Copyright tangle

[geogphotos]

I have bought some slides at auction which show a British motor racing driver of the 1960s. I see no other pictures of him on any stock sites. 

 

I assume that many of the photos of other cars at Grand Prix and other motors sports events were taken by the racing driver himself. But clearly the ones of him himself were taken by somebody else.

 

So, if we assume that it was his camera and he handed it to his wife ( of the time) for the photos of him posing, sitting in his car, driving around the track - who owns copyright - the driver or his wife?

 

When you pass your camera to somebody else to take a picture of you I bet you assume copyright. Yes?

 

And if the driver and his wife divorce, he marries somebody else, takes the slides with him to the new marriage, then later dies, does the 'old' wife own the copyright or has the 'new' wife inherited it?

 

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

IIRC before 1956 whoever bought the film owned the copyright, but yes, in the 1960s it would be the photographer and it would stay with (assuming it's the wife) her.

Good luck with that.

I'm sure someone here will identify him if you put something up. Wim is something of a fan. He helped me out with the Mille Miglia.

I have a couple up here taken by the OH- as it happens, one was zoomed yesterday- but we have an arrangement about that. I think. Well, I have an arrangement.🤩

[geogphotos]

10 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

IIRC before 1956 whoever bought the film owned the copyright, but yes, in the 1960s it would be the photographer and it would stay with (assuming it's the wife) her.

Good luck with that.

I'm sure someone here will identify him if you put something up. Wim is something of a fan. He helped me out with the Mille Miglia.

I have a couple up here taken by the OH- as it happens, one was zoomed yesterday- but we have an arrangement about that. I think. Well, I have an arrangement.🤩

 

I've identified him. I hope that your interpretation is correct because I have made contact with the elder son from the first marriage and the first wife is still alive. 

 

But it would also mean that the copyright in photos he took of his first wife and the son ( the one I am in contact with) will belong to the second wife!! ( not that I am really interested in these).  And it must be the second wife who put the slides in the auction following the fairly recent death of the racing driver. 

 

At this stage it is best for me not to identify him. A specialist motor sports stock photo agency is definitely interested but only with copyright. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

8 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

I've identified him. I hope that your interpretation is correct because I have made contact with the elder son from the first marriage and the first wife is still alive. 

 

But it will also mean that the copyright in photos he took of his first wife and the son ( the one I am in contact with) will belong to the second wife!!

I'm sure about the first bit unless something was said in the divorce settlement which seems unlikely. Extra good luck with the second.

If you're lucky, wife 2 didn't outlive him and they had no children of their own, that copyright has gone back to the son!

Some might say full marks for scrupulousness but it would be like congratulating you for brushing your teeth. You just do it.

Edited August 27, 2020 by spacecadet

[Mr Standfast]

Ask this guy...

 

Stay safe......😉

[Thyrsis]

From Dacs website:

“Before the 1988 law, photographers didn’t always own the copyright in their work automatically - other factors played a big role in ownership.
 In the previous copyright laws, if the photograph was commissioned by someone, it would be the commissioner – not the photographer – who owned the copyright in that photograph.
 The 1911 law also had a provision that the person or company who owned the negatives at the time they were made was considered to be the author of the photograph.”

 

As these photos were taken before 1988 could you assume the driver ‘commisioned’ his wife so he owned the copyright? Also presumably he owned the negs so he would be the author too?

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, Thyrsis said:

From Dacs website:

“Before the 1988 law, photographers didn’t always own the copyright in their work automatically - other factors played a big role in ownership.
 In the previous copyright laws, if the photograph was commissioned by someone, it would be the commissioner – not the photographer – who owned the copyright in that photograph.
 The 1911 law also had a provision that the person or company who owned the negatives at the time they were made was considered to be the author of the photograph.”

 

As these photos were taken before 1988 could you assume the driver ‘commisioned’ his wife so he owned the copyright? Also presumably he owned the negs so he would be the author too?

Commissioning is for money or money's worth. In my view it hardly covers a domestic arrangement. As I said, the owner of the film was no longer the copyright owner after the 1956 Act.

Copyright in photographs taken in the course of employment still belongs to the employer.

I stand by my comments.

Edited August 27, 2020 by spacecadet

[Allan Bell]

What about the case where people pay a photographer to take portraits and family photos. It always used to be the photographer who owned copyright and not the people in the photo.

 

Allan

 

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

What about the case where people pay a photographer to take portraits and family photos. It always used to be the photographer who owned copyright and not the people in the photo.

 

Allan

 

Actually it didn't. The commissioner owned the copyright before 1988, but although the 1988 Act gave copyright back to the photographer, there is an exception for photographs commissioned privately (s85). The commissioner has the right not to have them published, exhibited or broadcast. That's why I always had that right assigned back to me in portrait contracts.

But the photographer still owns the copyright, so the commissioners can't make copies themselves. I've had a copy shop call me more than once about that. They always refused to make copies without my say-so- which of course they never get.

[meanderingemu]

i assume you can see from image that it was taken in the UK and not on family touring not to complicate matters more. 

[spacecadet]

13 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

i assume you can see from image that it was taken in the UK and not on family touring not to complicate matters more. 

I don't think it does. UK copyright would apply to images taken by a British subject wherever he took them. If published abroad, presumably  the Berne Convention would apply so there would be very few differences.

[geogphotos]

Anyway, the OP was hypothetical, a worst case. The reality is much more positive. The family is delighted and close. All going well. 

[meanderingemu]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

I don't think it does. UK copyright would apply to images taken by a British subject wherever he took them. If published abroad, presumably  the Berne Convention would apply so there would be very few differences.

 

that's interesting.  I always assumed i was regulated by the location.  So if I a Canadian, take a picture of a Japanese person in Spain what laws apply?

[spacecadet]

7 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

that's interesting.  I always assumed i was regulated by the location.  So if I a Canadian, take a picture of a Japanese person in Spain what laws apply?

Depends where you publish it. The nationality of the subject has no bearing on copyright anywhere AFAIK. There are privacy laws in Spain but a Japanese visitor is unlikely to rely on them. But you were referring to copyright.

Edited August 28, 2020 by spacecadet

[meanderingemu]

3 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Depends where you publish it. The nationality of the subject has no bearing on copyright anywhere AFAIK. There are privacy laws in Spain but a Japanese visitor is unlikely to rely on them. But you were referring to copyright.

 

 

interesting about publishing country regulating copyright of the image.  learning here, as I'm trying to established ownership of family collections . 

 

So in OP's case he would only have the rights based on UK rules of copyright if published in UK? 

 

would that mean that an image taken on National Trust property could be published in a country with more lax regulations? 

 

 

[spacecadet]

Most countries are signatories to the Berne Convention so the basics are similar. Geog could enforce his copyrights in any signatory nation if he wanted to.

The NT can't prevent publication of images taken on its land without its permission- it's relying on an old byelaw to threaten picture libraries into removing images to strengthen the monopoly of its own library. it's nothing to do with the law of copyright. But of course that byelaw couldn't affect anyone outside the UK- laws aren't extraterritorial. I'm not subject to Canadian law, for example, nor you to English. You wouldn't expect to be.

[geogphotos]

We are all subject to Alamy law ie) our contract

[Betty LaRue]

In the rare instance I handed my camera to my husband to take a picture I was in, for stock, I handed him a dollar.