Use of 1956-57 magazine photo in a book

Henry Crun · Post by **Henry Crun** » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:54 pm

I have a photo of Diana Dors from an edition of Picturegoer from 1956-57 sometime, which I'd like to use in a book. Photographer unknown.

Can I do this, with just a credit?

If it's of any help, Picturegoer died as a publication in 1960 apparently.

Thanks.

AndyJ · Post by **AndyJ** » Fri Dec 02, 2016 4:01 pm

Hi Henry,

Nice to hear from you again.

I'm afraid the photograph will still be in copyright and so using it without permission in a book would be infringement. I can't see any of the fair dealing exceptions applying here.

I would expect that a photograph of this sort would probably have been made available via a photo agency and so a bit of searching using either Google Image search or TinEye might turn up a place where you could get a licence to use it. You could also try the search facility provided by the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies,

If after some diligent searching you fail to turn up any lead for the current owner of the copyright, you will probably have done enough to apply for an orphan works licence from the IPO which would allow you to use the image without being liable for infringement.

Henry Crun · Post by **Henry Crun** » Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:10 am

Hi AndyJ. I knew I could rely on you to reply!

I will pursue the avenues you've suggested, and similarly for another one of Frances Day too.

Thanks very much

H

Henry Crun · Post by **Henry Crun** » Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:51 pm

Hi AndyJ

I am now at the point where I am about to send the book text, images, etc. for printing (at last!). I have a few questions about creating a the list of picture acknowledgements to go after the book's text.

(I suppose I should really look at how other authors do it, but then would they necessarily do it the right way either?!)

A lot of them are to do with whether I should put the copyright symbol in or not, and in which cases (not that it carries weight in law anyway in this country as far as I understand it).

Anyway, here goes ...

1. Some photos are mine so I'll put '[Image no.] 1 - (c) The author'. Presumably OK so far?!

2. Some are ones donated by people to the library for our use. I intend to put their names, but refer to where their now kept, with the (c) symbol placed in front of the library name, so e.g. '2 - Taken by Fred Bloggs; (c) Anytown Library'. OK?

3. Some are owned by others, and I've been allowed to use them free. Presumably then: '3 - (c) John Smith'?

4. Some are available free to use through having been placed on Wikipedia by the photographer or owner. I'm assuming for these: '4 - Via Wikipedia(c) Bert Wilson' is OK, the (c) still being needed even though use is permitted by the text on the Wikipedia page?

5. Some are from books which were published 80-100 years ago. It's really only what's the best form with this [and I suppose many of the others], but what about the book title, then 'Public Domain'?

And lastly ...

6. Paintings by people of the local area who died 200 years ago, found on the Internet on e.g. Wikipedia. How much does e.g. 'sweat of the brow' apply here?

Thanks for any help you or anyone else can offer.

HC

AndyJ · Post by **AndyJ** » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:24 pm

Hi Henry,

In many cases, unless you are relying on one of the fair dealing exceptions (say for the purpose of quotation) a copyright acknowledgement may not be a legal necessity, although I would always advocate providing one, firstly out of courtesy, and secondly because it may help others who would like to use the same image to locate the copyright owner.

So turning to your list:

1. Correct.

2. Technically the copyright owner is the photographer unless he or she has assigned their copyright to someone else. Where the author has died and their work has passed through inheritance either to a named heir or to an institution such as a library, copyright will be assumed to have transferred along with the physical object if there were no written provisions concerning copyright. Therefore in category 2, only in the case of bequests would it be appropriate to assume that the library has any claim to own the copyright.

3. Correct.

4. Even photographs which have been put out with open source licences remain subject to copyright for the normal lifetime + 70 years, and so the author/photographer should be credited, and if they have issued a Creative Commons licence, then it is important to mention the type of CC licence - some may require an attribution as one of the terms of the licence. Other terms could cover non-commercial use and a prohibition of making derivative versions. No need to mention Wikipedia specifically.

5. Where the author/photographer/artist is unknown then crediting the source and date of publication instead is good practice. Unpublished works can be a problem under UK law because prior to 1988 the copyright term in an unpublished work did not even begin until the work was lawfully published, and so even though the author might have died over a hundred years ago, using an unpublished work without permission would amount to infringement.

6. Similar to 5. Assume that publication on Wikipedia is authorised, you should be OK to use these paintings. Again the name of the artist (where known) should be used but without the Â© symbol. If Wikipedia can provide any additional information about the provenance of the work, then this can be included if you wish. Bear in mind that Wikipedia follows US law which differs from the UK approach concerning digital copies of old paintings. US jurisprudence generally denies copyright to digital copies of this sort, whereas in the UK (and Europe) the matter is not settled law and tends assume that digital copies can have copyright, meaning that the reproductions you wish to use are in copyright, even though the painting represented in them are not!

Henry Crun · Post by **Henry Crun** » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:53 pm

Thanks, AndyJ. I knew I could depend on you again for your speed and knowledge.

Henry Crun · Post by **Henry Crun** » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:35 pm

Sorry, me again (rather inevitably I suppose!)

I am planning to use the image shown here ...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... s_1968.jpg

Now despite saying in the Licensing section of that webpage ...

"attribution â€“ You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)"

... it doesn't (I feel) make it clear elsewhere on that page how to do that.

I am guessing that there is perhaps no *absolutely* right way, but am hoping this is OK ...

68 - Diana Dors - By Eric Koch - Â© The Nationaal Archief (The Dutch National Archives) & Spaarnestad Photo (licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Netherlands license)

Am I right?

Thanks - again!

HC

AndyJ · Post by **AndyJ** » Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:07 pm

Hi Henry,

That credit looks spot on. It's a shame more folk don't pay as much attention to this sort of detail. Quite often a copyright owner is more annoyed by a lack of a credit than they are about their work being copied.

Henry Crun · Post by **Henry Crun** » Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:36 am

Sorry AndyJ ...

I am also wanting to add several extracts from three OS maps (either 1931 or an older one) to help place buildings I have referred to which are/were located along a river.

Can I do that? And if so, is there a limit to the size I can put in?

Plus, presumably I have to refer to it as "Extract from ... Crown Copyright 19--"

My own copyright knowledge suggests 50 years for maps this old, but I wanted to check ...

Thanks (again!)

HC

Nick Cooper · Post by **Nick Cooper** » Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:18 pm

As per the OS website, their maps published before 1 April 2015 were crown copyright, so were/are protected for 50 years from the end of the year of publication. That means any maps published up to the end of 1965 are now public domain, as long as you can source a suitable original.

Henry Crun · Post by **Henry Crun** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:22 pm

Thanks, Nick.

2 more questions.

The book is effectively self-published as I am doing almost all the work on it (bar designing and printing), but the council I work for is to be the 'publisher' as I have written the book as part of my work, and they are paying for designing, printing and those images I've paid for.

I assume this all means ...

1. there is no need for any assertion of copyright on the front few pages; just (c) X Council?

2. I have supplied c.10 photos of my own to the book, which I have shown as '(c) the author' in the image acknowledgements. I presume that even though they are in a book which has the council's copyright, the images are still MY copyright - in the same way that others contributed to the book by other people are still THEIR copyright?

Thanks,

HC

AndyJ · Post by **AndyJ** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:03 pm

Hi Henry,

Yes, you don't need anything fancy: 'Â© Anytown Council 2017' will do the trick.

and yes, assuming that your images were not taken in the course of your work for the council (in which case they may own the copyright in them) then you own the copyright and so it is appropriate that the credits reflect this.

Henry Crun · Post by **Henry Crun** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:13 pm

Thanks, AndyJ.

Presumably I can still get them to put in ...

'HC' has asserted his moral rights.

... ?

HC

AndyJ · Post by **AndyJ** » Wed Mar 01, 2017 6:39 pm

Hi Henry,
Yes of course, no problem with that.