Copyright question

[Meridian Line]

If I printed a photo of a soldier from the microfilm of a newspaper printed in 1917, then scanned it & posted on , say, a thread on this forum, would I be breaking any copyright laws?

many thanks,

[margaretmarch]

If I printed a photo of a soldier from the microfilm of a newspaper printed in 1917, then scanned it & posted on , say, a thread on this forum, would I be breaking any copyright laws?

many thanks,

Depends what it says on the source. It may be out of copyright but you need to check the terms of copying from the microfilm. Most likely you would if someone still feels they own the photograph.
Margaret

[Meridian Line]

Thanks Margaret, I'll have to check back with the Archive Office about the microfilm.

[Glen in Tinsel Knickers]

A lot depends on whether the photographer who took the image originally was self employed or working for a company, when the photographer died or company ceased to trade along with any granting of rights (full or partial) for re-use or transfer of copyright in full or part.

Copyright can exist in several forms,
"all rights reserved" basically means there no rights granted to third parties,

"some rights reserved" may allow some of the following:
copying (photocopy, scanning etc) , redistribution (paper electronic or otherwise), altering/modification, (eg editing or manipulating via manual, mechanical or electronic means) prohibit/allow commercial use and the original author or copyright holder may or may not require attribution.

I have had a couple of copies of newspaper articles issued by a library (original publication dates from as early as the 1880's) and on each occassion have had to sign a document acknowledging that "all rights" are owned by the library and the articles cannot be reproduced in any form.


The first step is to find if copyright applies, who owns any copyright and what is/isn't allowed, the place to start is with the publisher of the microfilm.

[Uncle John]

The person or body that made the microfilm will own that copyright.

[susan h]

I would be very cautious, copyright is rather complicated and folks who don't fully understand it can easily misinterpret it. I work in a university library and obviously we deal with copyright daily, we would advise our customers NOT to, under any cicumstances reproduce photographs under 100 years old, and even if over 100 years old, one should contact the owner of the photograph to ASK for permission. Copyright policy depends on the licence the provider holds. However for images, which includes photographs copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of the photographer, and there could be other legal protection preventing reproduction. Another point to remember is the source from which you acquired the photo may not own the copyright, therfore you may need to enquire elsewhere.

To sum up. If a photograph was taken by a photographer who died more than 70 year ago, then it's not generally still in copyright, if the photographer hasn't been dead for 70 years the photograph will be still copyrighted.

[Meridian Line]

Thanks for everyones input...this seems to be a bit of a minefield!