Hi there. I hope everyone is well. I have some issues and would like some advice if possible.
I am a UK author writing a book for a UK publisher. It uses a lot of media reports as source material - newspapers, TV, radio and online. This is my first book, so in a way I don't really know what I'm doing that well. If published, the aim is to have it available in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and hopefully a few other countries.
The publisher has told me that any direct quote of or strong reference to a source of 50 words or more needs permission for use. I think this is a bit over the top, but I suppose every publisher has their own demands. There are dozens of such sources, and the majority are from the UK and US, with a few from Canada. I believe the newspaper and online media sources would come under "published works", with copyright lasting until 70 years after the author's death, but would generally tend to be held by the outlet. Is this correct?
Obtaining permission has been problematic. I have had a few quotes for using material which are more than I can afford. Some newspapers no longer exist, so I don't know who to ask for permission. Modern outlets' automated request forms have asked me for the URL of some articles, which I don't have as they are decades old. Further to this, I have seen disclaimers on big media company websites saying that permission is required to use any content, yet I have seen that when a huge online story breaks with one company, it quickly spreads to others who can quote the initial information from the first company before their own reporters do their work. Do they all pay the first company and each other for content? I doubt it.
As a result, I have traced some writers of the source material who say that they personally would have no problem with me using it, but they cannot speak for the outlet.
My publisher expects me to take care of all copyright issues myself with virtually no assistance from them, which I think is a bit unreasonable for a fledgling. I have asked an established author in a vaguely related field about all this, and they say that I don't need permission to use content at all, as long as long as everything is referenced with the utmost accuracy. They say that they might never have written many of their books had they needed permission for sources. I believe I use far more quotes than they typically would, but I would not want to do nothing. I believe that somewhere between the publisher's and author's views would be reasonable.
What newspaper, especially one that no longer exists, will know that I have quoted a very old article ? It seems unlikely that anyone would take issue with it, but I'm sure I'm wrong.
I consider everything I have used to be fair. It is not taking away from media sales, and no other book like mine has yet been written. For example, I quote almost an entire long interview because I believe it might be the only interview the subject ever gave.
Please comment on the above if you wish. I should stress that in all cases I quote the words only and do not copy or mimic any typographical arrangement.
**
Further to the above, I have two specific things to ask:
1) Broadcast copyright lasts 50 years in the UK. Is this also the same in the US? I have not been able to find that yet.
2) I want to quote a programme that is still copyrighted to a UK company. Naturally, they have fees for video and audio use, but seem to assume that people would only want to use it for visual and audio projects. They give no information about literal quotes. I have written to someone who deals with licencing but had no response. Should I just quote it, as this is not covered?
**
Any information you can give about any of this will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Copyright permission for book sources
Re: Copyright permission for book sources
Hi dot,
Welcome to the forums and thank you for the clear explanation of what you want to do.
As you have appreciated there are some minor differences between US and UK copyright law on the issue of quotations, but as far as Canada, Australia and New Zealand are concerned, there the approach is virtually the same as the UK where the doctrine is called fair dealing. Fair dealing applies to specific categories of use among which is quotation ( see section 30(1ZA) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988). As you will see there are several criteria which have to be met, but provided that they are, quoting the works of others does not need specific permission. The key criteria are to cite your sources and to use no more of the original work than is strictly necessary for your purpose. As you already appreciate, this last criterion is at odds with your publisher's rule about getting permission to use more than 50 words. The correct measurement is unrelated to the length or the original work* (eg that it would be OK to use a certain percentage of it but not more) or how many words you quote, and is an entirely subjective assessment based on your needs and motives. The test is what a reasonable person would say was fair in the circumstances. From this you can see that the 50 words rule is just a poor approximation which is used by some busy publishers to get round the fact that each instance of permission will be different, based on the quoting author's purpose.
In the USA their doctrine is called Fair Use and it takes a different approach, based largely on the economic consequences of using another person's work. You can read a pretty good explanation of how this works in the Wikipedia article on the subject, but for convenience here are the four factors a US Court would consider to decide whether something was fair use:
So much for the law. Before moving on to your final questions, you are right to assume that it is the newspaper or magazine publisher who would need to give permission, if permission is required. If you can't find the current owner of the title after a reasonably diligent search it is fairly safe to assume that no-one is going to raise a claim about a decades-old newspaper article. Even where you do find the current owner of the copyright material, don't be surprised if your request for permission is met with confusion. Most newspapers have outsourced their licensing operations for current news etc to the Newspaper Licensing Agency. However the NLA does not issue licences for old content (prior to 1996) or for defunct titles which it doesn't represent.
So looking at your specific questions: broadcasts are tricky.
The UK. You are right that in the UK the copyright in the broadcast only lasts for 50 years. However copyright in a broadcast only covers the entire envelope, not the individual items within a broadcast. So for instance if a Hollywood movie is broadcast on UK terrestrial TV, it would be subject to the standard copyright for a film, and the broadcast element would be immaterial. Similarly if a football match is broadcast, there is no copyright in the actual game and broadcast right does not apply to it. The way broadcasters get around this limitation is to include things like the commentary (which they do own the copyright in) and having their logo on screen at all times. They can then rely on the copyright in the logo to protect images of the game, even if the commentary is muted.
The USA. There is no specific protection for broadcasts in the USA. Scripted content, drama, music and the like would be protected in their own categories, and the speech of an interviewee, once fixed by being recorded, would be treated as a sound recording. The owner of the copyright in a sound recording is the person who makes the recording, so the broadcaster in this case. The duration of copyright in a sound recording made in the USA is the shorter of 95 years from the date of publication or 120 years from the date of creation. This duration only applies to works made after 1 January 1978. Prior to that, the picture is very muddled, depending on when the work was made, whether it was registered and if the registration was renewed correctly etc. Added to the confusion caused by the registration issue is the fact that prior to 1972, sound recordings were not subject to US Federal copyright law and each state had its own laws on the matter.
Permission to use the transcribed words from a broadcast interview.
Where the interview was on TV clearly you don't need the sort of full licence which covers the visual and sound elements, and so if the broadcaster doesn't provide a sensible licence just for the transcribed words, I would be inclined to lean heavily on the fair dealing exception, on the basis that reasonableness weighs in your favour in this situation. If it was a radio interview, it is much more likely that a tailored licence might be available; indeed in some cases it is possible that a transcript might also be available which saves you some work. But again, unless you are contemplating a very long extract you should be able to rely on fair dealing in most cases.
* This is one of the places in which US law differs from the UK law.
Welcome to the forums and thank you for the clear explanation of what you want to do.
As you have appreciated there are some minor differences between US and UK copyright law on the issue of quotations, but as far as Canada, Australia and New Zealand are concerned, there the approach is virtually the same as the UK where the doctrine is called fair dealing. Fair dealing applies to specific categories of use among which is quotation ( see section 30(1ZA) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988). As you will see there are several criteria which have to be met, but provided that they are, quoting the works of others does not need specific permission. The key criteria are to cite your sources and to use no more of the original work than is strictly necessary for your purpose. As you already appreciate, this last criterion is at odds with your publisher's rule about getting permission to use more than 50 words. The correct measurement is unrelated to the length or the original work* (eg that it would be OK to use a certain percentage of it but not more) or how many words you quote, and is an entirely subjective assessment based on your needs and motives. The test is what a reasonable person would say was fair in the circumstances. From this you can see that the 50 words rule is just a poor approximation which is used by some busy publishers to get round the fact that each instance of permission will be different, based on the quoting author's purpose.
In the USA their doctrine is called Fair Use and it takes a different approach, based largely on the economic consequences of using another person's work. You can read a pretty good explanation of how this works in the Wikipedia article on the subject, but for convenience here are the four factors a US Court would consider to decide whether something was fair use:
You have already touched on the fact that most, if not all, of the sources you wish to quote will not be financially impacted by you quoting them. Assuming that factors 1 and 2 are neutral, that just leaves the third factor as possibly going against you if you want to use a substantial part of the original article or interview. There's a helpful checklist here which helps you assess whether or not your particular quote may be protected as fair use. However it is worth mentioning that in the USA prior to the Copyright Act 1976, it was necessary to register a work in order to gain copyright, and that many newspapers and magazines didn't do this because it was cumbersome and expensive for something as ephemeral as news and current affairs.
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
So much for the law. Before moving on to your final questions, you are right to assume that it is the newspaper or magazine publisher who would need to give permission, if permission is required. If you can't find the current owner of the title after a reasonably diligent search it is fairly safe to assume that no-one is going to raise a claim about a decades-old newspaper article. Even where you do find the current owner of the copyright material, don't be surprised if your request for permission is met with confusion. Most newspapers have outsourced their licensing operations for current news etc to the Newspaper Licensing Agency. However the NLA does not issue licences for old content (prior to 1996) or for defunct titles which it doesn't represent.
So looking at your specific questions: broadcasts are tricky.
The UK. You are right that in the UK the copyright in the broadcast only lasts for 50 years. However copyright in a broadcast only covers the entire envelope, not the individual items within a broadcast. So for instance if a Hollywood movie is broadcast on UK terrestrial TV, it would be subject to the standard copyright for a film, and the broadcast element would be immaterial. Similarly if a football match is broadcast, there is no copyright in the actual game and broadcast right does not apply to it. The way broadcasters get around this limitation is to include things like the commentary (which they do own the copyright in) and having their logo on screen at all times. They can then rely on the copyright in the logo to protect images of the game, even if the commentary is muted.
The USA. There is no specific protection for broadcasts in the USA. Scripted content, drama, music and the like would be protected in their own categories, and the speech of an interviewee, once fixed by being recorded, would be treated as a sound recording. The owner of the copyright in a sound recording is the person who makes the recording, so the broadcaster in this case. The duration of copyright in a sound recording made in the USA is the shorter of 95 years from the date of publication or 120 years from the date of creation. This duration only applies to works made after 1 January 1978. Prior to that, the picture is very muddled, depending on when the work was made, whether it was registered and if the registration was renewed correctly etc. Added to the confusion caused by the registration issue is the fact that prior to 1972, sound recordings were not subject to US Federal copyright law and each state had its own laws on the matter.
Permission to use the transcribed words from a broadcast interview.
Where the interview was on TV clearly you don't need the sort of full licence which covers the visual and sound elements, and so if the broadcaster doesn't provide a sensible licence just for the transcribed words, I would be inclined to lean heavily on the fair dealing exception, on the basis that reasonableness weighs in your favour in this situation. If it was a radio interview, it is much more likely that a tailored licence might be available; indeed in some cases it is possible that a transcript might also be available which saves you some work. But again, unless you are contemplating a very long extract you should be able to rely on fair dealing in most cases.
* This is one of the places in which US law differs from the UK law.
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
Re: Copyright permission for book sources
Hi Andy. Thanks for having me.
I'm grateful for all that information, but I am even more confused. Perhaps it might be a case of pot luck. If I quote words without written permission, some outlets might notice or be tipped that I have, and some might not. Furthermore, it just so happens that a few of the outlets whose words I quote are the very same ones to which I - and perhaps my publisher - would send the book to be reviewed and featured. Perhaps nothing would happen; perhaps someone might contact me and say "you technically need permission for what you have used, but we see what you've tried to do and that's fine"; perhaps a legal case might be brought against me.
It seems like an absolute minefield. The one thing of which I am definitely sure is that if the example prices I have been given apply to all similar sources, I cannot afford to use most of them, even with my advance from the publisher. The prices have also put me off enquiring about others. I think it's fair use, but I'm biased. If an outlet approaches me, maybe I could plead ignorance and being a first-time author. I hope to include an email address on the cover because I want to hear readers' ideas on the subject matter. Hopefully an outlet might contact me first if there's an issue, rather than my publisher.
But if I take a chance of not obtaining written permission for most things for which I am supposed to, this means I will have to lie to my publisher and say that I have cleared everything. As I am supposed to do all this myself, I do not think they will ask me to provide granted permission unless they think there is a substantial infringement. If an issue arises, that will look bad. I am, however, slightly buoyed by being told by another author that I do not need permission for anything. I have also noticed that while they insist on permission being obtained for 50+ words, for which there could be a fee, they allow their own books to be quoted up to 500 words with no fee. I have queried this, as it seems inconsistent.
I am not too worried about taking chances with transcribing broadcast material, as it is generally more obscure than media articles, which worry me more.
**
I have been told that permission needs to be granted for any online content I use, and there is quite a bit of that too. Not only online media articles, but personal blogs, websites and social media posts. For the latter three examples, I have asked permission of some people whose work I quote a lot, which has been fine. Apparently social media posts are copyrighted to their respective writers, and it is not as simple as saying "well it's been published online so it's fair game". Tweets in particular have been used in online news stories for some years now, and I seriously doubt that permission is asked of the writer, as it must be one more thing to worry about if a journalist is trying to keep on top of news. I know that permission is asked for photos and video uploaded to social media, but I think this is a different case than just words.
**
This leads me on to something else. I write about people in my book. I do not get on with some of them and do not want them to have any idea that I am writing a book. This has not affected my writing manner, and I believe I have treated all subjects equally. The problem is that some of these people think they have a bigger say in the subject matter than others, and thus they might object to being written about by me. They might want to write this book instead. However, there are credible sources which I use to write about them, but some involve their own created content and what they have said to me in the past.
I have had to ask questions of these people, but have hopefully avoided letting them know that I am writing a book. I suspect that once they find out they are in it, there could be some "why didn't you ask me first" kind of talk. One or two have not answered any of my questions anyway, so I think that's a moot point. But also, I would argue that it does shine a light on one person in particular who has complained that they are forgotten about when the subject is discussed. If they object, I can say that I have given them recognition, what is what they want. I would also say that I did not want to discuss anything with them as I don't get on with them.
I have sent some people what I have written about them for approval - the ones I do get on with - but not others, and I wonder what the pitfalls could be. I am aware that I have not treated all subjects equally in gathering information, which is difficult for me, but I am confident that I have written about them equally, and I think that is the most important thing.
I'm grateful for all that information, but I am even more confused. Perhaps it might be a case of pot luck. If I quote words without written permission, some outlets might notice or be tipped that I have, and some might not. Furthermore, it just so happens that a few of the outlets whose words I quote are the very same ones to which I - and perhaps my publisher - would send the book to be reviewed and featured. Perhaps nothing would happen; perhaps someone might contact me and say "you technically need permission for what you have used, but we see what you've tried to do and that's fine"; perhaps a legal case might be brought against me.
It seems like an absolute minefield. The one thing of which I am definitely sure is that if the example prices I have been given apply to all similar sources, I cannot afford to use most of them, even with my advance from the publisher. The prices have also put me off enquiring about others. I think it's fair use, but I'm biased. If an outlet approaches me, maybe I could plead ignorance and being a first-time author. I hope to include an email address on the cover because I want to hear readers' ideas on the subject matter. Hopefully an outlet might contact me first if there's an issue, rather than my publisher.
But if I take a chance of not obtaining written permission for most things for which I am supposed to, this means I will have to lie to my publisher and say that I have cleared everything. As I am supposed to do all this myself, I do not think they will ask me to provide granted permission unless they think there is a substantial infringement. If an issue arises, that will look bad. I am, however, slightly buoyed by being told by another author that I do not need permission for anything. I have also noticed that while they insist on permission being obtained for 50+ words, for which there could be a fee, they allow their own books to be quoted up to 500 words with no fee. I have queried this, as it seems inconsistent.
I am not too worried about taking chances with transcribing broadcast material, as it is generally more obscure than media articles, which worry me more.
**
I have been told that permission needs to be granted for any online content I use, and there is quite a bit of that too. Not only online media articles, but personal blogs, websites and social media posts. For the latter three examples, I have asked permission of some people whose work I quote a lot, which has been fine. Apparently social media posts are copyrighted to their respective writers, and it is not as simple as saying "well it's been published online so it's fair game". Tweets in particular have been used in online news stories for some years now, and I seriously doubt that permission is asked of the writer, as it must be one more thing to worry about if a journalist is trying to keep on top of news. I know that permission is asked for photos and video uploaded to social media, but I think this is a different case than just words.
**
This leads me on to something else. I write about people in my book. I do not get on with some of them and do not want them to have any idea that I am writing a book. This has not affected my writing manner, and I believe I have treated all subjects equally. The problem is that some of these people think they have a bigger say in the subject matter than others, and thus they might object to being written about by me. They might want to write this book instead. However, there are credible sources which I use to write about them, but some involve their own created content and what they have said to me in the past.
I have had to ask questions of these people, but have hopefully avoided letting them know that I am writing a book. I suspect that once they find out they are in it, there could be some "why didn't you ask me first" kind of talk. One or two have not answered any of my questions anyway, so I think that's a moot point. But also, I would argue that it does shine a light on one person in particular who has complained that they are forgotten about when the subject is discussed. If they object, I can say that I have given them recognition, what is what they want. I would also say that I did not want to discuss anything with them as I don't get on with them.
I have sent some people what I have written about them for approval - the ones I do get on with - but not others, and I wonder what the pitfalls could be. I am aware that I have not treated all subjects equally in gathering information, which is difficult for me, but I am confident that I have written about them equally, and I think that is the most important thing.
Re: Copyright permission for book sources
Hi dot,
I intend to concentrate on your concerns about quotations and not really deal with the other aspect, namely how the people you have written about will react. However, clearly those who may be offended are the ones who are more likely to search around for ways to get back at you if that is what they want to do. But, whatever their motivation or determination to use copyright law as the stick to beat you with, the law is clear that what determines whether your quotation is fair dealing (or to a lesser extent, the US doctrine of fair use) is your motivation, viewed objectively, not theirs.
The exception to copyright law for the purpose of both quotation as well as for academic research and private study has a long and honourable past, stretching back to 1886 and the first Berne Convention. By quoting a person you can reveal not just elements of their writing style which a mere paraphrase cannot show, but you can also provide an insight into the person's character or beliefs etc. This, I assume, is one of the reasons you want to quote the subjects of your book. Clearly a hastily written short tweet is less valuable for this purpose than a short extract from a written article or polemic by the same person. But both are equally subject to the same rules. Re-posting a tweet in its entirety is just much an infringement of copyright as would be publishing an entire chapter from a Harry Potter book. The fair dealing exception looks at the necessity of quoting something as compared to the alternative of paraphrasing. If the only way of getting across to your readers the personality or attributes of a particular person is to use their own words, then that will justify the quotation. When writing on the internet it is easy to provide a hyperlink and let the reader see the tweet or article etc for themselves in full. That is not really an option when writing a physical book, and even with an ebook it is not an ideal methodilogy, so resorting to quotations is a justifiable method.
It sounds as though your publisher is not even providing editorial advice, because one of the benefits of an editor is that he or she can be that objective reviewer who asks whether including a quote is really necessary, or if a paraphrase would serve equally well. Often it can be a matter of the flow of the writing. By changing to another person's voice, your reader has to change gear in their mind in order to get behind the meaning of the quoted writer, which by definition of the purpose of quotation, must be a different voice to your own. This breaks up the flow, just as constantly referring a reader to footnotes or endnotes breaks the flow, in a way that paraphrasing tends not to do.
Anyway without diverting off any further into writing techniques, put aside the notion of quantities of words and whether it is 50 or 500 words. What matters is whether or not there is genuine purpose to quoting the whole passage, which cannot be achieved equally well by a paraphrase or a general description of the content or quality of the passage, so as to get across the point you want to make.
I intend to concentrate on your concerns about quotations and not really deal with the other aspect, namely how the people you have written about will react. However, clearly those who may be offended are the ones who are more likely to search around for ways to get back at you if that is what they want to do. But, whatever their motivation or determination to use copyright law as the stick to beat you with, the law is clear that what determines whether your quotation is fair dealing (or to a lesser extent, the US doctrine of fair use) is your motivation, viewed objectively, not theirs.
The exception to copyright law for the purpose of both quotation as well as for academic research and private study has a long and honourable past, stretching back to 1886 and the first Berne Convention. By quoting a person you can reveal not just elements of their writing style which a mere paraphrase cannot show, but you can also provide an insight into the person's character or beliefs etc. This, I assume, is one of the reasons you want to quote the subjects of your book. Clearly a hastily written short tweet is less valuable for this purpose than a short extract from a written article or polemic by the same person. But both are equally subject to the same rules. Re-posting a tweet in its entirety is just much an infringement of copyright as would be publishing an entire chapter from a Harry Potter book. The fair dealing exception looks at the necessity of quoting something as compared to the alternative of paraphrasing. If the only way of getting across to your readers the personality or attributes of a particular person is to use their own words, then that will justify the quotation. When writing on the internet it is easy to provide a hyperlink and let the reader see the tweet or article etc for themselves in full. That is not really an option when writing a physical book, and even with an ebook it is not an ideal methodilogy, so resorting to quotations is a justifiable method.
It sounds as though your publisher is not even providing editorial advice, because one of the benefits of an editor is that he or she can be that objective reviewer who asks whether including a quote is really necessary, or if a paraphrase would serve equally well. Often it can be a matter of the flow of the writing. By changing to another person's voice, your reader has to change gear in their mind in order to get behind the meaning of the quoted writer, which by definition of the purpose of quotation, must be a different voice to your own. This breaks up the flow, just as constantly referring a reader to footnotes or endnotes breaks the flow, in a way that paraphrasing tends not to do.
Anyway without diverting off any further into writing techniques, put aside the notion of quantities of words and whether it is 50 or 500 words. What matters is whether or not there is genuine purpose to quoting the whole passage, which cannot be achieved equally well by a paraphrase or a general description of the content or quality of the passage, so as to get across the point you want to make.
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
Re: Copyright permission for book sources
Indeed, quoting the subjects in their own words will show the reader their character, and it is as much about certain people as what they have done in their respective fields. These people's voices come across in media reports and interviews, blogs, social media, and what they have told me personally, so I want to harness all of that. I could paraphrase and narrate everything in my own words, but I think it would be boring; the reader will want to learn more about the subject.
My publisher will give me editorial advice, I understand, but only when I have made the "final" submission. I am expected to take care of everything myself up to then, and they want it as complete as possible. When I submit, it will be sent to the editor, who will presumably review it as you describe. I expect there to be much questioning over my use of quotes.
Have you any advice on using photos? I want to use one from a paper that's around 60 years old. I have a good scan of the page and have cropped it, because I am certain the paper will not have the original. Or when I ask them for permission, they might, who knows? There's also an online one which has featured in a news story, which I would need to edit; it would not look the same as it does currently. I asked the photographer about permission, who passed me on to the editor, who said they would have to ask someone higher up, but I've heard nothing for two months now.
My publisher will give me editorial advice, I understand, but only when I have made the "final" submission. I am expected to take care of everything myself up to then, and they want it as complete as possible. When I submit, it will be sent to the editor, who will presumably review it as you describe. I expect there to be much questioning over my use of quotes.
Have you any advice on using photos? I want to use one from a paper that's around 60 years old. I have a good scan of the page and have cropped it, because I am certain the paper will not have the original. Or when I ask them for permission, they might, who knows? There's also an online one which has featured in a news story, which I would need to edit; it would not look the same as it does currently. I asked the photographer about permission, who passed me on to the editor, who said they would have to ask someone higher up, but I've heard nothing for two months now.
Re: Copyright permission for book sources
Hi dot,
A 60 year old photograph will still be in copyright as the normal term for copyright is the lifetime of the photograph plus 70 years from the end of the year of his/her death. The quotation exception is unlikely to apply to a photograph although this has not been tested in court. There is another fair dealing exception for the purpose of research (section 29 Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) but it isn't available to you in this case because it can't be applied to use such as your book which is commercial in nature.
Most newspapers have a department or individual who can deal with permission to quote or re-publish an item. Frequently this will be the publisher, who is the owner of the copyright. Was there any citation with the photograph to indicate the identity of its author? If not then it may be it can be treated as a work of unknown authorship and section 12 (3) CDPA will apply. However copyright in that case is 70 years from the end of the year of publication and so it doesn't assist you.
Looking at your second, online photograph, this is obviously much more recent if the photographer is still alive. If this photograph was not taken by a staff photographer employed by the paper or website then I very much doubt if the news organisation owns the copyright. Since you are in touch with the photographer you could ask him/her. Very often where a member of the public has a newsworthy photograph the paper etc will just get permission to use the photo and there is no transfer of ownership of the copyright. If the photograph was sourced through a picture agency, and again the photographer was not a staff photographer of that agency, the photographer will remain the owner of the copyright. The only caveat in the latter case is that the agreement between the photographer and the agency may limit his/her rights to authorise another person (eg you) to use the photograph without going threough the agency. Again the photographer should be able to clarify this. In a case like this you can simply obtain a licence from the picture agency and don't need to bother with the online publisher.
Then lastly you mentioned that you want to edit these photographs. This may possibly involve the moral right of the photpgrapher not to have his/her work treated in a derogatory manner (see section 80 CDPA).
A 60 year old photograph will still be in copyright as the normal term for copyright is the lifetime of the photograph plus 70 years from the end of the year of his/her death. The quotation exception is unlikely to apply to a photograph although this has not been tested in court. There is another fair dealing exception for the purpose of research (section 29 Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) but it isn't available to you in this case because it can't be applied to use such as your book which is commercial in nature.
Most newspapers have a department or individual who can deal with permission to quote or re-publish an item. Frequently this will be the publisher, who is the owner of the copyright. Was there any citation with the photograph to indicate the identity of its author? If not then it may be it can be treated as a work of unknown authorship and section 12 (3) CDPA will apply. However copyright in that case is 70 years from the end of the year of publication and so it doesn't assist you.
Looking at your second, online photograph, this is obviously much more recent if the photographer is still alive. If this photograph was not taken by a staff photographer employed by the paper or website then I very much doubt if the news organisation owns the copyright. Since you are in touch with the photographer you could ask him/her. Very often where a member of the public has a newsworthy photograph the paper etc will just get permission to use the photo and there is no transfer of ownership of the copyright. If the photograph was sourced through a picture agency, and again the photographer was not a staff photographer of that agency, the photographer will remain the owner of the copyright. The only caveat in the latter case is that the agreement between the photographer and the agency may limit his/her rights to authorise another person (eg you) to use the photograph without going threough the agency. Again the photographer should be able to clarify this. In a case like this you can simply obtain a licence from the picture agency and don't need to bother with the online publisher.
Then lastly you mentioned that you want to edit these photographs. This may possibly involve the moral right of the photpgrapher not to have his/her work treated in a derogatory manner (see section 80 CDPA).
If you just wanted to crop the image so that it fits more conveniently into your text, that is unlikely to be a problem, but if you alter the content of the photograph in a way which means that it sends a different message, that may well fall within the moral right prohibition. The moral right remains the property of the photographer irrespective of who is the owner of the copyright. If the photographer has died, then the moral right passes to his/her heir. The moral right lasts for the length of the copyright. In the case of the online photograph, if necessary, you can get permission from the photographer as he or she is still alive and you are in contact with them.[T]he treatment of a work is derogatory if it amounts to distortion or mutilation of the work or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author ..
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