Genealogy Forum UK

Does anyone on here have a simple explanation regarding copyright rules on for example the copying of photos. Not for me, , but for a friend.

Copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies.[16] A consequence of this lengthy period of existence of the copyright is that many family photographs which have no market value, but significant emotional value, remain subject to copyright, even when the original photographer cannot be traced (a problem known as copyright orphan), has given up photography, or died. In the absence of a licence, it will be an infringement of copyright in the photographs to copy them.[17] When someone dies the rights will have transferred to someone else, perhaps through testamentary deposition (a will) or by inheritance. If there was no will, or if the photographer has not specified where the rights in the material should go, then the normal rules of inheritance will apply (although these rules are not specific to copyright and legal advice should be sought).[18] Scanning old family photographs, without permission, to a digital file for personal use is prima facie an infringement of copyright.

Certain photographs may not be protected by copyright. Section 171(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 gives courts jurisdiction to refrain from enforcing the copyright which subsists in works on the grounds of public interest. For example, patent diagrams are held to be in the public domain, and are thus not subject to copyright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

most photographer dont bother as long as the person copying them do sell it for commercial gain

any of my photo if some one wanted one for personal use then no bother but if someone copied say the gallery church files to sell them then i wouldnt be happy

I think the general rule is that copyright belongs to whoever took the photograph, and it lasts until 70 years after the death of that person. Copyright might belong to a company if the photograph was taken as part of normal work, say a picture of a house photographed by the estate agents.
Strictly speaking you cannot copy photographs that are in copyright unless you have permission to do so. So all these books of historical photographs say at the front that no part may be copied etc. without permission. When it comes down to it though, I think it is usually accepted as OK to copy a photo for personal use, say if your friend wanted a copy to have for personal research, or to show to another family member. Is seriously doubt that anyone would chase that copyright up.
Posting on the internet is going a bit far though. I have an old school group photo and thought about scanning it and posting it on a site, but that would break copyright law for sure, though again I doubt if the local photographer (if still alive) would care very much.
I suppose that if I scanned my parents' wedding photo and posted it on here then that would be breaking copyright, but I don't think anyone would mind so it does depend what photos you are talking about, and what will happen to the copy.

(What pete said)

Thanks Pete Gardener. My thoughts on copyright more or less the same as yours. How would you know if someone copied your photos and sold them for personal gain? If you did find out what steps would you,could you take? Not for me you understand, a friend of mine needs advice.

Rob wrote:Thanks Pete Gardener. My thoughts on copyright more or less the same as yours. How would you know if someone copied your photos and sold them for personal gain? If you did find out what steps would you,could you take? Not for me you understand, a friend of mine needs advice.

all it takes is some one to post a copy for sale ie ebay and i could screen print it of and overlay my copy as a transparency if they match then im covered for legal protection on my house insurance or through my union subscribsion, is it worth the risk ?

The wiki entry may be accurate in some places, but I'm not sure it's a correct view of current UK law, don't forget wiki is published by people with not only a personal interest in what's written but also reflecting whatever the law may be in their own jurisdiction. No British Court, and precious few American ones, will countenance an action on photographic copyright unless where privacy (and only living people can have privacy) or profit (usually large as it's not worth going to court for the few quid a personal website might make from flash advertising, it would be struck down as vexatious litigation) are involved. Why do you think that companies like Frith's have all those spoilers on their pictures? The vast majority of noise about copyright emanates from those who want to publish for profit without taking the precaution of watermarking or otherwise spoiling the wares they advertise online.
There's not much you can do to stop someone using your online photos for profit, suing them is expensive for little, if any, return, the best thing is to ensure that they are very low resolution pictures, only suitable for viewing on computer screens not printing. If the pictures are being displayed on a 'reputable' site you can ask the site owner to take them down, but don't hold your breath.
In the small print of many sites ownership of any material published on their site is stated as belonging to the site, not the person who put the material up so you are effectively giving up any rights anyway.
The only way to stop pictures being used is not to put them online in the first place.
On the other hand the vast majority of folk on the internet are decent people like you and me and most will credit a picture, even give a link to a personal website if asked.

Thanks SRD. The haziness of copyright is a little clearer now. Thanks for the responses. I'll advise my friend to sue the @$#@$* !!!

U can use mine any time Rob

Aw shucks Liz

Yes as previously mentioned
This is an extract from a PDF document from government website regarding Copyright Notice: digital images,
photographs and the internet

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/c-notice-201401.pdf

Copyright in images and photographs
The basics
In short, most images and photos are likely to be protected by copyright. This means that a user will usually
need the permission of the copyright owner(s) if they want to copy the image or share it on the internet.
References to “images” in this Copyright Notice include:
•
digital photos taken on mobile phones and digital cameras;
•
images that were first generated on photographic film and any digital images created from them; and
•
images such as diagrams and illustrations.
Please note that some of the issues raised in this Copyright Notice will only apply to photos.
Who owns copyright in an image?
The person who creates an image (“the creator”), such as somebody who takes a photo, will generally be
the owner of the original copyright. However, if it was created as part of the creator’s job, the employer will
generally own the copyright.
A creator can license the work directly themselves. They can also “assign” (transfer) the copyright to another
person or allow that other person to license the work on their behalf. Licensing is giving another person
or organisation permission to use a work such as an image, often in return for payment and/or on certain
conditions

Rob wrote:Thanks SRD. The haziness of copyright is a little clearer now. Thanks for the responses. I'll advise my friend to sue the @$#@$* !!!

who is the friend then Rob??

wot is the goss?

If i tell you can you keep it to yourself Jan? Not let anyone else know? Pinky promise?

Rob wrote:If i tell you can you keep it to yourself Jan? Not let anyone else know? Pinky promise?

You know me Rob soul of desecration.......pinky promise

Northern Lass wrote:

Rob wrote:If i tell you can you keep it to yourself Jan? Not let anyone else know? Pinky promise?

You know me Rob soul of desecration.......pinky promise

Your nowt but an old gossip

peterd wrote:

Northern Lass wrote:

Rob wrote:If i tell you can you keep it to yourself Jan? Not let anyone else know? Pinky promise?

You know me Rob soul of desecration.......pinky promise

Your nowt but an old gossip

I always thought that about Rob too Pete