|
|
Forums - News / General |
For General modelling or hobby-related topics that are not covered by any other specific forum. Please keep to topics concerning the hobby. |
| Topics | 3039 |
| Messages | 22963 |
|
|
| Subject: | Copyright crusade (long) |  |
| Date: | Sep 28, 2006 |
| From: | Lukas Wallner | |
Hi Jay Dee,
I see that you are still on your copyright crusade.
I can't comment on all your points because that would take too long and as I'm not a native speaker, my english is limited.
You try to compare the shameless copying of Taesung's figures with sharing images of WWII. I'm sorry but I have to disagree.
1. Taesung's figures are a work of art and were created recently. Without doubt they fall under copyright protection and this is beyond discussion.
2. WWII pictures: I can only speak of pictures that have a connection to the laws of the European community. As lot of pictures that are discussed and published online are of German origin, they fall under German/EC Copyright laws.
As far as I have learned the legal situation is the following:
First you have to distinguish between pictures that were made in a "professional" way on the one hand and "snapshots" on the other.
To the first group belong all pictures that were made with a somehow "professional" approach. This can be determined by the choice of subject, lighting, the skill of the photographer and so on. Without doubt all German propaganda photos fall into this category.
All other pictures belong to the second group. These are amateur photos, pics witout any artistic or professional approach, pics by photographers who did not intend to create a special "piece of work/art". I would say that the usual snapshot by soldiers that turn up on Ebay falls into this category.
It is hard for me to explain this, but I hope you get the point. The decision whether a pic falls into one or the other category is of course often very difficult.
The consequence of this distinction lays in the copyright protection of a photo:
1. Pics of the first category are protected 70 years after the death of the photographer.
2. Pics of the second caregory are protected 50 years after they have been made.
Therefore a lot of of WWII pics have lost their copyright protection as they fall into this category. They are free to everyone and can be used in any way you like.
To give you an example: Someone puts a Tiger snapshot on Ebay and it is copied to a harddisk by another person. If that person puts this pic online neither the seller nor the auction-buyer can do anything legally against him, as long as the pic falls into the second category. You could even publish the pic because the copyright is gone. Therefore most sellers mark the photos on ebay so they become useless for publication.
As far as pictures from the first category are conecerned, it depends on the ownership of the rights on a pic.
Let's stay with the example of Propaganda photos. First the rights on his work belong to the creator. He can give the rights away, eg. by selling them. Then the buyer gets the full rights on the pictures.
In case of German Propaganda Photographers you have to distinguish between pics he made privately and the ones he made officially. I would guess that the official photos belonged to Goebbels ministry, which went up in smoke in 1945. As far as these pictures came into foreign archives as a war booty, one has to ask if all the rights on the pics were transferred in a legal way as well or if these fell back to the creators of the pics? One could also argument that - as the original owner, the PK Ministry is vanished, they belong to nobody and are free now. This is in my opinion not entirely clear and an interesting legal quetion.
Therefore if you publish a WWII pic from the first category you may infringe the rights of:
1. the creator: in most cases he will be dead right now.
2. his successors: this could be his family or someone (archive, private person) who received or bought the pic in a legal way.
I hope this is not too confusing. In my opinion copying Teasung's figures has nothing to do with publishing photos online. Jay Dee, not wanting to sound arrogant, but before you start another rant on the copyright issue, do us and youself a favour and get some legal advice to clear things up. |
| |
|
|
 | Counterfeit Heaven - Taesung Harmms - Sep 26, 2006 |
| . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - Jerry Plettenberg - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - SteveC - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - frank forster - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - Taesung Harmms - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - JayDee - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Image Copyright Theft - Saul Garcia - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Image Copyright Theft - John Prigent - Sep 28, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Image Copyright Theft - Jay Dee - Sep 28, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copyright crusade (long) - Lukas Wallner - Sep 28, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Copyright crusade (long) - JayDee - Sep 28, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Could not care less - Paul A. Owen - Sep 28, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addendum to Re: Copyright crusade (long) - JayDee - Sep 28, 2006 |
| . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - LokEngineer - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - Taesung Harmms - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - Gary Watson - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - Gary Watson - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - Taesung Harmms - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - Taesung Harmms - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - Glenn Bartolotti - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - Alan Leong - Sep 27, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - Chris Oldfield - Sep 28, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Counterfeit Heaven - Terence - Sep 29, 2006 |
| . . . Copyright Law in China - Roderick Lenz - Sep 28, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: Copyright Law in China - Taesung Harmms - Sep 28, 2006 |
|
|
