Search found 31 matches

by tsrwright
Mon May 04, 2020 1:53 pm
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957
Replies: 17
Views: 6105

Re: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957

I like the term 'mere photograph'; anyone claiming breach of copyright on me will have to have very good Spanish.

Wonderful help.

Many thanks, Andy.
by tsrwright
Sat May 02, 2020 6:27 am
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957
Replies: 17
Views: 6105

Re: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957

Oh my goodness, but I did ask! Just to be clear-ish and maybe finish off: Was the EU directive 'law' that 'stood or stands above' UK law, just as an 'act' stands above a regulation or SI and does that still apply post Brexit? You say,' The country of origin is where the work is first published and g...
by tsrwright
Tue Apr 28, 2020 7:31 am
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957
Replies: 17
Views: 6105

Re: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957

Still like a dog with a bone on this one, Andy. If the German copyright period of 50 years for my kind of photographs did/does apply is the Spanish situation c 1995 relevant? I follow your argument about the directive maybe not being applicable in this regard but isn't it what the UK law says that c...
by tsrwright
Sun Apr 26, 2020 5:38 am
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957
Replies: 17
Views: 6105

Re: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957

Thank you very much for that Andy.I will amend my note. I don't think I have ever tried to get my mind round anything as brain-twisting as this. Fortunately I do not have to deal with the problem of photos post WW2, although I did not so long ago publish a book believing that all pics pre 1 June 195...
by tsrwright
Tue Apr 21, 2020 3:56 am
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957
Replies: 17
Views: 6105

Re: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957

Many thanks for that Andy, and I believe I am on the right track. Pardon me taking the space but I have written as in the following short paper to guide my own work. 'The law of copyright is a minefield that is so treacherous that even the experts can be wary of venturing into it. For example, in on...
by tsrwright
Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:30 am
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957
Replies: 17
Views: 6105

Re: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957

I think I posted this in the wrong window - sorry Could I please ask how you arrived at the 1 January 1945 date so that I can be sure my own thinking is correct :?: l. What I understand (and it is not easy), is that for works in which copyright had expired in the UK before 31 December 1995, but whic...
by tsrwright
Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:27 am
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957
Replies: 17
Views: 6105

Re: Photo copyright 1945 - 1957

Hi Andy, sorry not sure it is completely clear :) In view of pilax's follow on comment (see below) I'm amending this posting to reflect the effect of subsequent EU legisation. Any photograph which was still in copyright on 1 July 1995 (that is to say, any photograph created on or after 1 January 194...
by tsrwright
Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:18 am
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Duration of company owned copyright
Replies: 37
Views: 23578

Thanks a lot. I'll let you know how it goes. Here is the link to the film in question which might make a change from looking at legal stuff. It is nicely 'period'. It is the hillclimb on the old military road in Glen Croe which rises to a pass called Rest and Be Thankful. http://ssa.nls.uk/film/2120...
by tsrwright
Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:10 am
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Duration of company owned copyright
Replies: 37
Views: 23578

Thanks, Andy, for picking me up on the German law. I presume the 50 years term referred to is similar to the 50 years applied to related rights. I am now going to tackle the National Library of Scotland but I suppose that in the end they are entitled to apply the terms of the Directive rather than t...
by tsrwright
Wed Oct 07, 2015 12:17 pm
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Duration of company owned copyright
Replies: 37
Views: 23578

Hi Andy, thank you for all that and for drawing my attention to the Council Directive 93/98/EEC which I have now read. I have also had a look at the status of Directives and have read on Wikopedia that ‘Directives are currently only vertically directly effective (i.e. against the state, a concept ...
by tsrwright
Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:49 pm
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Duration of company owned copyright
Replies: 37
Views: 23578

Pardon me trying to answer my own question but I looked up various definitions of a 'savings' clause and it seems clear its purpose is to maintain a particular right or situation not to do away with it. If the 1995 Regulations wanted to do away with any of the savings provisions of the 1988 Act woul...
by tsrwright
Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:46 am
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Duration of company owned copyright
Replies: 37
Views: 23578

Hi, this issue has cropped up again because when I challenged the Scottish National Library on their 70 years pma copyright period for a for a pre June 1957photograph they advised as follows:

Regulation 15(1) of the 1995 Regulations reads as follows:

“Copyright in an existing copyright work shall continue to subsist until the date on which it would have expired under the 1988 provisions if that date is later than the date on which copyright would expire under the new provisions.â€￾ [emphasis added]

Regulation 12(2) of the 1995 Regulations clarifies:

““the 1988 provisionsâ€￾ means the provisions of that Act as they stood immediately before commencement (including the provisions of Schedule 1 to that Act continuing the effect of earlier enactments)â€￾

In other words, you are correct, Schedule 1 of the 1988 Act is still in the Act. However, the 1995 Regulations allow those survival durations to apply only where they provide a longer period of protection than a work would receive under the new (1995) provisions. Because the material in question here receives a longer duration under the new provisions, the new provisions are those which apply.


I thought we had been over this argument but I can't see it in the earlier conversation here.

When I read 15(1) of the 1995 Regulations they seem simply to be saying that a 1988 provisions copyright expiry date will not be brought back to an earlier date that were to result from the 1995 regulations. It does not seem to be saying that any earlier date will be made later!
Does it mean whatever you want it to mean?

I have been sent the attached which seems useful but it also contradicts the argument that all pre June 1957 photos are out of copyright:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/docu ... wchart.pdf.

This is now being handled under the Library's official complaints procedure and I am prepared to push it to a formal review if I feel I have a sound argument.

Any further help you can give regarding 15(1) of the 1995 Regulations would be much appreciated.

Regards

PS The book is printing - see www.loosefillings.com

by tsrwright
Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:40 am
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Duration of company owned copyright
Replies: 37
Views: 23578

Thanks, that's as clear as it's going to be.

Interesting how clearly it is stated in the German law.

Now to look at the Australian situation..... :(
by tsrwright
Fri Feb 20, 2015 7:26 am
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Duration of company owned copyright
Replies: 37
Views: 23578

Andy, I detect some caution in your response.

Do you feel like explaining the reason for caution further to earlier posts.

It seems clear enough to me but I wonder why are so many sources applying this 70 year pma term? Have they maybe not read the Schedule do you think?
by tsrwright
Fri Feb 20, 2015 7:01 am
Forum: Copyright Law
Topic: Duration of company owned copyright
Replies: 37
Views: 23578

Andy, I detect some caution in your response.

Do you feel like explaining the reason for caution further to earlier posts.

It seems clear enough to me but why are so many sources applying this 70 year pma term? Have they maybe not read the Schedule do you think?