Copyright question

[ThrelfallYorky]

Sorry, but in my view it IS the case that if I've done some design work the copyright is either mine, or the client for whom it was done, depending on our agreement.
Many of mine I'd release for a specific, single use as agreed - so if you merely saw it, liked it and used it, you'd be being very naughty! But like many others, if approached properly, and in a good cause, I'd bend a bit.
I more or less agree with Andy.
TY

[Andy J2022]

Sorry, but in my view it IS the case that if I've done some design work the copyright is either mine, or the client for whom it was done, depending on our agreement.
Many of mine I'd release for a specific, single use as agreed - so if you merely saw it, liked it and used it, you'd be being very naughty! But like many others, if approached properly, and in a good cause, I'd bend a bit.
I more or less agree with Andy.
TY

TY,
The commissioner owning the copyright bit no longer applies and hasn't done since the 1988 CDPA.  Unless you transfer your copyright to a client in writing it remains yours. Obviously if you grant your client an exclusive licence to the work you created, you automatically exclude yourself from the possibility of exploiting the work in parallel with your client.
Even where the old commissioner-gets-the-copyright rule applied, the actual term of the copyright remained based on the lifetime of the author of the work, and not the lifetime of the person who commissioned it.

[ThrelfallYorky]

That's so, I agree, I remember the legislation you mention.
TY

[Andrew Tarr]

A fascinating if somewhat esoteric topic !  I have a personal and trivial situation:

Some years ago I came across an example on the internet of a typical Victorian four-generations photo, which I recognised immediately as it shows my grandmother's elder sister with three earlier females, taken in 1865.  Not only do I have a copy, but I also have the true 'original' in the form of the glass-plate negative, which I recently made a modern enlargement from.  All earlier prints will be 'copies', so is my glass plate the true original, and do I have copyright by family inheritance ?

[Gadget]

My understanding of photographs is that the generally copyright remains with the photographer until l70* years after death. So I don't think you do. add- I meant totypr 70 - not sure where the 1 came from - I was told this by a galley owner when I first started exhibiting.

I have copyright of all the photographs I have taken.

PS - I believe, after this, copyright lapses.

[AntonyMMM]

Some years ago whilst running a training team at Hendon (Police College), I submitted a request for legal advice on a copyright issue about whether we could use some images/videos as part of our training material.

By some error the Scotland Yard solicitors sent the request to two different, and specialist, barristers who duly sent back their opinions.

One said "Yes, no problem", the other said "No, absolutely not" ......both wrote detailed legal opinions to justify their advice.

[Andy J2022]

A fascinating if somewhat esoteric topic !  I have a personal and trivial situation:

Some years ago I came across an example on the internet of a typical Victorian four-generations photo, which I recognised immediately as it shows my grandmother's elder sister with three earlier females, taken in 1865.  Not only do I have a copy, but I also have the true 'original' in the form of the glass-plate negative, which I recently made a modern enlargement from.  All earlier prints will be 'copies', so is my glass plate the true original, and do I have copyright by family inheritance ?

Andrew,

The short answer is ... you probably would have inherited the copyright if there was any copyright to inherit.  But there won't be any copyright now.

At the time the photograph was taken the law was contained in the 1862 Fine Art Copyright Act. This was the first time that photographs were given copyright. In the 1862 Act, copyright lasted for the lifetime of the author (ie the photographer) and seven years after his or her death. This remained the case until the 1911 Copyright Act, in which for a number of reasons, including international treaties concerning copyright, photographs were then treated as a special case (section 21 of the Copyright Act 1911). All photographs were protected for 50 years from the time they were created irrespective of whether the photograph was subsequently published or not. This new provision applied to existing photographs which were protected by copyright when the new Act came into force on 1 August 1912.

So irrespective of how long the photographer actually lived, copyright in your photographic plates ended at midnight on 31 December 1915. The 1956 Act did not change this term for pre-existing photographs, and it was not until the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents Act that photographs were treated the same as all other artistic works.

However even today some countries such as Germany have two tiers of protection for photographs, with 'mere photographs' (perhaps what we might term snapshots lacking any artistic value) only being protected for 50 years from the date they were published (or the date they were created if unpublished) (see section 72 of the Urheberrechtsgesetz).

[Gadget]

Andy J2022

Can you explain this please:

'Generally speaking, in the UK copyright in images lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years from the end of the calendar year of their death although the length of the copyright period will depend on when the image was created. That means that images less than 70 years old are still in copyright, and older ones may well be, depending on when the creator died.'

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet

[Andy J2022]

Andy J2022

Can you explain this please:

'Generally speaking, in the UK copyright in images lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years from the end of the calendar year of their death although the length of the copyright period will depend on when the image was created. That means that images less than 70 years old are still in copyright, and older ones may well be, depending on when the creator died.'

Hi Gadget,

The Government advice is looking back from the situation which exists today. But the further back you go the more complicated it gets, as my response to Andrew Tarr indicates. The "Generally speaking" in that copyright notice is doing quite a lot of work. In other words the advice doesn't cover every case. In fact, UK law was not that complicated before 1995 when the EU waded in with its Copyright Term Directive. Prior to that, each successive UK Copyright Act from 1911 to 1988 had effectively been prospective, that is to say its provisions did not effect works already in existence.

However the Copyright Term Directive was retrospective and applied to any eligible work which was in copyright in 1 July 1995 and added 20 years to the already existing term. This is the point at which copyright in the UK went from being the lifetime of the author plus 50 years after death to plus 70 years after death. Thus for an author who died after 31 December 1944, the copyright in their work was caught by the new regime and was extended by 20 years.  The same EU rules also affected photographs from the earlier period which were protected for the old 50 year fixed term. So any photograph created after 31 December 1944 also gained the additional 20 years to its term of protection.

The situation from 1995 onwards became very complicated - take a look at this secondary legislation which implemented the changes, for a taste of how the legal drafters tried to cover all the permutations. Now you can see why the present day guidance starts with 'Generally speaking' and doesn't attempt to cover every circumstance concerning older works.