Speedway History Authors & Photographers

[SwineTown 4]

Dear all,

 

I just wanted to ask how various Speedway history writers out there on the BSF have dealt with copyright issues for illustrations.

What problems and solutions have you encountered?

In particular for club-related ephemera like programmes, tickets etc.

 

I am working on a few Web 2.0 ideas (-Flickr-/-Facebook- / -Twitter-) for the Swindon Local Studies Archive.

The key project is an online gallery of images, postcards, photographs, maps etc , all scanned from our collection.

For those interested: Swindon Local Studies Flickr Gallery

 

We would also be thrilled if anyone out there has photographs relating to Swindon Speedway that they would be willing to donate.

Some people donate prints or CDRs of images for our collection, some are allowing us to use the images online, we inherit some, and others we have bought over the decades.

We have very little in the way of Swindon Speedway photographs. And of course I'd like to change that!

 

You can PM me with any questions, ideas or suggestions.

 

ST

Edited July 30, 2009 by SwineTown

[speedyguy 20]

Reasonably safe to use old photos providing you make it clear that you do NOT have the copyright, have tried to find the copyright holder, and that you are prepared to make any amendments etc if they contact you - and can prove their copyright. It's all very grey area legislation. Tread carefully but don't be afraid to use old photos. Just take safeguards.

[SwineTown 4]

Thanks for the reply.

[norbold 7,176]

It can be a bit of a nightmare but basically, speedyguy is probably right. Wright Wood photographs are the copyright of John Somerville and Alf Weedon photographs are the copyright of Retro Speedway. I believe both own some other copyrighted photos as well.

 

If I borrow photographs from someone for inclusion in a book I always acknowledge them, even if they don't actually own the copyright.

 

More modern photos can be a bit of a problem. I have twice used photos which photographers have complained (after the book's been published) are their photographs and therefore their copyright, but, in both cases, there was nothing on the back to show who owned them. I came to amicable agreements with both.

 

I have never encountered any problems with using a scan of a programme cover - in fact I'd never thought about it until I read your posting, but I suppose technically they are copyright too. It's probably ok to use programmes from defunct tracks but I suppose, in theory, tracks that are still going (like Swindon) could claim copyright, but I would think it unlikely they would make an issue out of it.

[SwineTown 4]

Cheers norbold.

 

With photographs the copyright does not expire until 70 years AFTER the death of a named photographer - or after 1st publication if author is unknown.

We have a great flow-chart for determinng copyright. There is a copy here: click for the .pdf - takes a moment to open - maybe right-click and select 'save target/link as'

There are so many exceptions, so many different types of use etc that its often - in disputes - a case of "whose lawyer is more expensive?". The internet has multiplied the problems buy a gigantic factor.

In my profession there is a fair amount of goodwill towards archives & public libraries and we often get a high degree of cooperation.

 

There is an "orphan" clause - if you have a photo with no details - as you describe - no date, no photographer and no reasonable way of discovering it - then you can in good faith go ahead with using it.

 

I do get cheesed off with the amount of stuff (photos, papers, documents, film, archives etc) in private collections. The collectors can always outbid the museums/archives/libraries - and almost, with few noble exceptions - they are effectively lost to the rest of the world. Often huge private collections of various material ends up in landfill after the death of the collector, whose stuff is a burden to those who have to clear the house. This happened very recently in Swindon with a GIGANTIC collection of rare - mostly unique local history material where nobody else in the family had any idea about its value and no idea who to contact (archives will come round and take it away at your convenience!). You'd think serious collectors of anything would KNOW they MUST make provision for this. Even worse is the rate at which clubs, businesses and organisations skip historically valuable paperwork etc to regain space/avoid FOI enquiries (Given half a century or so the mundane because the fascinating). I can't even think about this without getting depressed!

[norbold 7,176]

I do get cheesed off with the amount of stuff (photos, papers, documents, film, archives etc) in private collections. The collectors can always outbid the museums/archives/libraries - and almost, with few noble exceptions - they are effectively lost to the rest of the world. Often huge private collections of various material ends up in landfill after the death of the collector, whose stuff is a burden to those who have to clear the house. This happened very recently in Swindon with a GIGANTIC collection of rare - mostly unique local history material where nobody else in the family had any idea about its value and no idea who to contact (archives will come round and take it away at your convenience!). You'd think serious collectors of anything would KNOW they MUST make provision for this. Even worse is the rate at which clubs, businesses and organisations skip historically valuable paperwork etc to regain space/avoid FOI enquiries (Given half a century or so the mundane because the fascinating). I can't even think about this without getting depressed!

I know exactly what you mean. The late Ernie Hancock had an enormous collection of speedway related material, ephemera, trophies, etc. His whole house was stuffed full of it. It nearly all went to the dump. I think Terry Stone managed to salvage a couple of trophies but by the time he got round there it had nearly all gone.

 

I have nothing against private collectors per se - I collect stuff myself - but please remember to leave instructions about what to do with it in case of your death....the Speedway Museum is a good place to think of......

[SwineTown 4]

Of course, norbold - without the collectors, much of this stuff would never have come to light.

In fact it is the process of collecting which often creates the value: one old speedwy pic might be nice - but a gigantic lifetime collection is a hugely valuable resource.

But the magpie tendency which motivates the collector seems to prevent them from thinking ahead to protect their hard work.

 

It applies in all areas - huge art collections with treasured masterpieces tucked away in private homes, selfish collectors buying black market antiquities - even sordid European leaders possibly looting undeclared ancient graves for their own vanity! As a musician it often saddens me to think that experts estimate that the greatest musical instruments in the world - 1950s Les Pauls, Stradivari violins, etc - are often largely left - unused - in bank vaults as investments!

Edited August 1, 2009 by SwineTown

[arnieg 3,697]

I started by seeking advice from someone who knew his way round the publishing business (Jeff Scott) and occasionally ran queries past others with experience (such as Norbs). As a result I concentrated on using photos where I could obtain copyright permission, all of which are attributed in the book. The real bonus was obtaining access to the Reading Evening Post archive. If you haven't already I'd contact the Swindon Advertiser. It is probably worth soliciting old photos from Swindon fans.

 

Ultimately I think it is sufficient to show that you made the effort to identify the copyright holder and seek permission, with a disclaimer along the lines suggested by speedyguy. Remember that ultimately if you do use a photo without permission you are depriving the copyright holder of income from the exploitation of that copyright. However the sums are involved must be trivial (I paid for a handful of the photos I used, maximum for a photo - £20) so worst case (as Norbs alludes to) is an apology and a token payment.

 

On programme covers (and content) I approached both Reg Fearman and Pat Bliss, who had no objections. Although in both cases we weren't really sure who now owned the copyright on old Reading programmes it seems reasonable to assume that the copyright holder could not be traced. (It should be the promoting company for stuff done in house - but most of these have long been wound up; For stuff outsourced who is going to be able to track down a graphic designer from 40 years ago?)

 

Scanning a page of text would almost always break the copyright rule about the amount of text you can quote, so permission is needed if for example you scan a full page article from a programme. The longest quote I used was about 100 words from a local history book (I got permission from the author's widow) and I also got a blanket permission from the Speedway Star because of the number of quotes I used and also for their stats.

[SwineTown 4]

If you haven't already I'd contact the Swindon Advertiser. It is probably worth soliciting old photos from Swindon fans.

Thanks for the reply arnieg,

We have a complete run of the Adver from 1854 (& the other local papers), but also have 100s of pictures within our collection duplicated from the Advertiser many years ago. At the moment we are leaving thsoe out of this project. I am planning on making an appeal to Swindon fans for donations of pictures (or duplicates/scans) they have taken over the years - especially team photos and pic of the stadium. Similar appeals will be made in other areas too.

We just need clarity about WHO took the pic and under what terms they provide it to us. And we need to be a bit selective!

 

As for progs, I DID find this: http://www.flickr.com/groups/footballprogrammecovers/ - so they don't seem to care!

 

thanks for your posts arnieg, norbold & speedyguy. Much appreciated.

Edited August 2, 2009 by SwineTown

[Jim Blanchard 19]

In the case of the Wright Wood & Alf Weedon Collections (and quite a few others) they have both been sold to John Somerville who now own the copyright for all their work now, so does the 70 years after the death of the photographer rule still apply then?

 

Your ‘orphan’ clause though I also I have my doubts about that to be honest. I was advised that the emphasis had changed in recent years in that the photographer or any intellectual property rights holder does not have to prove copyright in the form of a name or address, logo etc on the back of a photograph or anywhere visible, rather the user of it of that material, has to be satisfied that they are able to use it.

 

I have an on going problem with things like Ebay where my images (both art & photographic) are being used without my permission on items such as: Fridge magnets, Tee Shirts, Coffee mugs, Wall clocks, Cross stitch patterns and even by a member on here on who re-scanned them for sale. I do not even do that myself with them.

 

I have put a lot of time and effort to create or generate these images for another to make some pin money by right clicking and making money from them from his back bedroom without even asking. I give enough away for good causes and anyone that asks for permission I usually agree.

 

I only give one warning for those that don't. Would they like me to break into their house and steal their property? Just because its on the internet does not mean its free to use.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Jim Blanchard

[SwineTown 4]

[...]so does the 70 years after the death of the photographer rule still apply then? Yeah - this is still not clear to me.

Your ‘orphan’ clause[...]

The 'orphan' was really in the context of historical material with little to guide you in its date or authorship. I am still learning how this is put into practice.

on going problem with things like Ebay[...]That's terrible Jim - What's so bad about this is that really Speedway is small world. They would not have to look far to find out about you.

Just because its on the internet does not mean its free to use. Completely true! - and thats been the downfall of 1000s every year. However there are companies who massively exploit this issue and issue dubious claims for £1000s with the onus on the 'infringer' to prove ownership. There are image 'Superpowers' out there acting like gangsters. Often they just hope people panic and pay. In your case I guess it may be expensive and often fruitless to pursue this

--------------------------------------------

I believe that copyright & surrounding issues are in this mess, legally, internationally, because there is almost no rational way of setttling it fairly and consistently. It almost defies comprehension. I've a Masters in philosophy and beginning my PhD but need a lie down after trying to think it through for more than 10 minutes. Sod Kant! Who needs Wittgenstein?!

 

Consider a picture taken in, say, 1940 by Joe Bloggs.

Maybe it was made into a commercial postcard. Do the postcard company own the image? Maybe there may have been no clear deal over these issues.

If Joe was working for them when he took it then we get 1 answer, if not, then another.

People bought this postcard and collectors have them now - what rights do the owners of the postcard have (or the purchasers of Jim's pics) have? None maybe?

Can they photograph their postcard - their own property? Put it online? Publish a book with their collection in? Use an image on ebay to sell it?

Say 'Joe' died in 1941. It is still in copyright if we know who he is? And if we don't?

What if the postard company folded? What if it was bought up by another years later? What if THEY folded (this is VERY common - a big chain of different commercial owners, all now gone).

If the original gets lost and ends up being sold with no info then maybe the 'chain' back to 'Joe' is permanently broken.

What if an archive bought it for our collection - Can they charge reproduction rights? Is copyright is still separate?

Can they sell copies to the public? Or commercially? How could they check?

If an archive scan it and put it online they'd need copyright permission - who do they contact? How do they begin to check?

If someone found the online scanned version, well, the archive must 'own' certain rights for that image as a digital entity.

Can a postcard owner use our image to sell his copy online?

If someone does publish it in a book then eventually that book will go out of copyright - but possibly at different times each side of the Atlantic!

USA laws have changed several times and some things have come BACK into copyright (Disney went to HUGE HUGE lengths to stop the image of Mickey Mouse et al going out of copyright - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act).

Google Books has scanned 1000s of out-of-copyright books but they own the rights over those scans themselves.

Will the digital versions they have made one day expire too?

 

IMO none of these rhetorical questions have bulletproof answers. I'll keep plugging away but I feel that the law in this case is a flimsy levee and that in truth its just a lawyers goldmine that protects the biggest players. I might see things differently in a months time!

Edited August 2, 2009 by SwineTown

[DK Rides Again 4]

It won't help you for your images that are already out there Jim, but you could watermark anything you upload to the web in the future; it's not hard to do and it could save you a lot of heartache.

[iris123 21,097]

It won't help you for your images that are already out there Jim, but you could watermark anything you upload to the web in the future; it's not hard to do and it could save you a lot of heartache.

They can be removed.......A couple of years back a Czech magazine contacted me and wanted to use a foto i had on the web with my name on it through the middle.I asked if they wanted me to send them an original.The guy told me there was no need.A few weeks later he sent me the mag with my foto in it without my name on it.So make sure the watermark is very big..................

[speedyguy 20]

I think the basics of the previous question was this:

 

What happens here? A magazine bought a photo 72 years on an outright copyright fee from a photographer. He died a year later. Then 60 years after his death, his family sell all his negatives/photos to a new company who, presumably then take over his copyright.

 

However, an author is in contact with the original magazine for a photo and they present the photo that they used on an outright copyright fee 72 years ago?

 

What is the legal situation here: I am sure there are many such deals involving old photos (sport, news, fashion, show business around). This puts the matter of ownership of copyrights into a very grey area indeed.

Edited August 3, 2009 by speedyguy

[norbold 7,176]

I think the basics of the previous question was this:

 

What happens here? A magazine bought a photo 72 years on an outright copyright fee from a photographer. He died a year later. Then 60 years after his death, his family sell all his negatives/photos to a new company who, presumably then take over his copyright.

 

However, an author is in contact with the original magazine for a photo and they present the photo that they used on an outright copyright fee 72 years ago?

 

What is the legal situation here: I am sure there are many such deals involving old photos (sport, news, fashion, show business around). This puts the matter of ownership of copyrights into a very grey area indeed.

Presumably if the photographer sold the photograph with copyright to the magazine the magazine holds the copyright. It can't revert back to the photographer's family after he dies. If you wanted to reproduce the photograph you would have to get permission from the magazine not from the person (company) who now has the photograph. In fact they would actually need to get permission themselves if they wished to reproduce the photograph.

 

When the law was changed some years ago, we ran into a similar problem at The British Museum. We sold photographs to members of the public and sometimes gave permission to these people to publish the photograph in a book or magazine. Because they had published the photograph and we hadn't they actually had the copyright on future reproduction rights and not us, even though it was our photo of one of our objects. We then had to then make it clear in any agreement we made that permission was for a one off reproduction and did not confer any rights on the publisher.