Hi All
So sorry - back again earlier than anticipated!
I am still ploughing away through many, many suffrage/suffragette images from various sources (lots from the LSE, who make their attribution requirements nice and precise) but lots also from Wikipedia and Wiki Commons.
The latter are proving something of a puzzle for me. The images are all (without exception, I think) pre-1915 and are photographs. They are mostly on Wikipedia and technically all in the public domain (I think), but there is a worrying little note at the bottom of the page that seems to imply that they are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike. When the link is followed, there is a stern instruction that appropriate credit must be given and linked to the license (which is a big ol’ thing which will mess up my nice exhibition display). However, if you scroll a bit further down the page, it says, ‘ You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.’ Does this really mean I can use them without attribution, or have I got it totally round my neck?
I would, in reality, always attribute but I’d rather not have a small essay written under each photo if I didn’t need to.
Thank you guys.
Any help, as always, gratefully received.
All very best.
Wikipedia, Attribution and Public Domain images
-
MrsTwosheds
- Experienced Member
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 2:55 pm
- Location: Crewe
Re: Wikipedia, Attribution and Public Domain images
Hi Sally,
It's nice to have a different question from the usual ones asking about how to deal with infringement claims letters or emails.
Wikicommons and wikimedia face a large problem in that they have deal with images etc from all over the world each which will have it's own idiosyncratic copyright rules attached. Just wading through the complicated American system is a nightmare, so Wikimedia really face a no-win situation when you include the rest of the world.
Anyway, you are almost certainly right that an image from 1915 or earlier is going to be out of copyright if it was created in the UK, which I think is a safe assumption given the subject matter. However since there is nothing to stop someone, either through ignorance, greed or pomposity, from sticking their own copyright notice or Creative Commons licence on an old out-of-copyright photograph, sadly this sort of thing does happen a lot. There are some people who believe that if they scan an old photograph they have somehow magically created a new work which gains a new copyright. In 99% of cases they are wrong because there is insufficient 'new' creativity involved in the copying process.
Fortunately the law helps you out a bit here. Even where the right to an attribution may be genuine, it is only the original author who needs to be given a credit. A present day third party who says he is the current owner of the copyright is not entitled to any credit or attribution. Therefore if the person or organisation responsible for the CC licence notice wants to be attributed, they can go whistle. Only if the attribution claim names a known photographer from the 1900s would it be sensible to at least double check when he died etc. As many of these images will have no known author, the standard rule (section 12(3) CDPA) for anonymous works is that copyright subsists for 70 years from the end of the year in which the work was first published. There is an entirely separate, special rule for photographs created before 1945, found in section 21 of the Copyright Act 1911, which I'm sure I have mentioned to you before, but since the anonymous author rule is easier to understand and covers photographs right up to 1952, it's just as helpful in this instance.
Good luck with your exhibition.
It's nice to have a different question from the usual ones asking about how to deal with infringement claims letters or emails.
Wikicommons and wikimedia face a large problem in that they have deal with images etc from all over the world each which will have it's own idiosyncratic copyright rules attached. Just wading through the complicated American system is a nightmare, so Wikimedia really face a no-win situation when you include the rest of the world.
Anyway, you are almost certainly right that an image from 1915 or earlier is going to be out of copyright if it was created in the UK, which I think is a safe assumption given the subject matter. However since there is nothing to stop someone, either through ignorance, greed or pomposity, from sticking their own copyright notice or Creative Commons licence on an old out-of-copyright photograph, sadly this sort of thing does happen a lot. There are some people who believe that if they scan an old photograph they have somehow magically created a new work which gains a new copyright. In 99% of cases they are wrong because there is insufficient 'new' creativity involved in the copying process.
Fortunately the law helps you out a bit here. Even where the right to an attribution may be genuine, it is only the original author who needs to be given a credit. A present day third party who says he is the current owner of the copyright is not entitled to any credit or attribution. Therefore if the person or organisation responsible for the CC licence notice wants to be attributed, they can go whistle. Only if the attribution claim names a known photographer from the 1900s would it be sensible to at least double check when he died etc. As many of these images will have no known author, the standard rule (section 12(3) CDPA) for anonymous works is that copyright subsists for 70 years from the end of the year in which the work was first published. There is an entirely separate, special rule for photographs created before 1945, found in section 21 of the Copyright Act 1911, which I'm sure I have mentioned to you before, but since the anonymous author rule is easier to understand and covers photographs right up to 1952, it's just as helpful in this instance.
Good luck with your exhibition.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
-
MrsTwosheds
- Experienced Member
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 2:55 pm
- Location: Crewe
Re: Wikipedia, Attribution and Public Domain images
Aah…..thank you so much, Andy. I’m so pleased!
Yes, I really do remember your mentioning the rule regarding pre-1945 photographs, and this was what puzzled me about the licence claim. The possibility of crossing swords with an organisation as huge and formidable as Wikipedia certainly gave pause for thought
. I’ve have noticed that commercial online suppliers of stock images are very protective of their photographs, (even the ancient ones which would be in the public domain) - many are watermarked and threats abound. A hefty fine or a project involving the sewing of mailbags is one I am keen avoid if at all possible.
I can’t tell you how amazing it is to have you guys and the forum to hand. I’m so grateful for your sterling efforts. Thanks, Andy, as always for your help (and your good wishes - the exhibition is coming along well so far, fingers crossed).
Yes, I really do remember your mentioning the rule regarding pre-1945 photographs, and this was what puzzled me about the licence claim. The possibility of crossing swords with an organisation as huge and formidable as Wikipedia certainly gave pause for thought
. I’ve have noticed that commercial online suppliers of stock images are very protective of their photographs, (even the ancient ones which would be in the public domain) - many are watermarked and threats abound. A hefty fine or a project involving the sewing of mailbags is one I am keen avoid if at all possible.I can’t tell you how amazing it is to have you guys and the forum to hand. I’m so grateful for your sterling efforts. Thanks, Andy, as always for your help (and your good wishes - the exhibition is coming along well so far, fingers crossed).