Gggrrrrrr!! Private Tree on Ancestry photos copied

[JMStrachan]

And to complicate things further: before things went digital, the original photograph is the negative or whatever that was created when the photo was taken. Lots of prints can then be made, and with old photos we may simply be the owner of one of those prints. Unless you have access to the negative, you  won't have ownership of the original but only have a print taken from it.

Personally, I wouldn't even worry about copyright as it's far too complicated. In any case, the only way you could use copyright law to stop someone distributing a digital copy of a print of an original negative (phew!) would be to take legal action against them, which would be far too expensive to justify the possible outcome.

In this digital age we need to accept that if we post pictures online we cannot fully control what happens to them thereafter. If we don't want them seen and used by others, the only real way to do that is not to post them online, unfortunately.

[JMStrachan]

Smudwhisk: I think the copyright for the newly enhanced image would be for that image only and wouldn't apply to the original you scanned and digitally enhanced.

But it boils down to what you could and would do. If you contacted someone and said "I own the copyright so hands off" and they ignored you, what would you do? Unless you were prepared to pay to get a lawyer in on the act, there isn't really anything you can do.

And you do need to check terms and conditions of any sites where you post images. They probably say that you agree to pass ownership of the image onto the site holder, or something along those lines.

[unknownmale]

As JMStracahn says it is a mine field, I cannot say I entirely agree with the concept, if I hire a photographer to takes pictures, I do not feel the work belongs to him/her. If I hire a joiner to fit a kitchen he/she has no claim on the resultant work. However it is the law.

Unknownmale.

[JMStrachan]

If you hire a photographer, then who owns the copyright depends on the contract you have with the photographer. You can have a contract whereby the photographer sells you the copyright along with the image.

The reason why the default owner of the copyright is the photographer is that what is being copyrighted is "creative expression". It's the same with any creative work, such as writing, painting, etc. If an author writes a novel and a publishing house publishes it, the author still owns the copyright as it their "creative expression", not the publishers. Unless, of course, they agree to sell their copyright.

If you get a new kitchen, there is no copyright involved except that whoever designed the kitchen cupboards you buy may have the copyright to that particular design. But a kitchen cupboard manufacturer would take out a patent, which is different to copyright.

[msr]

Sidestepping the minefield of Copyright, intellectual property etc can't we just follow the guidelines placed by  ANCESTRY -  "We are sensitive to the copyright and other intellectual property rights of others. Be aware that content, including photographs, even if submitted to a site of which you are a member, belongs to the creator or submitter and you should not reproduce it without permission of the owner and that photographs of living individuals, except your own minor children, must not be posted without their consent..."

Note:  creator or SUBMITTER.    Permission of the owner can only be sought via the submitter, and in snowyw's case the submitter didn't seek permission, in fact attached them to her tree when specifically asked not to share them.   

In my case photos of a living person - ME - have been taken and added to someone's tree.    As soon as I realised that not everyone played fair I removed all photos that I had uploaded.  What a pity that it was necessary.   

[unknownmale]

I don`t suppose the vast majority of us are aware when we commission pictures we are aware of copyright etc. I know as a young man having pictures of my children taken I ran foul of the copyright situation due to the fact the photographer had sold up/been bought out. so it is not always clear cut to the uninitiated.

unknownmale 

[snowyw]

I love people sharing their family photos with me.  I have never done anything other than keep them in my private collection.  I have received some amazingly old photos for which I am eternally grateful.   However this has left a very sour taste and has made me think twice about sharing my photos in future. Sad as that is.

[unknownmale]

Could not agree with you more snomyw, as someone who has spent the most of his life since I was 15, trying to locate family pictures, including school pics. It is sad that this situation places restrictions on my search. It is not as if it was a pursuit to make financial gain.

Unknownmale.

[groom]

-  "We are sensitive to the copyright and other intellectual property rights of others. Be aware that content, including photographs, even if submitted to a site of which you are a member, belongs to the creator or submitter and you should not reproduce it without permission of the owner and that photographs of living individuals, except your own minor children, must not be posted without their consent..."

Perhaps you need to point out that clause to Ancestry, Snowy. If they state that, then surely they have a duty to make sure that it is obeyed.