Posting copyrighted photos

[-Ian-]

Couldn't see anything in the FAQs re this, what are the rules around posting copyrighted images, specifically a scan from a book I own?

 

Is it just a blanket, 'No, don't do it!' or is it acceptable as long as I clearly identify the source?

 

 

[bentwaters81tfw]

If you can, post a link if it's on the net, otherwise credit the copywrite holder and or the publication.

The Mods will clairfy this if necessary.

Anything from Airliners.net must be link only.

[Greg B]

Not really the done thing. You may own the book but you don’t own the copyright for the images. 

[spruecutter96]

On this subject, how old does a book need to be to be considered "public domain". Having said that, do old photographs fall within public domain?

 

Chris.  

[Troy Smith]

6 hours ago, -Ian- said:

Couldn't see anything in the FAQs re this, what are the rules around posting copyrighted images, specifically a scan from a book I own?

 

Is it just a blanket, 'No, don't do it!' or is it acceptable as long as I clearly identify the source?

 

 

Fair use (USA) or UK, Fair Dealing.

 

see here

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

 

"Fair dealing

 

Certain exceptions only apply if the use of the work is a ‘fair dealing’. For example, the exceptions relating to research and private study, criticism or review, or news reporting.

 

‘Fair dealing’ is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or whether it infringes copyright. There is no statutory definition of fair dealing - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case.

 

The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work?

 

Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair include:

does using the work affect the market for the original work?

 

If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair

 

is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate?

 

Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used

 

The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question."

 

That a statement of UK law, from the Government website.

 

If you are using an image from a book,  as research in a discussion for non-commercial purposes,  which is what I presume you are talking about,  especially if its from a long out of print book,    that would likely be acceptable under 'fair dealing'  

 

Say your scan was related to this question

"I ran across an image of Spitfire XX*** in XXXX book,  what subtype is this,  or what is that under the wing "    if the image is does not give this information,  that is research.

 

Worth seeing if the image is online as well, try using a reverse image search, as if it's freely online and not got copyright logo on it,  it's not your scan. 

 

In the case of something like Airliners.net images,  or if concerned, just add a link to the image.  

 

HTH

[-Ian-]

10 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

 

If you are using an image from a book,  as research in a discussion for non-commercial purposes,  which is what I presume you are talking about,  especially if its from a long out of print book,    that would likely be acceptable under 'fair dealing'  

 

Say your scan was related to this question

"I ran across an image of Spitfire XX*** in XXXX book,  what subtype is this,  or what is that under the wing "    if the image is does not give this information,  that is research.

. 

 

 

Thanks, this is broadly the purpose of my question, although I chose a very poor thread title, it's not actually a photograph I'm querying but an illustration.

 

The book in question includes representations of an unusual markings scheme on a MiG 3, one I have never seen before on this particular aircraft and can't find a similar image or reference online. I'd really like to get the opinions of people more knowledgeable on the subject matter than I as to the image's accuracy. The book itself is still in print.

 

Do you think I should be okay on that basis?

[ckw]

 

11 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

On this subject, how old does a book need to be to be considered "public domain". Having said that, do old photographs fall within public domain?

 

In the UK 70 years after the death of the author for published books; 70 years for unpublished material. But it does vary by country of publication ... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_lengths

 

The fair use thing is tricky -

10 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question

which basically means the fair dealing exemption is open to interpretation - and copyright law is still playing catch up with online information services. Fair use was intended to prevent inhibiting the advancement of knowledge at an individual level (e.g students could obtain copies of articles from the British Library for there own use, but re-publishing said article is strictly forbidden).

 

An author may argue that posting a rare colour picture on a site such as this could result in a loss of sales for his book, where a reference to that book may have increased sales. 

 

In the case of Airliners.net, any online service is free to apply any conditions of use they choose, so regardless of the actual copyright status, all A.net images are clearly labelled stating they cannot be used without consent.

 

Cheers

 

Colin

[ckw]

4 minutes ago, -Ian- said:

The book in question includes representations of an unusual markings scheme on a MiG 3, one I have never seen before on this particular aircraft and can't find a similar image or reference online. I'd really like to get the opinions of people more knowledgeable on the subject matter than I as to the image's accuracy. The book itself is still in print.

 

Do you think I should be okay on that basis?

Well the image is still in copyright. However in this instance it may fall under fair dealing as either research or review (here is an example of the unique images in this book). But that would not prevent the author taking an action and letting the courts decide!

 

It is worth saying that copyright actions are (unlike trademark actions) seldom profitable. Damages tend not to be punitive, simply reasonable compensation. Most authors wouldn't bother. Of course this varies with where the copyright violation took place - the compensation would vary according to where the copied image was published - it might be thousands for the cover of a glossy magazine, but a token amount for the back page of a free sheet.

 

Also worth saying is that there are companies who track down copyright violations - I'm signed up to one. Just today I got an email from them saying they had found 530 violations of my photographs. However, very few, if any, would be worth my while pursuing

 

Cheers

 

Colin

[spruecutter96]

This is an interesting subject. I can't help feeling that the enormous size of the Internet makes this subject a virtually theoretical one. Having said that, if my images were being regularly ripped-off online, I would probably feel very differently about the matter. 

 

Chris. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by spruecutter96
Correcting a typo.

[ckw]

4 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

Having said that, if my images were being regularly ripped-off online, I would probably feel very different about the matter. 

Its something every photographer has to come to terms with - I would be happy if I was at least given a credit when someone uses an image - I think of it as free advertising. This is often not the case, but it's seldom worth my time and effort to pursue this in court, As someone who made part of their living from selling photographs, I look at it this way:

 

Without the web, 'commercialising' my work would have been far more difficult, expensive and time consuming. I have sold more photos and made more money through online sales than I would have imagined possible without the web. So the rip offs I just put down to the overheads of doing business on the 'net. Very, very few of the rip off merchants would ever have bought the image anyway, so there is probably little revenue loss. The real money sales come from high resolution images for print anyway, and these I don't make freely available.

 

Cheers

 

Colin

Edited February 25, 2021 by ckw
clarity of meaning

[bzn20]

I know the airliners . net rule as far as BM is concerned ( not whinging !)  but they pay no attention to other peoples  copywrite , none . The site is swimming with them . Selling something online and showing photos of the item , Book pages , photos. slides, postcards . What is that ? Not educational . Could/would  you use this as the  Fair use/Fair Dealing excuse ?

[ckw]

10 minutes ago, bzn20 said:

but they pay no attention to other peoples  copywrite , none . The site is swimming with them

Well that's a risk they and the posters run. I do know of at least one 'Take down and desist" order on them. I believe the A.net T&Cs are typical of hosting sites a) we can do what we like with your photos b) you are responsible if you upload something you shouldn't

 

13 minutes ago, bzn20 said:

Selling something online and showing photos of the item , Book pages , photos. slides, postcards . What is that ? Not educational . Could/would  you use this as the  Fair use/Fair Dealing excuse ?

OK its subtle, but there is a difference between an image of the object (book, postcard etc) and replicating the intellectual content of that object. Were you to post a one to one reproduction of a postcard as an ebay ad, that could be deemed a copyright infringement. However, if the ad image clearly shows it as an object, that's probably OK. The test would be could the ebay ad reduce revenue to the copyright holder of the postcard image.

 

Cheers

 

Colin

[bzn20]

16 minutes ago, ckw said:

could the ebay ad reduce revenue to the copyright holder of the postcard image.

Probably not .What about the photos that are bought and sold from VHF supplies ,Aviation Hobby Shop and the like or copywrite holders selling their photos without the copywrite . Then those get resold , it's a minefield . The whole copywrite thing makes me laugh really because I'd bet your money at some point most copywrite holders taped records instead of buying , lent a book instead of buying  sold a book etc., It used to stated inside books that you couldn't lend ,sell the book ,might be IAW the Copyright ,Designs and Patents Act 1988. (UK). Not an excuse for this thread's  photo question but it was fine for them to do but their photos are a different thing  . Just saying !

I've realised I've been spelling copyright incorrectly , not changing that lot !

[Troy Smith]

4 hours ago, -Ian- said:

The book in question includes representations of an unusual markings scheme on a MiG 3, one I have never seen before on this particular aircraft and can't find a similar image or reference online. I'd really like to get the opinions of people more knowledgeable on the subject matter than I as to the image's accuracy. The book itself is still in print.

What MiG-3? what book?    

 

in the meantime, 

@Massimo Tessitori apart from running the Sovietwarplanes site, also wrote a MMP book on the Mig1/3, 

I'd have a look at the profile and photos here.

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/mig3/mig3.html

 

scroll down to "MiG-3 colors and profiles gallery" which may help.   

 

If the book is by Erik Pilawskii, treat profile with caution.

 

@ckw thank you for your personal insights into copyright issues. 

 

 

[ckw]

1 hour ago, bzn20 said:

What about the photos that are bought and sold from VHF supplies ,Aviation Hobby Shop and the like or copywrite holders selling their photos without the copywrite . Then those get resold

Again you're confusing the object with the intellectual content. If I buy a print I own that print and can do what I like with that particular object without infringing copyright. If I make a copy of that image, and start selling prints of that, that's an infringement of copyright. Same for books - I can do what I like with a copy I bought, but I can't sell copies. I think you'll find that the statement inside books about selling and lending goes on to say "in anything but its original cover" or words to that effect - that's all separate isssue.

 

Home recording is another thing  - basically the industry realised they weren't going to sell a whole lot of VHS, cassette, minidisc etc. etc. recorders and medias if people were prosecuted  for using them! In effect there is a tacit agreement that making copies for your own use is acceptable and falls under fair use. To the best of my knowledge, no one has been prosecuted for this. But if you start selling them, whole different matter. If you read back the extract Troy posted, there are a number of tests applied to copyright and no two cases are identical. The intention of copyright law is to protect the interests of the owner of the intellectual property (not the media its recorded/written on). A court will always consider whether or not the plaintive has suffered injury (financial or otherwise) when deciding if a person's rights have been infringed.

 

Cheers

 

Colin

[-Ian-]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

What MiG-3? what book?    

 

in the meantime, 

@Massimo Tessitori apart from running the Sovietwarplanes site, also wrote a MMP book on the Mig1/3, 

I'd have a look at the profile and photos here.

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/mig3/mig3.html

 

scroll down to "MiG-3 colors and profiles gallery" which may help.   

 

If the book is by Erik Pilawskii, treat profile with caution.

 

@ckw thank you for your personal insights into copyright issues. 

 

 

 The book is 'MiG-3 Aces of WW2' by Dmitriy Khazanov and Aleksander Medved, which includes illustrations of two aircraft in a light brown and mid grey scheme. I looked on Massimo's pages yesterday but couldn't see an example of this scheme which is one reason I'm doubting it's validity.

 

I'll start a new thread on the WW2 board, makes sense to keep the copyright discussions separate I think.

Edited February 25, 2021 by -Ian-

[Julien]

Gents if you want to have a discussion on MiGs take that to the appropriate forum not this one