hi from spain
First sorry for my english and a greeting to the forum.
I am an illustrator and I would like to use some images for commercial use, patterns and posters by George William Stow (2 February 1822, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, England - 17 March 1882. was a South African geologist and ethnologist, a poet, Cartographer and writer.
Died more than 70 years ago, specifically what I want to do with his drawings are silhouettes, not to sell the image as such.
The problem is that he has a book called Rock paintings in South Africa from parts of the Eastern Province and Orange Free State
By Stow, G.W. (George William), 1822-1882; Bleek, D.F. (Dorothea Frances), d. 1948 I downloaded from archive org
The drawings are from stow and the prologue of bleek, what is strange to me is that in archive org does not appear in public domain, on the other hand I see that sarada and lloydbleekcollection websites are copyright their images. And offer commercial use by paying a fee is this possible? More than 70 years ago he died.
Can I use these images for commercial use? Being drawings of rock art is not logical to think that the drawings themselves taken from a cave with thousands of years old is not copyrighted? Can i modify these drawings?
In any case if the author has made an artistic work of the original cave paintings, have not passed
More than 70 years? Does South Africa have special laws?
Thank you for your time. I hope you can help me clarify the ideas.
regards.
please copyright cave painting
Hi Herrera,
Welcome to the forum.
You are entirely correct that no copyright would ever have applied to the original cave paintings. On the other hand George William Stow's drawings of them might very well have attracted copyright.
Stow was born in the Orange Free State, which was from 1842 (ie when Stow was aged 20) a British colony and so British copyright law would almost certainly have applied to Stow's work throughout most of his working lifetime. There were several British Copyright Acts during the nineteenth century but works of art were only included, to a limited extent, from 1844. At first, works of art were largely limited to etchings, engravings and works of sculpture. And in the case of the first two, they had to be published and registered to gain protection. The term of protection was just 28 years from the date of publication. The Fine Art Copyright Act of 1862 widened the types of artistic work which could be subject to copyright to include paintings, drawings, sketches and photographs. The effect of the Act was retrospective to include all paintings etc still in the possession of the artists at the time the Act came into force, and to any works created thereafter. It would seem likely that Stow's drawings might well have fallen into this category and so would have been protected for the new copyright term of the lifetime of the artist plus seven years after his death. There was still a requirement to register all qualifying works, but let us assume for the moment that Stow did this. This would mean that in Stow's case, all his artworks would have entered the public domain in 1890. It was not until the Copyright Act of 1911 that the term of copyright was extended to the lifetime of the author plus 50 years, but this came too late to apply to Stow's work.
Since the book you wish to use clearly separates the contributions of Stow and Bleek, the book is not a work of joint authorship, and each part (the drawings and the text) is therefore subject to different copyright terms based on the date of death of the respective authors. Stow's drawings are thus in the public domain, whereas Bleek's text is not due to enter the public domain until 1 January 2019.
You mention that another site is claiming copyright in their images and demanding fees to reproduce them. It is relatively common, although legally dubious, that people who make digital copies of old, out-of-copyright works claim that a new copyright was created at the time the digital image was made. On other occasions, museums etc exploit their monopoly position as owners of rare works by charging access fees while stopping short of actually claiming copyright. However if you have found a source of the original book showing the drawings you wish to use, I think you can safely go ahead and use them without fear of infringing any copyright, since the only real copyright which might have once existed ended over 125 years ago.
Welcome to the forum.
You are entirely correct that no copyright would ever have applied to the original cave paintings. On the other hand George William Stow's drawings of them might very well have attracted copyright.
Stow was born in the Orange Free State, which was from 1842 (ie when Stow was aged 20) a British colony and so British copyright law would almost certainly have applied to Stow's work throughout most of his working lifetime. There were several British Copyright Acts during the nineteenth century but works of art were only included, to a limited extent, from 1844. At first, works of art were largely limited to etchings, engravings and works of sculpture. And in the case of the first two, they had to be published and registered to gain protection. The term of protection was just 28 years from the date of publication. The Fine Art Copyright Act of 1862 widened the types of artistic work which could be subject to copyright to include paintings, drawings, sketches and photographs. The effect of the Act was retrospective to include all paintings etc still in the possession of the artists at the time the Act came into force, and to any works created thereafter. It would seem likely that Stow's drawings might well have fallen into this category and so would have been protected for the new copyright term of the lifetime of the artist plus seven years after his death. There was still a requirement to register all qualifying works, but let us assume for the moment that Stow did this. This would mean that in Stow's case, all his artworks would have entered the public domain in 1890. It was not until the Copyright Act of 1911 that the term of copyright was extended to the lifetime of the author plus 50 years, but this came too late to apply to Stow's work.
Since the book you wish to use clearly separates the contributions of Stow and Bleek, the book is not a work of joint authorship, and each part (the drawings and the text) is therefore subject to different copyright terms based on the date of death of the respective authors. Stow's drawings are thus in the public domain, whereas Bleek's text is not due to enter the public domain until 1 January 2019.
You mention that another site is claiming copyright in their images and demanding fees to reproduce them. It is relatively common, although legally dubious, that people who make digital copies of old, out-of-copyright works claim that a new copyright was created at the time the digital image was made. On other occasions, museums etc exploit their monopoly position as owners of rare works by charging access fees while stopping short of actually claiming copyright. However if you have found a source of the original book showing the drawings you wish to use, I think you can safely go ahead and use them without fear of infringing any copyright, since the only real copyright which might have once existed ended over 125 years ago.
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
Thank you very much for answering andyj. Thank you for so much information.
I need more clarification please, I do not want to have legal problems.
You say that in your opinion I should not have problems using the painting of the book.
I would like to give you more details of the book.
It is certain that the book clearly separates the contributions of Stow and Bleek and the book is not a work of joint authorship, and each part (the drawings and the text) is therefore subject to different copyright ??
On the other hand and to help you with information ... stow died before the edition of the book. According to the book I transcribe you literally
The book ..
COPIED by Stow, G.W. (George William), 1822-1882; WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTIVES NOTES BY Bleek, D. F. (Dorothea Frances), d. 1948
Published 1930
Bleek writes at the end of his introduction "It may be asked why Stow's copies are published instead of an
To be the original anew? In some cases this
Would be impossible, in others very difficult. Some of the paintings have been cut out and removed, possibly for museums; Some have
Been destroyed by the fall of rock. Many are still partially visible, but
Not to be copied now owing to the destructive action of water, the
Flaking of the rock, the rubbing of animals, or the layers of soot and
Dirt caused by natives inhabiting the sites. The paintings have faded
Greatly in the last sixty years. No one to-day has Stow's opportunity.
After Stow's sudden death in 1882 his copies of rock-paintings
And engravings were purchased by Miss L. C. Lloyd, who was then
Studying Bushman language and lore. Lack of funds prevented her
From publishing them in adequate form; At her death she left them
To the writer of these notes.
This book contains reproductions of seventy-four of Stow's
Cartoons. I have found the originals of sixty of them. It has
Not been possible to publish the cartoons in full size, but the
Extreme limits of Stow's painted work are given in the accompanying notes
The plates, where I have also endeavoured to state any
Alterations in color that the exigencies of printing necessitated.
1 he present publication has been rendered possible by the
Carnegie Trustees, who are financing the book. My thanks are due
To them and to Dr. Barnard, Mr. Miles Burkitt, F.S.A., Mrs. Hoernle,
Dr. Loram, and everyone who helped to bring about the publication of
These records of the fast disappearing treasures of Bushman art.
According to this as it affects the copyright?
The author died before the publication, I have been able to read that according to the British law, are 50 years from the publication of the book to be an unedited work in the life of the author? is this correct?
In any case according to all the information I have given you, you believe that I can use the paintings of the book without fear of legal problems?
Thank you very much for everything, regards.
I need more clarification please, I do not want to have legal problems.
You say that in your opinion I should not have problems using the painting of the book.
I would like to give you more details of the book.
It is certain that the book clearly separates the contributions of Stow and Bleek and the book is not a work of joint authorship, and each part (the drawings and the text) is therefore subject to different copyright ??
On the other hand and to help you with information ... stow died before the edition of the book. According to the book I transcribe you literally
The book ..
COPIED by Stow, G.W. (George William), 1822-1882; WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTIVES NOTES BY Bleek, D. F. (Dorothea Frances), d. 1948
Published 1930
Bleek writes at the end of his introduction "It may be asked why Stow's copies are published instead of an
To be the original anew? In some cases this
Would be impossible, in others very difficult. Some of the paintings have been cut out and removed, possibly for museums; Some have
Been destroyed by the fall of rock. Many are still partially visible, but
Not to be copied now owing to the destructive action of water, the
Flaking of the rock, the rubbing of animals, or the layers of soot and
Dirt caused by natives inhabiting the sites. The paintings have faded
Greatly in the last sixty years. No one to-day has Stow's opportunity.
After Stow's sudden death in 1882 his copies of rock-paintings
And engravings were purchased by Miss L. C. Lloyd, who was then
Studying Bushman language and lore. Lack of funds prevented her
From publishing them in adequate form; At her death she left them
To the writer of these notes.
This book contains reproductions of seventy-four of Stow's
Cartoons. I have found the originals of sixty of them. It has
Not been possible to publish the cartoons in full size, but the
Extreme limits of Stow's painted work are given in the accompanying notes
The plates, where I have also endeavoured to state any
Alterations in color that the exigencies of printing necessitated.
1 he present publication has been rendered possible by the
Carnegie Trustees, who are financing the book. My thanks are due
To them and to Dr. Barnard, Mr. Miles Burkitt, F.S.A., Mrs. Hoernle,
Dr. Loram, and everyone who helped to bring about the publication of
These records of the fast disappearing treasures of Bushman art.
According to this as it affects the copyright?
The author died before the publication, I have been able to read that according to the British law, are 50 years from the publication of the book to be an unedited work in the life of the author? is this correct?
In any case according to all the information I have given you, you believe that I can use the paintings of the book without fear of legal problems?
Thank you very much for everything, regards.
Hi again herrera,
Thank you for the additional information. It does have some bearing on the matter.
As the book Rock Paintings in South Africa from Parts of the Eastern Province and Orange Free State was published by Methuen in London in 1930, UK copyright law applies.
Section 17 of the 1911 Copyright Act said that where a work was published after the death of its author, copyright would exist for 50 years from the date of publication. This would have taken the period of protection to 1 January 1981. The 1956 Copyright Act did not change this provision and so the copyright in Stow's images will have ended in 1981, even though Bleek's notes remain in copyright at present.
Thank you for the additional information. It does have some bearing on the matter.
As the book Rock Paintings in South Africa from Parts of the Eastern Province and Orange Free State was published by Methuen in London in 1930, UK copyright law applies.
Section 17 of the 1911 Copyright Act said that where a work was published after the death of its author, copyright would exist for 50 years from the date of publication. This would have taken the period of protection to 1 January 1981. The 1956 Copyright Act did not change this provision and so the copyright in Stow's images will have ended in 1981, even though Bleek's notes remain in copyright at present.
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
wikipedia say:
Copyright law of the United Kingdom
Posthumous works[edit]
If an unpublished work was published before the 1988 Act came into force, and the author had been dead for more than 50 years, the work remained in copyright for 50 years from the end of the year of publication.
If an unpublished work is published after the 1988 Act came into force, and the author had been dead for more than 50 years, its copyright will expire at the end of 2039. Later amendments have altered this to include only authors who died more than 70 years before the Act came into force.
Therefore, an unpublished work by an author who died before 1918, published after commencement of the 1988 Act, will expire at the end of 2039. However, if a work by an author who died in, say, 1870 was published in 1970 (i.e. before the 1988 Act), its copyright would expire 50 years after 1970, i.e. in 2020.
it is right? What you tell me and what says wikipedia is correct? Then in your opinion the stow drawings are not copyrighted and I can use them? My biggest doubt is that the whole book is taken as a joint work and therefore a single copyright having valid death bleek
Copyright law of the United Kingdom
Posthumous works[edit]
If an unpublished work was published before the 1988 Act came into force, and the author had been dead for more than 50 years, the work remained in copyright for 50 years from the end of the year of publication.
If an unpublished work is published after the 1988 Act came into force, and the author had been dead for more than 50 years, its copyright will expire at the end of 2039. Later amendments have altered this to include only authors who died more than 70 years before the Act came into force.
Therefore, an unpublished work by an author who died before 1918, published after commencement of the 1988 Act, will expire at the end of 2039. However, if a work by an author who died in, say, 1870 was published in 1970 (i.e. before the 1988 Act), its copyright would expire 50 years after 1970, i.e. in 2020.
it is right? What you tell me and what says wikipedia is correct? Then in your opinion the stow drawings are not copyrighted and I can use them? My biggest doubt is that the whole book is taken as a joint work and therefore a single copyright having valid death bleek
Hi herrera,
You can forget about the 1988 Act as copyright in the drawings in the book had expired before it came into force. The 1911 Act was in force at the time of publication and although the term of the copyright was still running when the 1956 Act was introduced, it made no change to the provisions already in force, and so copyright in Stow's drawings as published in the book, ended at midnight on 31 December 1980.
You can forget about the 1988 Act as copyright in the drawings in the book had expired before it came into force. The 1911 Act was in force at the time of publication and although the term of the copyright was still running when the 1956 Act was introduced, it made no change to the provisions already in force, and so copyright in Stow's drawings as published in the book, ended at midnight on 31 December 1980.
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
