve the problem. Other than that, as I understand it, posting pictures can be done under the existing regulations (and Bira or someone with a say around here will correct me if I'm wrong)- by substituting 'img' vB code with 'url' and acknowledging the owners. This way pictures aren't constantly called upon (once, usually suffices- for a poster) and are opened in separate browser window.

Of course, I would hate to mislead anyone (m'self included), so I would be very grateful if someone from the BB staff would say whether my interpretation is OK or not.

[Don Capps]

This Forum was not cited as a problem, but it was considered wise & consistent to clue folks in on this issue. Indeed, I can scarcely recall an incident where this Forum was pointed out as an offender of any maginitude.

My guidance is to use discretion and let your conscience be your guide.

[Catch 22]

Doesn't copyrighted material become "public domain" at some point after it's first published? (I *think* it's 18 years, or at least was when I last published anything.) In another thread, I asked Don Capps to post the cover photo from a Car & Driver issued in 1963. I'd hate to think that honoring my request might get him or Bira or anyone else into hot water.

Don, if you're reading this, please don't post the Maserati 151 cover! If you could send me a copy (seb1190@worldnet.att.net), I would be forever in your dept. Many thanks!

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by Catch 22
Doesn't copyrighted material become "public domain" at some point after it's first published? (I *think* it's 18 years, or at least was when I last published anything.)

Yes but almost everything within the last 50-75 years has been automatically reprotected by a congressional act in the early 90's if I recall. I know because I became overjoyed that some of the material I needed to use for my own writing purposes would become public domain shortly. However, that is when I discovered that Congress enacted a bill which would automatically re-protect everything without action from the copyright holder. I can't remember all the specific amount of years that material is copyrighted for now but it is safe to assume anything written in the last 50 years is copyright protected.

[Hans Etzrodt]

The pictures occasionally displayed at TNF make these pages so much more alive.

I always wanted to collect some grand prix racing photographs of the twenties and thirties legally. Most books or magazines give credit of the various photographs and therefore it is fairly easy to find out where the pictures originate. My problem is to find the addresses of the people who have photo archives and are actively in business. How can I contact them?

Can anybody please help me with advise how to go about to purchase copies of copyright pictures, prints of GP racing photographs. Here some archives, which come to my mind and carry pictures of interest to me. I am looking for their addresses.

LAT archive
Robert Fellowes collection
Louis Klemantaski collection
George Monkhouse collection
Kurt Wörner collection
David Hodges Collection
T.A.S.O. Mathieson collection
Luigi Fusi collection
Franco Zagari archive

[Marco94]

Hans,

You should be able to contact LAT through Motorsport (the green magazine). IIRC LAT is part of Haymarket, in any case very closelly connected.

Try www.klemantaski.com for the Klemantaski Collection. They have some good links as well!

As for the rest, I believe Chris Nixon now owns the Robert Fellows collection.

[Marco94]

Hans,

Just went by the Autosport website, and discovered some LAT info. Look for the "about us" link at the far right in the top bar. There you can find some info on how to contact Tim Wright, who apparently is responsalbe for the LAT contacts.

Marco.

[Hans Etzrodt]

Marco,

Thank you for your help. I looked at both sites and will make contact to find out more details.

Thank you also for the connection to Chris Nixon.

I hope to find out also, how to contact the other archives.

[Patrick Italiano]

Hans,

could you please keep me informed of your finds about those archives?

I'm still hunting for Alfa GP pictures from 1938 - 39.

I know some archives in Belgium, but starting in the 50s.

Since you didn't mention it in your post, do you have a contact for Millanta's archives?

Thanks

[Hans Etzrodt]

Patrick,
Until now I have only the two websites given to us thanks to Marco's help. The Klemantaski site is very helpful and interesting but the price of 120 $ or £ per picture has only made me wince. I have not yet found time to check out LAT, who should have a very large collection. Maybe additional help will come forward from some of the many journalist friends here at TNF.

[Don Capps]

Steve,

Ref this:

I asked Don Capps to post the cover photo from a Car & Driver issued in 1963.

I haven't forgotten, I need to get my scanner back online and then I will send it to you. Hopefully, by early next week since I am gone for several days.

[Allen Brown]

Hans

The other person you should talk to is Ted Walker who has a massive collection of negatives purchased from professional and amateur photographers working from the 1930's to the 1980's. He may not have as much 1930's stuff as some of the archives you have mentioned, but his charges are much more realistic.

You can reach Ted on +44 1453 543243.

Allen

[Hans Etzrodt]

Allen,
Thank you very much for giving me the complete phone number including country code. I will call Ted Walker tonight, because of the 11 hours time difference from my residence in the middle of the Pacific.

That leaves now the following (8) collections where I would like to find out how they can be contacted but I will follow also any other lead I can get.

Robert Fellowes collection (now with Chris Nixon?)
George Monkhouse archive
Kurt Wörner collection
David Hodges Collection
T.A.S.O. Mathieson collection
Luigi Fusi archive
Franco Zagari archive
Corrado Millanta archive

[David McKinney]

I believe the Zagari archive is now in private UK hands. David Hodges died in December 1999 and as far as I know his archive is still with his family. But, sorry, I don't know abouty accessing either. Ted Walker might well know: I suspect he is a TNF browser, though he hadn't got around to registering when I last spoke to him a few days ago.
The other repository is c/o Doug Nye, who administers some at least of the Geoff Goddard collection.

[Gary C]

Hey lads, I have a collection of photos & movie film.
It's at http://www.superchargedcollection.com, mainly 50's, 60's and 70's stuff, but I'm DEFINITELY more reasonable than people like LAT who charge HUGE fees for pictures.

[Ray Bell]

Likewise, my fees for 60s and 70s pics are most reasonable, but only Australian stuff... including Tasman.

[Joe Fan]

GaryC, if you have some decent pictures of Masten Gregory, I would be interested. Let me know what you've got and your fees. I am trying to come up with 200 B&W photos and 25 color ones for the biography I am writing on him--without breaking the bank.

[HistoricMustang]

A question.

A professional photographer takes a photograph of a driver and that photographer says he owns the copyright.

Can the driver or the family of the driver over ride this copyright and use the photograph as they see fit?

One step further, can the driver or the family of the driver also prohibit distribution of the photograph?

Henry

[macoran]

A question.

A professional photographer takes a photograph of a driver and that photographer says he owns the copyright.

Can the driver or the family of the driver over ride this copyright and use the photograph as they see fit?

One step further, can the driver or the family of the driver also prohibit distribution of the photograph?

Henry

Would there be a difference between the following situations?
1-- driver POSES for the photograph....and knows (sees badge etc) that the photographer is accredited and allowed to shoot at the track.. and
2-- driver doesn't see him... a shot is taken

In whichever case the driver knows there are photographers around, and knows he may get shot (sic), it's not as if he is being run down (oef) by papparazzi.

[Cynic2]

Actually, Henry, that's not one question but three. I won't guarantee these answers in every case, but I think I can answer your questions (with the help of my attorney, who wanted neither credit nor blame).

"A professional photographer takes a photograph of a driver and that photographer says he owns the copyright."

The photographer is correct.

Can the driver or the family of the driver over ride this copyright and use the photograph as they see fit?

No.

One step further, can the driver or the family of the driver also prohibit distribution of the photograph?

Also no, not without an order by a judge.


Admittedly things are rarely this simple. Was the driver a public figure? (Competing in the Indianapolis 500 would normally make him so.) Was the photo taken in an environment where the driver had no expectation of privacy (again, say the Indy 500)? The driver has almost nothing to say about the usage of the photo.

If the driver was deceased, can his family prohibit distribution, etc? The "family" may have few rights, particularly if the driver was legally an adult. Who was the next of kin? Who was the administrator of his estate? If the driver had no rights in a photo, it's unlikely the family can claim rights.

A photo of the deceased driver (for example) might be in exceptionally poor taste, but that in and of itself gives the family no rights in the photo. They could try to find a judge to prohibit publication, but most judges dislike prior restraint. If the photo is published the family can sue for damages for (say) emotional distress; particularly in the U.S. anyone can sue for almost anything, but this might be a very difficult case to prove, particularly after 45 years, and even more so if the photo has been previously published.

Naturally you should discuss a specific case and course of action with an attorney -- this is in no way legal advice. It may, however, give you quick answers to your questions, if not the answers you and others might seek.

[Alan Cox]

Not sure if this is quite the right thread, but I am posting this here to avoid starting a new one as it may be of interest to some of TNF's photographers and writers.
Re: Proposed changes to the UK's copyright system
http://blog.fotolibra.com/?p=741

[mwphoto]

A question.

A professional photographer takes a photograph of a driver and that photographer says he owns the copyright.

Can the driver or the family of the driver over ride this copyright and use the photograph as they see fit?

One step further, can the driver or the family of the driver also prohibit distribution of the photograph?

Henry

Along the same lines, substitute driver in the above question, with current owner of a car. I know my feeling on the matter.
Recenltly ran across someone posting my shots of a car that he is currently the owner of. His reply, at first, when asked about giving credit on the shots was that since he owns the car he can use pics of it as he wishes. He has owned the car for about eight years and the shots are from about twenty years ago. I have checked back and a Photo by: credit has been given.
Once, several years ago, a current owner of a car e-mailed me about providing him with a copy of a book that three of my shots of the car appeared in. Logic, he currently owned the car and was entitled to anything in reference to "his" car. I sent him an e-mail with the website of the publisher and a bookstore selling the book and blocked his e-mails from being received in my inbox!

Edited by mwphoto, 09 February 2012 - 14:59.

[Option1]

Doesn't matter. Doesn't even matter who's camera it is. What does matter is who pressed the shutter button and took the picture. (Mileage may very by country, but overall that's how it stands. Certainly the car owner / driver / etc does not have any rights at all over the image unless they specifically bought them from the photographer).

Neil

[Charlieman]

What does matter is who pressed the shutter button and took the picture.

It's a bit more complicated than that in countries that follow copyright convention laws. Art galleries, for example, often state in the terms of admission that photographs may not be taken. A photograph of a painting is protected, and unless the Louvre gives you explicit permission to photograph an exhibit, you may not publish it. If that argument hurts your brain, don't go to http://en.wikipedia....F_retouched.jpg to read the disclaimers.

Theoretically, the land owner of a circuit or paddock could proclaim "no photos". It would not be in their interests to do so but it is an almost unenforceable right.

Thank you to the racers who have made it possible to take photographs of their cars. Thank you to the polishers and mechanics and fellow fans who have moved out of shot.

[Giraffe]

I vaguely recall seeing signs at some circuits in the past stating something to the effect that the circuit claimed copyright to all photographs taken there, and wondering how on earth they could enforce that?

[elansprint72]

I vaguely recall seeing signs at some circuits in the past stating something to the effect that the circuit claimed copyright to all photographs taken there, and wondering how on earth they could enforce that?

Some MSV programmes have very stringent conditions printed inside them. Basically it says photography and video recording by J. Public is not permitted and if you do, MSV reserves the right to confiscate and retain possession.

As I understand it (I am not a lawyer but found myself involved in the, now scrapped, Section 44 anti-terrorist photography fiasco last year) photography on private property is not permitted. Canary Wharf and Network Rail have enforced this for years, however there is no right to confiscate. Something very new is that one now needs prior permission from Boris to take snaps in Trafalgar Square!

[Frank S]

This (198?) photo violates The World Famous San Diego Zoo's reservation of rights they claim with regard to images created by visitors to their magnificent park. I don't recall ever seeing the statement of that reservation until they published it as part of their Web site, and I have spent many, many happy hours and rolls of film on the premises. Many venues put the restrictions in small print on the back of tickets.

I telephoned the Zoo a couple years ago to find out what the rules were, after they failed to respond to emails. The PR person waffled on for a while, and I understood there was small likelihood that any policing would occur unless an amateur or professional visitor captured and capitalized on a picture that, in current terms, "went viral". Right place, right time, wrong place right time... Chance, sort of.

[john aston]

Some MSV programmes have very stringent conditions printed inside them. Basically it says photography and video recording by J. Public is not permitted and if you do, MSV reserves the right to confiscate and retain possession.

As I understand it (I am not a lawyer but found myself involved in the, now scrapped, Section 44 anti-terrorist photography fiasco last year) photography on private property is not permitted. Canary Wharf and Network Rail have enforced this for years, however there is no right to confiscate. Something very new is that one now needs prior permission from Boris to take snaps in Trafalgar Square!

Essentially you can take photos when you like unless somebody has the power to stop you- as a law enforcement agency (eg photographing military installation even from public highway )or as owner of land. But people very rarely enforce that right- for example I have thousands of pictures of various rivers etc where I fish- nobody remotely bothered even though all taken on private land where I only had the right to fish by buying a ticket. Same with race circuits- do what the hell you want is my mantra. Yes MSV may have a condition about it but it's legal boilerplate stuff- only time MSV will ever be bothered is if somebody is making a shedload of cash from flogging DVDs of races at Cadwell for example. Check out Youtube or Flickr - millions of videos and photos and 99% of the time nobody is bothered. I am appallled at some of the jobsworth paranoia that has sen people prevented taking pictures on holiday beaches , London landmarks etc- it's bollocks !

[E1pix]

It's a bit more complicated than that in countries that follow copyright convention laws. Art galleries, for example, often state in the terms of admission that photographs may not be taken. A photograph of a painting is protected, and unless the Louvre gives you explicit permission to photograph an exhibit, you may not publish it....

Option1's comments didn't strike me as pertaining to that type of photograph.

Absolutely, museums and galleries fear quality reproduction of an original art piece, good enough to sell very high quality copy prints in some far away place unlikely to contest or even find an infringement. Not to mention shooting a unique style of work that is later used for knockoffs. These days with digital tech rising so rapidly, these issues will get worse.

My work has been hammered far too many times to count (just the ones I know about). Despite that, it seems to me the most dire infringements from technology are more freedom-based than of copyright origin.

[E1pix]

... Certainly the car owner / driver / etc does not have any rights at all over the image unless they specifically bought them from the photographer.

Neil

Display Rights Only... the right to hang, show, exhibit, and/or archive the print, and nothing more. No publishing rights, no reprint rights, no right of reproduction for profits of any kind.

[Giraffe]

By giraffe138 at 2012-02-11

[David McKinney]

Display Rights Only... the right to hang, show, exhibit, and/or archive the print, and nothing more. No publishing rights, no reprint rights, no right of reproduction for profits of any kind.

... unless the owner specifically commissioned the photographer for the work, in which case the owner has all rights. At least that's the way it works in the UK

[Robin Fairservice]

If owners of land can control the taking of pictures, what do they do about Google Earth and all of the millions of statellite pictures of their property?

[David McKinney]

Complain

[john aston]

If owners of land can control the taking of pictures, what do they do about Google Earth and all of the millions of statellite pictures of their property?

Good question. From my very distant law degree I recall that as landowner you have rights over the property ad caelum et ad inferos- literally to heaven and hell I think but legal doctrine developed that the heaven bit was about the level of the ionsphere and the Civil Aviation Act stopped you from being able to sue pilots of passing aeroplanes. Which may now include satellites - any property lawyers can elaborate on this? Anyway - with satellite pictures even Ecclestone is buggered. As it were.

[RTH]

Anyone employed a Solicitor lately? £250 per hour + 20% VAT and they just make their own hours up as they like, and they drag it out literally for years. however much right is on your side, it is a real nightmare going to law over anything.

[elansprint72]

By giraffe138 at 2012-02-11

Tony,
I hope you asked the copyright holder before you posted that.

[Giraffe]

Tony,
I hope you asked the copyright holder before you posted that.

Physician heal thyself

[john aston]

Anyone employed a Solicitor lately? £250 per hour + 20% VAT and they just make their own hours up as they like, and they drag it out literally for years. however much right is on your side, it is a real nightmare going to law over anything.

The law keeps me in a job and is therefore a wonderful thing. You certainly have been quoted some worryingly cheap rates. But seriously- they are not all £250- some are even more but plenty of high street firms are a lot cheaper. If you are being ripped off - change your firm !

[E1pix]

... unless the owner specifically commissioned the photographer for the work, in which case the owner has all rights. At least that's the way it works in the UK

Correct, with apologies for my incomplete comments.

Yes, unless specifically contracted otherwise, if someone hires you to shoot them they own whatever rights due them. The photographer only maintains the right to use their work for PR, again, if agreed. As always, it comes down to what was agreed to, but certainly many rights are bound by copyright law if not specifically contracted.

[Doug Nye]

We have just been involved in a copyright infringement case which might be of interest, or provide a warning to the naive collector/trader. While browsing eBay I was guided apparently automatically to 'similar Lots' which might attract a bid from me. I had been looking at some old racing shots and now amongst these 'similar Lots' what struck me straight between the eyes were three of our copyright images, offered at a starting price of £2.99 or somesuch, each. We knew nothing of any such prints from our negs or transparencies authorised by us. So I emailed the vendor asking whether these were proper chemical prints from a darkroom or were they printed digital scans? I also asked if he had any more to offer.

The vendor emailed back immediately, explaining that these were professionally printed from digital scans and, yes, he had plenty more to offer.

Whereupon I broke the bad news to him, made it plain we take a dim view, n-thousand Pounds per unauthorised image sale precedents, etc etc. I gave him my phone number, said let's discuss the situation, but basically in copyright infringement terms this means game over, how are YOU going to resolve it?

I subsequently took pity on the plainly frightened vendor who still had the common sense - and the bottle - to call me, and we have come to a mutually acceptable resolution which should have ended infringement from that quarter. OK - we shall see if he is as good as his word, but we intend to be and will not hesitate to take further action if unauthorised commercial exploration of our copyright images recurs. However - we have got this far, on eventually amicable terms, without involving any legal leeches.

What it boils down to is that if you buy a legitimate professional copyright print, and then sell it on after scanning it, while you may quite properly retain that scan for your own interest and use, you may NOT print from that scan and thereby reproduce the copyright image for sale to others UNLESS you have the copyright holder's permission to do so. In some cases, in return for a share of the proceeds, permission might be given. Or it might not.

Simples?

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 12 February 2012 - 22:56.

[fbarrett]

Putting aside the complicated and contentious legalities for a moment, what this issue boils down to is simple professional and personal courtesy. Before you sell a photograph or artwork created or owned by others, you must have their permission. You wouldn't walk into someone's garage, steal their car, then sell it, would you? Many people selling or using others' work--innocently or otherwise--spend too much time fussing about legal details and not enough time considering common courtesy.

Frank

[Doug Nye]

Well said Frank. Quite right.

DCN

[E1pix]

Awesome posts by both you guys.

[Catalina Park]

A couple of moths ago I was looking through the photo site Flickr at the "Blue Mountains Library - Local Studies" album. (I come from the Blue Mountains so I have an interest in my old town) I came across a few interesting photos of Catalina racetrack, one of them is linked here..
Open wheelers on Craven A corner, Catalina Park Circuit, Katoomba

A while later I found to my surprise a seller on Ebay in the USA selling this same photo!
Photo 1967 Katoomba NSW Australia "Open Wheelers on Catalina Park Raceway"
and I have discovered that this bloke has over 10,000 photos listed for sale.

I asked the seller "Dear ************, Do you own the rights to reproduce this image?"
I got a reply, "We got this in a file of photos from an Ebayer that went out of business. Generally photos that old are not under copyright. Let us know if there is a problem?"
Then another reply, "It comes from a public library photo archives. Public libraries are funded by taxpayer money which generally means their photos are in the public domain. Do you know something different?"

I sent a message to the library and they sent a reply, "Thanks for the heads up. It happens to all public institutions with online collections and there is little we can do about it. I will contact Ebay and see what happens."

The photo is still for sale so it looks like the seller has won.

[raceannouncer2003]

I have a collection of photos of racing in Holland, 1952-1955, by John Schaepman. We haven't found anyone yet who can give me permission to post them. Any more ideas would be welcomed.

Vince H.

[E1pix]

I have a collection of photos of racing in Holland, 1952-1955, by John Schaepman. We haven't found anyone yet who can give me permission to post them. Any more ideas would be welcomed.

Vince H.

How were they acquired?

[john aston]

If I found a set of 50-60 year old photos I wouldnt lose too much sleep about their copyright frankly.But I am sure others might.I am all for protecting rights to stuff on here which people have taken themselves or have bought the rights to but how much time would I waste trying to establish the provenance of old pics I found at a car boot sale..?

[David McKinney]

I have a collection of photos of racing in Holland, 1952-1955, by John Schaepman. We haven't found anyone yet who can give me permission to post them. Any more ideas would be welcomed.

I've said before that I'm not a lawyer, but I believe if you make "all reasonable efforts" to find who holds the copyright, you're off any hook. The difficulty of course is in how a court might define "all reasonable efforts"...