Images of Victorian cyclists

[[email protected]]

I just bumped into this site. It may be of interest.

http://www.rogerco.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/anew/collect2.htm

 

[Dave Kahn]

[email protected] wrote:
> I just bumped into this site. It may be of interest.
>
> http://www.rogerco.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/anew/collect2.htm

Many of the pictures are overlaid with "Copyright R.F. Vaughan 2003". As
they were all taken by other photographers 100 or more years ago I don't
see how this can be.

--
Dave...

 

[Phil Cook]

Dave Kahn wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> I just bumped into this site. It may be of interest.
>>
>> http://www.rogerco.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/anew/collect2.htm
>
>Many of the pictures are overlaid with "Copyright R.F. Vaughan 2003". As
>they were all taken by other photographers 100 or more years ago I don't
>see how this can be.

The originals are out of copyright but the digital images produced by
scanning are copyright of the person doing the scanning.

--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

 

[RG]

"Phil Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Dave Kahn wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>> I just bumped into this site. It may be of interest.
>>>
>>> http://www.rogerco.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/anew/collect2.htm
>>
>>Many of the pictures are overlaid with "Copyright R.F. Vaughan 2003". As
>>they were all taken by other photographers 100 or more years ago I don't
>>see how this can be.
>
> The originals are out of copyright but the digital images produced by
> scanning are copyright of the person doing the scanning.
>
> --
> Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

I question whether stuff can be "re-copyrighted" in this way - AFAIK when
it's out of copyright, then it's out of copyright

......... but many of them could easily be cropped to get rid of the
copyright line ;-)

RG

 

[Phil Cook]

RG wrote:

>"Phil Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> Dave Kahn wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>> I just bumped into this site. It may be of interest.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rogerco.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/anew/collect2.htm
>>>
>>>Many of the pictures are overlaid with "Copyright R.F. Vaughan 2003".

>> The originals are out of copyright but the digital images produced by
>> scanning are copyright of the person doing the scanning.

>I question whether stuff can be "re-copyrighted" in this way - AFAIK when
>it's out of copyright, then it's out of copyright
>
>........ but many of them could easily be cropped to get rid of the
>copyright line ;-)

But there would still be copyright. You don't have to display a
copyright statement for it to exist

The image displayed on your browser is a derived image. It wouldn't
exist without the scanner so whoever scans it has copyright. The
original image is out of copyright and if you took a photo or scanned
it you would have copyright in that new image.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Dave Kahn wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>> I just bumped into this site. It may be of interest.
>>>
>>> http://www.rogerco.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/anew/collect2.htm
>>
>>Many of the pictures are overlaid with "Copyright R.F. Vaughan 2003".
>>As they were all taken by other photographers 100 or more years ago I
>>don't see how this can be.
>
> The originals are out of copyright but the digital images produced by
> scanning are copyright of the person doing the scanning.

Makes you despair, doesn't it? I don't doubt that you are right, but
precisely how much intellectual and creative input is there in scanning
a photograph?

'Intellectual property' law is going mad, and we're all going to suffer.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit
;; patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a
;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company that
;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous

 

[Nick Kew]

Phil Cook wrote:

> The originals are out of copyright but the digital images produced by
> scanning are copyright of the person doing the scanning.
>
Are you sure of that? Sounds deeply unlikely to me.

Of course, if it's not the actual photographs, but someone's original
artwork that just happens to incorporate the (non-copright) photos,
then copyright would seem reasonable.

--
not me guv

 

[Danny Colyer]

Keith Willoughby wrote:
> I'm pretty sure there needs to be a creative act for copyright to
> exist. Merely scanning the photo wouldn't create a copyright, although
> touching up a scanned photo, adjusting colour balance, cropping, etc,
> may do so.

Does the addition of text (for example "Copyright R.F. Vaughan 2003")
count as a creative act? ;-)

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Keith Willoughby]

Danny Colyer <[email protected]> writes:

> Keith Willoughby wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure there needs to be a creative act for copyright to
>> exist. Merely scanning the photo wouldn't create a copyright, although
>> touching up a scanned photo, adjusting colour balance, cropping, etc,
>> may do so.
>
> Does the addition of text (for example "Copyright R.F. Vaughan 2003")
> count as a creative act? ;-)



--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Treason doth never prosper"

 

[[email protected]]

Keith Willoughby wrote:
> Danny Colyer <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Keith Willoughby wrote:
> >> I'm pretty sure there needs to be a creative act for copyright to
> >> exist. Merely scanning the photo wouldn't create a copyright, although
> >> touching up a scanned photo, adjusting colour balance, cropping, etc,
> >> may do so.
> >
> > Does the addition of text (for example "Copyright R.F. Vaughan 2003")
> > count as a creative act? ;-)
>

Brown University seem to think that they can copyright scanned old
images:-

http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/collections/askb/ASKB.music.html

And some Germans appear to think that they can copyright images of the
Gutenberg Bible:-

http://www.gutenbergdigital.de/gudi/start.htm

The University of Virginia thinks similarly:-

http://mcgregor.lib.virginia.edu/davis/FMPro

Are they all wrong?

 

[Keith Willoughby]

[email protected] writes:

> Keith Willoughby wrote:
>> Danny Colyer <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > Keith Willoughby wrote:
>> >> I'm pretty sure there needs to be a creative act for copyright to
>> >> exist. Merely scanning the photo wouldn't create a copyright, although
>> >> touching up a scanned photo, adjusting colour balance, cropping, etc,
>> >> may do so.
>> >
>> > Does the addition of text (for example "Copyright R.F. Vaughan 2003")
>> > count as a creative act? ;-)
>>
>
> Brown University seem to think that they can copyright scanned old
> images:-
>
> http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/collections/askb/ASKB.music.html
>
> And some Germans appear to think that they can copyright images of the
> Gutenberg Bible:-
>
> http://www.gutenbergdigital.de/gudi/start.htm
>
> The University of Virginia thinks similarly:-
>
> http://mcgregor.lib.virginia.edu/davis/FMPro
>
> Are they all wrong?

Only a court can answer that question. Copyright protects "original
works of authorship". It would be up to a court to determine whether a
simple scan is an original work of authorship. (A photograph, on the
other hand, is AIUI pretty much always an original work, so you can't
copy someone's photo of the Mona Lisa just because it's a photograph of
of an uncopyrighted work)

I haven't qualified as a lawyer yet today, so this advice is still worth
what you paid for it.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Kill, kill, kill

 

[[email protected]]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > Dave Kahn wrote:
> >
> >>[email protected] wrote:
> >>> I just bumped into this site. It may be of interest.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.rogerco.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/anew/collect2.htm
> >>
> >>Many of the pictures are overlaid with "Copyright R.F. Vaughan 2003".
> >>As they were all taken by other photographers 100 or more years ago I
> >>don't see how this can be.
> >
> > The originals are out of copyright but the digital images produced by
> > scanning are copyright of the person doing the scanning.
>
> Makes you despair, doesn't it? I don't doubt that you are right, but
> precisely how much intellectual and creative input is there in scanning
> a photograph?
>
> 'Intellectual property' law is going mad, and we're all going to suffer.
>

There is intellectual and creative input in the hunting, finding,
organising and identifying old photographs. Also in putting together
the website and thus making it available. It is reasonable for him to
attempt to get some return for his efforts, even if there is evidence
of rather obsessive behaviour (!). You would not be infringing his
claim of copyright, I am sure, if you were to search for an original of
one of his postcards, buy it and scan it yourself.

 

[[email protected]]

Keith Willoughby wrote:

> [email protected] writes:
>
> > Keith Willoughby wrote:
> >> Danny Colyer <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Keith Willoughby wrote:
> >> >> I'm pretty sure there needs to be a creative act for copyright to
> >> >> exist. Merely scanning the photo wouldn't create a copyright, although
> >> >> touching up a scanned photo, adjusting colour balance, cropping, etc,
> >> >> may do so.
> >> >
> >> > Does the addition of text (for example "Copyright R.F. Vaughan 2003")
> >> > count as a creative act? ;-)
> >>
> >
> > Brown University seem to think that they can copyright scanned old
> > images:-
> >
> > http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/collections/askb/ASKB.music.html
> >
> > And some Germans appear to think that they can copyright images of the
> > Gutenberg Bible:-
> >
> > http://www.gutenbergdigital.de/gudi/start.htm
> >
> > The University of Virginia thinks similarly:-
> >
> > http://mcgregor.lib.virginia.edu/davis/FMPro
> >
> > Are they all wrong?
>
> Only a court can answer that question. Copyright protects "original
> works of authorship". It would be up to a court to determine whether a
> simple scan is an original work of authorship. (A photograph, on the
> other hand, is AIUI pretty much always an original work, so you can't
> copy someone's photo of the Mona Lisa just because it's a photograph of
> of an uncopyrighted work)
>
> I haven't qualified as a lawyer yet today, so this advice is still worth
> what you paid for it.
>

But is your advice copyright?

 

[michael adams]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Keith Willoughby wrote:
> > Danny Colyer <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > Keith Willoughby wrote:
> > >> I'm pretty sure there needs to be a creative act for copyright to
> > >> exist. Merely scanning the photo wouldn't create a copyright,
although
> > >> touching up a scanned photo, adjusting colour balance, cropping, etc,
> > >> may do so.
> > >
> > > Does the addition of text (for example "Copyright R.F. Vaughan 2003")
> > > count as a creative act? ;-)
> >
>
> Brown University seem to think that they can copyright scanned old
> images:-
>
>
http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/University_Library/collections/askb/ASKB.music.html
>
> And some Germans appear to think that they can copyright images of the
> Gutenberg Bible:-
>
> http://www.gutenbergdigital.de/gudi/start.htm
>
> The University of Virginia thinks similarly:-
>
> http://mcgregor.lib.virginia.edu/davis/FMPro
>
> Are they all wrong?

....

In those instances ISTM they are simply making an explicit claim of
copyright over the content of their web pages regardless of the
origin of that content.

This is to prevent others from using those images - as copied
from their website for their own web pages.

This doesn't assume that the publishers of the web pages held
copyright over the originals, only that nobody is entitled to
copy those images directly from their website.

AFAIAA simply because someone chooses to publish something on
a web page, that doesn't automatically put it into the public
domain. The web-page both as a whole and in parts, is an artefact
over which the originator still holds rights.


michael adams

....

 

[Keith Willoughby]

Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> writes:

> Only a court can answer that question. Copyright protects "original
> works of authorship". It would be up to a court to determine whether a
> simple scan is an original work of authorship. (A photograph, on the
> other hand, is AIUI pretty much always an original work, so you can't
> copy someone's photo of the Mona Lisa just because it's a photograph of
> of an uncopyrighted work)

Further, if you think about it - scanning is pretty much identical to
photocopying, and I don't think that any reasonable person could think
that merely photocopying a page from Robinson Crusoe gives you copyright
over the photocopy.

> I haven't qualified as a lawyer yet today, so this advice is still worth
> what you paid for it.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Too lazy to work, too nervous to steal"

 

[[email protected]]

Keith Willoughby wrote:
> Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Only a court can answer that question. Copyright protects "original
> > works of authorship". It would be up to a court to determine whether a
> > simple scan is an original work of authorship. (A photograph, on the
> > other hand, is AIUI pretty much always an original work, so you can't
> > copy someone's photo of the Mona Lisa just because it's a photograph of
> > of an uncopyrighted work)
>
> Further, if you think about it - scanning is pretty much identical to
> photocopying, and I don't think that any reasonable person could think
> that merely photocopying a page from Robinson Crusoe gives you copyright
> over the photocopy.
>

Scanning and then printing may be pretty much identical to
photocopying. Scanning and then putting the image on a website is not.

 

[Keith Willoughby]

[email protected] writes:

> Keith Willoughby wrote:
>> Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > Only a court can answer that question. Copyright protects "original
>> > works of authorship". It would be up to a court to determine whether a
>> > simple scan is an original work of authorship. (A photograph, on the
>> > other hand, is AIUI pretty much always an original work, so you can't
>> > copy someone's photo of the Mona Lisa just because it's a photograph of
>> > of an uncopyrighted work)
>>
>> Further, if you think about it - scanning is pretty much identical to
>> photocopying, and I don't think that any reasonable person could think
>> that merely photocopying a page from Robinson Crusoe gives you copyright
>> over the photocopy.
>
> Scanning and then printing may be pretty much identical to
> photocopying. Scanning and then putting the image on a website is not.

Well, not really, not when you're talking about the image in
isolation. The layout and presentation of the website is undoubtedly
copyright, but that doesn't necessarily imply that an indivudual image
is. It's the same concept as, say, a book of facts. The individual facts
aren't copyrightable, but the presentation and compilation is.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
- Yogi Berra

 

[[email protected]]

Keith Willoughby wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > Keith Willoughby wrote:
> >> Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Only a court can answer that question. Copyright protects "original
> >> > works of authorship". It would be up to a court to determine whether a
> >> > simple scan is an original work of authorship. (A photograph, on the
> >> > other hand, is AIUI pretty much always an original work, so you can't
> >> > copy someone's photo of the Mona Lisa just because it's a photograph of
> >> > of an uncopyrighted work)
> >>
> >> Further, if you think about it - scanning is pretty much identical to
> >> photocopying, and I don't think that any reasonable person could think
> >> that merely photocopying a page from Robinson Crusoe gives you copyright
> >> over the photocopy.
> >
> > Scanning and then printing may be pretty much identical to
> > photocopying. Scanning and then putting the image on a website is not.
>
> Well, not really, not when you're talking about the image in
> isolation. The layout and presentation of the website is undoubtedly
> copyright, but that doesn't necessarily imply that an indivudual image
> is. It's the same concept as, say, a book of facts. The individual facts
> aren't copyrightable, but the presentation and compilation is.
>

So if I were to get an 1880 photograph out from our collection at work,
and scan it and put it on our website, then we might not be able to
claim copyright in it? But if I were to take a digital photo of this
same 1880 photo, and upload it to our website, then we could claim
copyright? (And with my photographic skills, I reckon that the scan
might well be better).

By the way, just in case, I have no connection at all, with the website
that I highlighted in my first message.

 

[Keith Willoughby]

[email protected] writes:

> So if I were to get an 1880 photograph out from our collection at work,
> and scan it and put it on our website, then we might not be able to
> claim copyright in it? But if I were to take a digital photo of this
> same 1880 photo, and upload it to our website, then we could claim
> copyright? (And with my photographic skills, I reckon that the scan
> might well be better).

You'd have to ask a court about that. It's my understanding that
photographs are artistic creations, and mimeographs (for the want of a
better word) are not necessarily. (As I said, if you edit it in some
sufficiently artistic way, I belive it's possible to create a new work
for copyright purposes.)

But, I could be wrong.

> By the way, just in case, I have no connection at all, with the website
> that I highlighted in my first message.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
I drove my tractor through your haystack last night

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Nick Kew <[email protected]> wrote:
> Phil Cook wrote:

>> The originals are out of copyright but the digital images produced by
>> scanning are copyright of the person doing the scanning.

> Are you sure of that? Sounds deeply unlikely to me.

> Of course, if it's not the actual photographs, but someone's original
> artwork that just happens to incorporate the (non-copright) photos,
> then copyright would seem reasonable.

Art Galleries (and their lawyers) seem quite confident that the
photographs they sell of their paintings are copyright. Even if all
the photographer did was point and press, the camera had to be
selected, and it did have lots of adjustments on it which in this case
the expert photographer decided did not need to be adjusted, m'lud

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]