Photographs and copyright

[Sheila M]

A couple of years ago I was contacted by a lady who had links to my husband's great great grandfather.  Being the kind soul that I am, I e-mailed her some family photographs.  She put these on her public tree on Ancestry (my own tree on there is private so no-one can see the rest of the family photographs unless I invite them to).  I didn't have a problem with this until recently when I discovered that three other people had used the photographs I sent to the original lady.

None of the people who have nicked the photographs have any immediate connection to my husband's family (in fact in some cases I can't find any links at all!) so I contacted them asking very politely if they would mind removing the photographs on the grounds that they were ours and we hadn't given permission for them to be used, neither had the lady who put them on her public tree.  Two of the three had also put a link to a family story on their trees without the permission of the author.

One member hasn't seen fit to respond to my requests that they remove the photographs, one removed them immediately and sent me a very nice message apologising and the third has questioned my right to copyright of them, although he has removed them from his tree.

Personally, I would never use images from someone else's tree without contacting them and asking permission first. 

Has anyone else had any experience of this kind of thing and what did they do about it?

[les_looking]

maybe one thing to try if the people who have them hasn't actually d/l the photos and just linked to them,
ask the lady you sent them to, to remove them and see if the go from the other trees, ?
as i say if they have actually d/l them from her tree and then uploaded them then awkward,
does it say linked from her tree?

and i don't think ancestry would entertain any complaint from you, as they havn't come from your tree

[nickgc]

You have no copyright claim to photos of your ancestors unless you can prove that you were the photographer (unlikely in this case).

That said, I have no idea of why anyone who is not related would want to include someone's picture on a website.  Probably the same type of people who collect thousands of non-related names in their trees and/or those who pay to have their horoscopes done:  it is just not rational.

The best way of looking at it is that perhaps these people doing this will result in you finding more relatives since your own tree is locked.

Nick

[Sheila M]

Probably the same type of people who collect thousands of non-related names in their trees

Ah now, I must confess to having several non-related names in my tree mainly because I got side tracked on occasion by an interesting marriage or something, so wandered off on a tangent.  Which is what I'm doing on this topic!

Anyway, all but one of the Ancestry members have removed the photographs and apologised for using them.

[delphi8]

Copyright on photographs does pass to next of kin of the photographer although there are time limits so very old original photos would be out of copyright. However, I believe you do have copyright of the image you produce i.e. the scan of the original photo, in the same way that you can have an old book which is out of copyright but if you produce your own version of it and republish it the copyright on that new version is yours. Another example is when a record office scans or photocopies an 18th century document, they have copyright on the image they produce for you. I have seen a couple of my scanned old photos on an Ancestry tree used without my permission, I contacted Ancestry and they asked the member to remove them.

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

typo in first line corrected as noted by genresearch, apologies for the confusion


Copyright is not a cut and dried easy to explain thing. It also varies slightly between America and Europe so the internet can be a minefield when using images that may have copyright issues.

Copyright belongs to the creator of the work, in the case of images it remains in force for a period after the death of the photographer, any income from works (including images) is then payable to the deceased persons estate. Copyright doesn't automatically pass to next of kin.

Copyright holders can waive some or all of the rights available but only they can do so, someone in possession of an image (either the original, a re-print or electronically created ie scanned, e-mailed etc) does not hold the copyright and cannot grant the rights to anyone else.

Images can be "all rights reserved", that means they cannot be reproduced, re-published or transmitted either by any means including  printing, scanning, e-mail or publishing on the internet.

"Some rights reserved" means the copyright holder has granted use of the image subject to certain conditions, this may allow re-production and/or transmission but then again may not. Before using or re-producing an image the rights available should be confirmed with the copyright holder.

The safest way to avoid any problems is to only use images that you have taen personally or those where it is known that no copyright exists. In any other case there as a risk of legal action.

Ancestry are pretty good at removing content that is in dispute as they can also find themselves in trouble from a legal standpoint but will probably require proof that the copyright exists and who it belongs to.

[acorngen]

Unfortunately what Glen says is not the whole case at all.  Copyright is not a cut and dried case at all.  He fails to mention the right to fair use under copyright however using one photo would not be considered a fair use as it uses 100% of the original.  He also fails to understand that if I was to take a photograph for the company I was working for then I don't hold the copyright the company does.  I could go on but wont.  As for copyright differences between Europe and America there should be no difference both having signed the same agreement.

Using copyrighted material for gain is where the law would step in but otherwise it is unlikely any court would accept a case of copyright infringement due to the large expenses involved.

I could go on but this subject as been covered hundreds of times in the past and just tends to confuse people more than inform.  Just note that copyright lengths are different for different types of work.  Books etc is 70 years from the death of the owner and I think this would be the case for photographs.

Oh scanning a photograph does not mean you would hold copyright of that scan because it is just a copy of the original.  For a new copyright to be granted you would have to change it sufficiently for it to be seen as a new work

Rob

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

Apologies genresearch, i made a typo and meant to say it is not cut and dried. I will amend the post.

US copyright is different to UK copyright and Europe has different regulations again.  New conventions were laid out due to the internet.

Granted an employee taking a photograph on behalf of an employer does not hold copyright, it would belong to the employer.

As i said, it isn't cut and dried and it's impossible to give a 100% legal definition due to geographical differences and different laws. Any breach of copyright is really a breach of the rights of the copyright holder and as such are civil cases between the parties involved.

We could go down the road of talking about issuing "cease and desist" notices etc but for the older images the thread is referring to they probably wouldn't apply.

However, downloading an image and posting it elsewhere or sending via e-mail is a major no no (that is re-distribution and requires permission from the copyright holder).

[Archivos]

Copyright on photographs lasts for 70 years after the death of the photographer.  Where the image was taken by a studio, there may be different rules depending on what happened to the studio and how copyright was transferred.

Just because a photograph is in your possession does not mean you have the right to reproduce it.  You can make copies for private use but cannot distribute or reproduce the image in any way - this included passing it on to other members of your family.

If the work is a photograph taken before 1 June 1957 and the author is not known, copyright expires 70 years after the creation of the photograph or 70 years after the work was made available to the public, as long as this happened within 70 years of the work's creation.  Confused yet?! 

That basically means that if there are no identifying marks on the image to say who took it and it is more than 70 years old provided it was taken before 1 June 1957 then there is no copyright on the original image.

People making copies of the copy should ask permission if it has been published on a website or in a book which has a copyright statement on it.  If there is nothing about the copyright of an image then it is easy to assume that the image is there for the taking by anyone.