# Photographs by A Duncan



## Roger Bentley (Nov 15, 2005)

Some time ago I bought photographs from A Duncan. They had in biro on the back Copyright A Duncan. Does anyone know if this photographer is still in business and where he got his pictures from? Thanks for any information as to whether this is a genuine copyright entitlement.


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

I don't think he's still around, Roger.
The ones I've got are stamped on the back.
There are quite a few in the gallery if you do a search using "Duncan".
Cheers
Kris


----------



## stan mayes (Jul 22, 2006)

Alex Duncan lived here in Gravesend for many years and took most of his own photos.He died some years ago and the business was closed.
About 4 years later I was told his son had restarted the business - I think in IOW-but after a few advertisments appeared in shipping mags I know nothing more.
Stan


----------



## seldom seen (Feb 6, 2008)

Crossed wires,another A. Duncan whose photos are in the RN/RFA gallery Put in by Lancastrian for me. mainly of the Suez crisis.


----------



## Roger Bentley (Nov 15, 2005)

Thank you all for the information. The A Duncan I dealt with was from Gravesend. The photographs concerned would have been taken at least 50 years ago especially of troopships. Copyright is a minefield but a publication I have on this subject has a flow chart which seems to indicate that if photos or prints from them where the original was taken before the 1988 Copyright act have a life of fifty years from the end of the year the original was taken. I will post some of the photos but will also still acknowledge Mr Duncan. Regards, Roger


----------



## Jim Harris (Mar 16, 2008)

Roger,

I asked Alex Duncan in 2003 for permission to reproduce three
of his photographs in an intended publication.

He didn't ask for a fee, only acknowledgement in the appropriate
section, and a copy of the publication.

Regards,

Jim.


----------



## Roger Bentley (Nov 15, 2005)

Jim, Thank you. I will include his name with due acknowledgement when I post the pictures in the gallery. Although he is deceased members of the family would probably still appreciate the courtesy. Regards, Roger


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

I think the main point is to not give the impression, through lack of information, that the picture is the poster's own creation, Roger.
We try to make sure that the pictures in the gallery have the correct acknowledgement of source.
That means full and understandable disclosure or just "photographer unknown" so that there is no doubt.
Cheers
Kris


----------



## NoMoss (Mar 14, 2007)

stan mayes said:


> Alex Duncan lived here in Gravesend for many years and took most of his own photos.He died some years ago and the business was closed.
> About 4 years later I was told his son had restarted the business - I think in IOW-but after a few advertisments appeared in shipping mags I know nothing more.
> Stan


Just had a quick look through phone books - not photographer with name of Duncan on the Isle of Wight Roger/Stan.
Ted


----------



## Roger Bentley (Nov 15, 2005)

Thanks Ted/Kris, i have just posted one of Mr Duncan's pictures on the gallery with acknowledgement as suggested. Hope to see you soon Ted at the AGM. Cheers, Roger


----------



## andysk (Jun 16, 2005)

stan mayes said:


> Alex Duncan lived here in Gravesend for many years and took most of his own photos.He died some years ago and the business was closed.
> About 4 years later I was told his son had restarted the business - I think in IOW-but after a few advertisments appeared in shipping mags I know nothing more.
> Stan


I think there has been another discussion on here or somewhere similar about the Alex Duncan negs; as far as I recall, some were purchased by the WSS (World Ship Society) and the remainder went to someone in Germany.


----------



## John.H.Clark (Apr 20, 2007)

this is useful as I purchased one of his photos this week, a cracker of Sofala
John


----------



## BillH (Oct 10, 2007)

andysk said:


> I think there has been another discussion on here or somewhere similar about the Alex Duncan negs; as far as I recall, some were purchased by the WSS (World Ship Society) and the remainder went to someone in Germany.


The Duncan collection was offered for sale about three years ago. Not sure what happened to the prints but I believe Ships In Focus acquired the bulk of his negatives following the "decline to bid" by the World Ship Society.

One should be aware that ,reportedly John Clarkson (SiF) actively pursues copyright of Duncan prints from the negatives he now holds, regardless of when the print was purchased. I am aware of at least one instance of a head to head on copyright..

Bill


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

There are pictures in the gallery attributed to John Clarkson that were posted three years ago and there has been no contact yet.
Also the Red Duster site is full of them. 
I should imagine any copyright issues would involve commercial use for profit without permission.


----------



## BillH (Oct 10, 2007)

Marconi Sahib said:


> There are pictures in the gallery attributed to John Clarkson that were posted three years ago and there has been no contact yet.
> Also the Red Duster site is full of them.
> I should imagine any copyright issues would involve commercial use for profit without permission.


Marconi Sahib,

I posted what I did as a simple advisory based on knowledge of an "incident" and not to rock the boat. 
I also referred only to the Duncan collection as that was the hub of the particular "incident" referred to.
I have no knowledge of what he does regarding prints as you mention that are attributed to himself.
Bill


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

I realise that, Bill.
Not trying to contradict or anything. It's nice to know the position with these pictures. I know of several who actively pursue copyright.
We usually draw the line at photographs from sources that are still actively being sold as prints such as Beken & Sutcliffe.
The whole subject is a minefield so the best policy we find is to remove anything we know about, is too recent or is lifted from another website.
We know that there were several photographers around the UK and Continent who actively swapped negatives because of their own particular interests so it can get very complicated.
Any complaints and we sort the matter out immediately. Normally the photographer is happy if we acknowledge authorship if this has not been done correctly.
Cheers
Kris


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

how can three sites and a book have copyrite of the same photo


----------



## BillH (Oct 10, 2007)

dom said:


> how can three sites and a book have copyrite of the same photo


Dom,

As Kris said above, Copyright is a very complex issue. There is material copyright and there is intellectual copyright for a start.

In simplistic terms, from my experience with my books, and I will stand corrected if I get it wrong, 

A photograph can be the copyright of the negative holder/ photographer or if original copyright has been assigned to them by the originator. In the case of digital photography copyright is I believe with the originator.

Now, the copyright holder grants permission for his work to be included in a book or website with due acknowledgement displayed. That is material copyright. If you copy the original print you breach the photographer or the copyright holders copyright. 

In turn the publisher makes his printed product copyright. That is usually the format / layout and that covers material copyright. The written word therein is covered by intellectual copyright aspects. So if you copy part or all of the printed book you breach both the publishers / author's copyrights.

I would presume that the latter also applies to the functionality of websites.

I hope this is all correct and easy to understand

Published works usually have a warning inside advising the above and a form of disclaimer on content. Below is one from a forthcoming book of mine as an example.


Bill


The publisher cannot accept responsibility for claims and statements made by the author whose views do not necessarily represent those of the publisher, neither can they guarantee the accuracy of the information contained or accept responsibility for errors or omissions although every care has been taken to ensure accuracy.


ISBN - TO BE ADVISED


© 2009 W. J. Harvey and The Publisher.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the originator – namely W. J. HARVEY.

The right of W. J. HARVEY to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Design and Patent Act 1998.


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

Thanks for the explanation, Bill

The sites that display the photograph don't own the copyright, Dom. The copyright resides with the original photographer and is intended to prevent someone claiming it as their own work and making profit from it.
Normally it is up to the copyright holder to prove that the display of his picture is denying him an income. That's why the first concern is that the pictures in the gallery are not for sale by the original copyright holder.
Claims are made of copyright on copies of material by others. Museums do this all the time assuming copyright just because someone has given them a print.
Strictly speaking the only one who can claim copyright is the author of the original unless he's assigned it in writing to another party.
Once the copyright has lapsed (70 years after the death of the author for photographs depending on when taken) it cannot be claimed by anyone else. Just because you own a negative or slide doesn't mean you own the copyright. If you make profit from such pictures you must be prepared for the original photographer to come along and say he wants a share. But he must prove it in court. 
That's why it's so complicated depending on if the picture was taken before whichever act covering it came into force.
We try to make sure everyone knows the rules and if we're suspicious of something in the gallery we'll remove it. There's no loss because the poster will have his copy and if we got it wrong he can always post it again.
Mostly photographers don't mind copies appearing as long as there is acknowledgement or as long as their authorship is acknowledged when they claim it as their own.

I apologise if I'm repeating myself but this subject reappears every so often and a reminder is always a good thing.
I hasten to add that this is only my interpretation of the subject and stand to be corrected if anyone can cite different case histories.

I suppose the basic rule is that if you have a picture that's less than 30 years old it should be one of your own if you're going to post it. 
If it has a copyright notice then make sure it's not for sale by the photographer and ALWAYS acknowledge him when posting.
If it's copied from another website DON'T post it. We will remove it.
That also applies to those you receive by email that you don't know the proper source of.

Cheers
Kris


----------



## japottinger (Jun 16, 2004)

Alex Duncan moved to I of Wight and operated there until he died.
I started swopping one of my negs. in exchange for two of his photos, and also bought prints, from Alex as far back as early 1960's. He was an absolute gentleman to deal with, and I used many of his photos to illustrate my model plan features in various model magazines. He only asked for an acknowledgement.
I think his relatives came from around Inverness.


----------



## eriskay (Mar 26, 2006)

I too purchased quite a number of prints from Mr. Duncan over the years, when he was domiciled in Gravesend. Many of these (turn of the century coasting steamers) were produced from original glass plate negatives owned by Alex and, although he disliked having to do this as it was a slow and 'fiddly' process, and certainly not in small numbers, we always managed to overcome the problems and he was always helpful and advisory. As James Pottinger said, he was a real gent and his prices were very reasonable indeed.

I think in addition to his own photography, he bought the collections of other past photographers, if I recall correctly one of whom was Cape Town based and included some tremendous shipping photographs with the Cape Town / Table Top backdrop.

I think a large portion of his collection was snapped up by the Ships In Focus folk, as intimated by Bill Harvey, I recall one of their publications mentioning this and having an article about Alex Duncan not long after he passed away. I have also bought shipping photographs from the Clarksons and can confirm that they are very strict in respect to copyright observation!

Angus Mac Kinnon


----------



## K urgess (Aug 14, 2006)

That is certainly the case Angus and if any of *these* pictures appeared in the gallery then we would delete them immediately they were recognised.
If anyone sees any they should inform a Moderator as soon as possible.
Cheers
Kris


----------



## waimea (Dec 21, 2005)

Generally speaking most of what has been said above is correct. John Clarkson purchased much of Alex Duncan's negs and with that went the copyright. Having said that, John, like myself, generally aknowledge the original photographer if the image is published and if known. My attitude is that if I pass to someone a neg or digital image I have taken - then it is their's and vica verca. It is a complicated issue and I often see my work published under someone else's name, but I don't get excited about it as I gave it to them in the first place. I have negatives that are almost exactly the same as negs in other people's collections because the original photographers were standing almost next to each other at the time the shots were taken. Like John Clarkson, I am guarded about my stuff appearing without my permission and all I normally require is an aknowledgment. It is really about good manners. These collections were taken by men who devoted a great deal of time, effort and expense to get the photographs and when it is known who they were - then that should be recognised. If I own the neg or the slide and paid money for it - then I believe I have the copyright - but I have come to the conclusion that if I know who took it then if published, they should be credited. I have had images of mine turn up on here, God knows where from, but on pointing it out, they have always been removed. Digital photography and the development of the internet has opened up a minefield in terms of copyright, but just because one has a print of a ship doesn't mean one is free to post it wherever one desires unless one credits the photographer. Alex has passed on but I would be careful of posting his work without referring to John Clarkson.


----------



## japottinger (Jun 16, 2004)

Hello waimea, can you please enlighten me, for instance if someone bought a photo from Alec Duncan about 30 odd years ago the copyright now belongs to the buyer of the respective neg?


----------



## Derek Roger (Feb 19, 2005)

I also have a photograph by A Duncan showing copyright . It is of Maipura and is clearly an old print . Address is 14 South Hill Road which I cannot find with Google Earth . I bought it on e bay from a seller called Richard . I tried to make contact with him regarding copyright but e bay has changed the format since 20th Jan and all my records of transactions are gone .

I shall post the picture and credit copright to A Duncan Gravesend if that sounds a reasonable approach .

Derek


----------



## stan mayes (Jul 22, 2006)

Hi Derek,
Alex Duncan did live here in South Hill Road [it is off Parrock Road] 10 minutes walk from town centre.
He retired to live in Isle of Wight and crossed the bar a few years ago,
regards Stan


----------



## R58484956 (Apr 19, 2004)

There is a South Hill Road in Gravesend.

14.37
PS Sorry Stan you beat me to it


----------

