Copyright Aid

My feeling is that if the barrister did inherit Sir Arthur Waite's copywrite, then wouldn't the date of Waite's death be the one the public domain status is based upon? Since Pamala Coleman Smith died in poverty, surely she was not receiving royalties from sales of the book? (or cards, for that mat...

The "problem" for the supposed EU-based extension is that the Paragraph 12 of Schedule as revised still states: (2) Copyright in the following descriptions of work continues to subsist until the date on which it would have expired under the 1956 Act— ... (c) published photographs and photographs tak...

Yes, I thought it best not to post the details of the surviving members of the family here for privacy reasons. Obviously the barrister would be the best first port of call!

Thanks for that, Andy. Mea culpa for incorrectly relying on the 1842 Act rather than 1862 (D'oh!). I suppose there might be a question as to whether the 1911 Act could have over-ridden the 1862 Act as regards the automatic transfer of copyright in the case of a commission, given that section 24 of t...

I looked into this previously, and what I think the situation is is covered on the Talk page for the Rider-Waite deck Wikipedia page. The bottom line is that Waite commissioned Colman Smith to do the artwork for the deck, and it is contended that Waite owned the copyright as the commissioner, but ob...

Productions stills are rarely the work of a film's director. They are normally taken by a studio photographer - or a freelancer - for continuity and/or publicity purposes. Ownership would therefore usually be with the studio or producers, not the director.

Nice to see RHG still pretending the Quotations Exception does not exist....

Hi Nick, Good call. If you have an address it's very good for finding out who lived there in September 1939. But if you search on a name, the 1939 Register will only identify people who have since died, or who were born before 1916. All other entries are obscured. Plus, in my experience some of the...

Doing a bit of Googling, it looks like Tuck used the "after" designation incorrectly for simple reproductions. Comparing the postcard image to one of the original work should make it clear whether it is a reproduction or not.

HelenBee wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 06, 2018 8:41 am

I’d also considered the access of census returns and am pleased you have confirmed my own opinion on this.

Presumably you've also factored in the 1939 ID Card Register?

Thank you Nick. Can you not see the example that I linked to? Not initially, as there is a rogue full stop in the URL, but having removed it, I can now see your image. On the face of it, LYD's claims seem extremely tenuous. They can't claim copyright simply on the silhouettes of people, trees, and ...

I would certainly go down the route of having the map re-drawn. It might be worth looking at difference representations of the same map given that, if it's showing a convoy route, it is probable that it's just a general indication, rather than being the exact one taken. Be aware that there are many ...

It looks like LYD use at least two different but stylistically similar images for different areas. Notwithstanding the fact I can't see what you were using, they can't just claim ownership on the silhouette landscape form, as it's a widely graphic device.

The cartoons appear to have been licensed to www.punch.co.uk who are trading as 'Punch Magazine'. It is, perhaps, worth noting that many Punch cartoons are now public domain in the UK, notwithstanding the fact that the aforementioned website is still offering to license them. The works of William H...

the point your failing to understand is that we all use google these days, and when they give us results eg for pictures no its not clear what legally we can and cant take. your mixing your experience with mine and its not helping, your talking about images copied from your books, but i am talking ...