# Trawler photgraphs



## billblow (Jun 1, 2007)

Is this the correct place to discuss the copyright problem that keeps raising it’s head on the fishing vessel gallery?
I have a number of Grimsby fishing vessel photographs relating to family members that I purchased at bric a brac markets around the town where certain people had stalls solely selling copies of photographs of Grimsby vessels with no reference to their original provenance. I have since seen these photographs reproduced all over the place with little or no mention to the original.
I bought these in good faith but also ignorance of the copyright laws so dare not reproduce them on SN for fear of falling foul of the administrators.
These photographs (with nothing on the back relating to copyright) are now mixed in a folder with my own original photographs (with nothing on the back relating to copyright) and others purchased off the net such as HMT Revello from the IWM collection that’s states this on the rear and HMT Blackthorn off ebay that’s says nothing.
When I am gone my modest little collection would be a time bomb for any unsuspecting new owner of the collection if they posted on SN.
Unless they scour every site with a trawler photograph on, how can the new owner know who originally owned a copyright to the photograph.
Genuine mistakes will be made with postings and I would hope less of a hammer will be used by those monitoring the position. You can sense the hostility in some of the comments from certain individuals.
Can any one tell me is it a question of if in doubt don’t post or would a rider stating any uncertainty suffice? 
I would be sorry to see the aspect of ship nostalgia replaced with ship spotting and most photographs posted only an hour old.
Billblow


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

One of the largest problems to be faced on a website is copyright and possible subsequent legal actions.
The largest single present contender to face is that of The Frith Collection, the oldest such firm. As such I have approached them with various questions. 
I was querying the use of old images pre 1939, as these were in books and on postcards and beyond the 70 year watershed for the Law.
Many pictures of Francis Frith are not in their collection (available on line) and these appear on postacards and in books.
The reply very well covered the exact situation......... 
"The issue around copyright can seem complicated, but basically you need to think about the date of the artifact from which you are reproducing, regardless of the date the photograph was taken, as it is the artifact itself which is the artwork or artifact which is subject to copyright.
"If you are reproducing from an original old postcard which is more than 70 years old, the postcard itself is out of copyright and so you may reproduce from it without breaching copyright or being liable for a reproduction fee. If you have old Frith postcards which are more than 70 old which you wish to reproduce from, you may do without breaching our copyright and without being liable to a reproduction fee. The images should be credited as 'Reproduced from an original Frith & Co postcard'. 
"If you are reproducing from a book - in principle, if a book is more than 70 years old then you should be able to reproduce from it without breaching copyright and without being liable for a reproduction fee, but you should be careful to ensure that the original publishing company is no longer in existence - if it is, then you really should enquire from that company about their copyright terms. If you wish to reproduce a Frith image from an old book which is out of copyright as discussed above then you may do so, subject to the caveat above, and the image should be credited as 'A Frith & Co image, reproduced from (and the title, publishing date etc of the book).'
"If a book has been published within the last 70 years then the book itself is the item which is subject to copyright, regardless of the age of the material reproduced within it, and you should enquire for permission to reproduce from the publisher, and will probably be liable for a reproduction fee. The publisher will tell you the correct credit wording to use.
"Julia Skinner, Photo Library Manager, The Francis Frith Collection".

So, there you are. By all means upload a re-photograph or scan of a postcard or photograph from a book, provided the book/postcard is older than 1939.

The hoary subject has come up before, and will continue to do so. The basic factrs are that the onus is for the claimant to prove without doubt that they have the intellectual rights, that it is continuous with the family and or person, by legal will or deed of transfer, that it is one whereby rights of printing are held, and what is more that they have to prove categorically that they stand to lose financial income as a result of the production in a form other than the one which they would prefer.
It is easy for anyone to place a 'copyright notice' on the back or front of a picture, ending up with three or four different notices. The Law is clear that it rests with the original photographer, or the person/s who had enrolled the services of the photographer and it is they that hold the rights. Once it gets to the Courts to unravel, the rules above have to be a proven fact. Most now offer wipeout clauses with pictures, even in books.


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

There are photographers who earn a living (or at least get an income) from quite old photographs and it is reasonable for them to object to their photos being displayed - especially when this is done with no acknowledgement.

The Mods try to take a pragmatic view, but we have recently had one example where a member insisted on posting photos where it was clear (and he had been told on numerous occasions) that the photographer in question had objected to his "in copyright" photos being posted on websites. 

If in doubt please feel free to send a PM to a Moderator for advice - we are here to help.


----------



## MASTERFRITH (Aug 14, 2008)

I have been collecting trawler photographs for over 40 years and in that time i have paid good honest money for them,but some of the suppliers i got them of (good quality photos) were not the orignal owners of the copyrights,which i later learned in time as differant books were published and the same photos appeared in these books with the copyrights name underneath.Some of the books only came out about 15 years after the deepwater boats had gone.So i think billbow if your in doub't keep them in your albums and don't display them thats what Iv'e done,because somebody in the fishing industry's hay day as made a few bob with out the copyrights permission.

Tony.


----------



## rcraig (Nov 11, 2007)

treeve said:


> One of the largest problems to be faced on a website is copyright and possible subsequent legal actions.
> The largest single present contender to face is that of The Frith Collection, the oldest such firm. As such I have approached them with various questions.
> I was querying the use of old images pre 1939, as these were in books and on postcards and beyond the 70 year watershed for the Law.
> Many pictures of Francis Frith are not in their collection (available on line) and these appear on postacards and in books.
> ...


What is the position then where the book is within the 70 year period but a photograph, uncredited, is shown in that book and it is itself obviously a very old photograph? Under the explanation given, the book determines the period of inclusion (ie., the 70 yr. period). That would mean that the publisher adopts copyright without having any actual ownership or clearance for the image.
Anyone know the answer?


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Frith informed me that if the book was newer than 1939, the image in the book, became the copyright image of the new publisher; case in point. A tourist guide, with pictures of a harbour scene. The Photograph taken by Gibson, for the local Town Council in 1932. The Book can be reprinted in facsimile, or pictures may be reprinted in another book, or placed on a webpage. As to 'uncredited', that is near irrelevant, as any local gets to know the style and print of a local photographer's work and they can be identified in that manner, or attributed to that photographer, after all it is only the decent thing to do, I can generally recognise them 'a mile off'. It is always best, where possible, again the decent thing to do, to contact the owner of the original and to discuss with them the rights, wrongs and facts, and to acknowledge originality and that the work is by their permission and cooperation. It is down to ensuring also that income is not stolen. Any number of old postcards are sold, the backs show any number of rubber stamp 'copyright notices' which are meaningless. Plain fact also is that the printed copy is not as good as the original, and would not attract income, or should not; that is up to the individual if the Courts are their chosen future place of combat. I approached Friths being the biggest holder in the UK with considerable experience and knowledge in this minefield. Even they have some pictures which are contested, as they were diverted from the original collection.


----------



## Shane Johnson (Oct 22, 2009)

Its just a shame for ordinary people who like to look back and remember what was. In the case of old trawler pics, there would be a very limited commercial market anyway and if anyone wanted a decent print of a picture, I would imagine that a copy of an original would be far better than a computer generated copy from jpeg.

I can fully understand the arguments about loss of income but having read some of the comments on some of the disputed pics that were posted, I feel there have been some over reactions in terms of the hostility shown towards the poster.
I also understand the implications for the site if it persistently allows copyright breaches to continue but wonder just how many actual complaints have actually been received from the holders of said copyright as opposed to the complaints of some members on here.

Just a thought.


----------



## rcraig (Nov 11, 2007)

Treve,
Thank you for the further information. I was not disagreeing with you but puzzled by the point I raised. It did not seem right that the publisher could adopt ownership which he did not originally have. I am sure that any creditable publisher would avoid it happening.


----------



## rcraig (Nov 11, 2007)

This is certainly a complex subject and a quick scrutiny of the law does weaken your will to live.
Photographs are copyrighted as artistic works, being classified as a literary work if digitised and therefore treated as such for copyright purposes but if then printed out it becomes an artistic work again.

While the photographer would normally be the person with copyright it may then depend on whether or not he was employed to do the work.

Where the photographer is not employed, then permission must be sought by the publisher before use. It may be that the copyright rests with someone authorised by the photographer or sold to them, or licensed etc.

The definition of "author" is much affected by the date of origin of the photograph and that date will affect whether or not copyright still applies.

It is still not clear to me whether a publisher can necessarily claim that merely publishing an "unknown source" photograph which is say, around about 1892, can actually claim copyright not originally belonging to him.

If anyone wishes to get more detailed info without actually going into the Acts concerned there is an excellent summary available through the Leeds University web site (but may still reduce your wish to live). It is in turn copyrighted but is, of course, open to access. Unfortunately, I have not kept a record of the website address.


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Don't get me wrong, not at all thinking any arguments arising. We have had some 'fly' ones being posted on our website in Penzance, and it has taken me a while to sort it all out as to what can and what cannot be posted. We know of a few firms that are local and still do carry the original negatives, yet the loopholes in the law allow some to be posted. You are absolutely right Shane. The difference between a print from an original and a scan from a 1930s guide is substantial, and therein lies the discussion as to loss of income. Just a glance at the printing system of the old books shows the immense difference in value. It is NOT that copyright is allowed to be assumed by the subsequent printer, it is that they can state that they have rights over the use of the print that they have. Too many assume that they have a print, therefore they HAVE copyright. They did not have the negative, nor have they had deed of transfer of Rights from the photograpoher of the family, or the company. I may as well say that I have copyright on the kettle that I have in the kitchen. Whilst I have every respect for anyone trying to make a living in this world, we should have respect for each other and be reasonable about everything. Just because someone buys an 1896 postcard does not make it copyright of the purchaser. It would be different if that person had been bequeathed a collection of photographs from a photographic studio, and there was written evidence of that fact (as we have here in one case), as opposed to being given an album as a friend when the photographer was alive (as we have in another case), the family still having an outlet and the original negatives. In all cases, our site approaches the whole scene with kid gloves and with respect on all sides. With due regard for the Law and Common Sense. But, in the end, the Rules Apply. Direct transfer of Deed of Rights and proof of loss of Earnings. In the main anything appearing in the form of a small jpg is comparatively unprintable and therefore of no commercial value. It is also seen by most judiciary as giving the Claimant free advertising if the poster has the decency to add full details of just where to obtain a better copy. This is the position taken by Frith, for example in the case of jpgs of old pictures (before 1939). In fact they will provide copy jpgs for emplacement on a website as a licence arrangement.
Cooperation is vital, in any case.


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

I would like to make one final point of clarification.

If you start your own website you can post whatever the hell you want on it and ignore copyright altogether. It will then be you that would be sued and how you deal with it is down to you - if you take the risk you also face any consequences.

This site is not your site or mine - it is the site owner's and he would be the one to be clobbered by a law suit and not you if a copyrighted item was challanged. The Moderators therefore act on behalf of the site owner to try and prevent this happening and if we believe that a photo could be challenged in this way we will ask for confirmation that permission has been given and if not we will delete it.

If anyone thinks this is unreasonable they are welcome to post any disputed photos on their own website with my blessing. [=P]


----------



## Shane Johnson (Oct 22, 2009)

> This site is not your site or mine - it is the site owner's and he would be the one to be clobbered by a law suit and not you if a copyrighted item was challanged. The Moderators therefore act on behalf of the site owner to try and prevent this happening and if we believe that a photo could be challenged in this way we will ask for confirmation that permission has been given and if not we will delete it.


I totally understand the point you make and do not question the reasons for your actions. I was just pointing out that it is a shame for people like me who just want a trip back down memory lane or to find something relevant to family history, that so much material is denied despite it probably having no commercial value due to its specialist nature and age.

I am still curious though as to how many complaints the site has received from copyright holders as opposed to members who are questioning if such permission is given. You as Mods have every right to act as caretakers for the wellbeing of the site. I just cannot help wondering if some material has been deleted or denied when in fact it could have been displayed without complaint.


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

Absolutely, in this discussion, I do hope that I have not given the impression that I am 'siding' with the gung-ho 'publish and be damned brigade'. Far from it, site policy is to be held true. No different from Picture Penzance, no letter of approval from the photographer, no picture published. We are harsh if I happen to see a copy of a modern print as well, I know most of the books and postcards. I am familiar with a particular blemish in a particular printing. I also add to the above that in now way do I encourage an 'anti-SN' policy, you have the Best here and they are looking after your interests.


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

Shane,

I am not going to get involved in a protracted discussion about this or go into details but I can tell you that I have personally had two such complaints in 2009. I know there have been more in previous years but can't remember the details and other Mods may have had complaints that I am not aware of.

The number of rejected photos is actually pretty small, but when it happens it is usually one member going over the top and posting shedloads of photos where the source is known.

We will never please everyone about this.

I have another gripe on the same topic though. If you want to use photos from the UK National Archives - which I help to pay for as a taxpayer - you have to pay a significant amount to do this even for low resolution photos and even when the photo is being used for educational and study purposes only. In the US you can use any of the public photos without hindrance.

I would personally be happy with a law that would allow near enough any photo to be published on a website if it is only for educational and study purposes and was in limited resolution. The whole thing is a mess!


----------



## Shane Johnson (Oct 22, 2009)

> Shane,
> 
> I am not going to get involved in a protracted discussion about this or go into details but I can tell you that I have personally had two such complaints in 2009. I know there have been more in previous years but can't remember the details and other Mods may have had complaints that I am not aware of.


Thanks Brian, you have answered what I was wondering.
I dont wish to get into any arguments, that wasn't the reason for my posts.
You have explained your reasoning and I fully accept that.


----------



## donald mckay (Dec 12, 2006)

This is purely an observation ..the most important comment is that of Brians ...the system is a mess and because of different laws in different lands not everyones mess is the same. I however do find some the comments that have been evident on the site these last weeks totally over the top. Bearing in mind that the law must be upheld (and I dont condone any law breaking) I wonder what harm there is in posting photos on a site like this when the poster has NO wish for any personal gain . I venture some of the "copyrighted" pics that have appeared on here probably have not seen the light of day since 20 years and I wonder what their commercial value really is. Probably not too much to people other than those on sites like these.?
Donald McKay
PS I have no wish to enter into an argument or undermine the moderators who do a fine job


----------



## billblow (Jun 1, 2007)

Benjidog you must be pleased to see that we universally agree with the work you are carrying out to safeguard the site and the vigilance of all moderators is to be commended.
The main point I tried to raise was how do I know if someone claims copyright on a photograph I have purchased. Many photographs in collections of members may have no copyright claimant but are languishing unseen for fear of this law.
As the name of the site suggest nostalgia is what it’s all about but equally it is about the history of a once great industry and the posting of these photographs prompts little gems of comments by those who were there and I believe need to be recorded now or very soon lost for ever.
billblow


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

Billblow,

There is unfortunately no satisfactory answer to your question. I also have a collection of photographs and postcards and for most of them do not know the photographer. Also when members of this site cooperated to work on The Allen Collection the situation was the same - in this case over 5,000 photos where the origin of most of them was unknown. We attempted to identify the copyright owners but ultimately I put my money where my mouth is and made the collection available on my own website, thereby taking the risk upon myself, I also added a page about this on which I have promised to remove any photo where someone claims copyright and objects to it being there. To date I have not been approached.

As a Moderator on this site I have to take a different approach.

Generally old photos are OK on here - but some of those uploaded by one particular member recently had clearly been copied en masse from a published book so this was clearly unacceptable.

I am pleased to hear that most members agree with our general approach - we really do not want to discourage people from posting photographs. Safest of all are your own photos - you can do whatever you want with them - and many of the best photos on the site have been taken by members.


----------



## treeve (Nov 15, 2005)

The key factor IF by any remote chance some genuine or a pretentious 'copyright owner' takes it in their head to press litigation, the person who uploaded the photograph in contention would have all in on their side by having made every attempt in finding the original owner and the transferred owner, and to offer to remove if the claim was proven to be a correct one. It is a matter of having not made a deliberate action to defraud, or showing the intention not to defraud. This is the advice I have received from a person wound up in this procedure regularly. If the claimant is proven to be fact then he also has to prove intent to defraud and the affected loss. This is the difficult part. It is a lengthy process and generally only the 'big boys' use that route. It is the way of the world, it is all about money to be made, rather than what I would hope for and that is cameraderie and philanthropy; I have never met so many good people as when I started down the road of maritime and historical research, who have helped me along the way. For me it is like the old Gospel Song ... If I can help somebody as I move along, then my living will not be in vain ..... I feel honoured to have met you all.....


----------

