Who Was Jack The Ripper ? (H Division, 2019)

[Guest]

For the record- it wasn’t me who discovered nor first told John & Paul their watches had been stolen and I had both of the author’s consent and approval before posting publicly on the matter.

JM

[Rob Clack]

I may have been wrong, but I would have expected you to be happy with an acknowledgement or a token payment (not that I would have minded in the least if you'd wanted an appropriate fee), which is why I don't understand why you weren't asked before your images were used. I can only assume it was an oversight of some kind, not deliberate intent.

An acknowledgement is fine and I would only ask for a fee if it came out of the publishers pocket and not the authors.
Still, I know where all my photographs have come from and if I didn't I wouldn't claim them to be my own and write "every effort has been made etc. etc"

[Gary Barnett]

An acknowledgement is fine and I would only ask for a fee if it came out of the publishers pocket and not the authors.
Still, I know where all my photographs have come from and if I didn't I wouldn't claim them to be my own and write "every effort has been made etc. etc"

A little while back, someone was saying such issues should be dealt with privately.😉

[Rob Clack]

A little while back, someone was saying such issues should be dealt with privately.😉

Yes I know but since everyone wants it out in the open people should know what they are buying. Perhaps a new thread on 'plagiarised works and stolen photographs' thread. There's probably another two books by well known and 'respected' researchers.

[Edward Stow]

Gary
I'm not sure we should be going into the finer details of Old Ma's commercial dealings on this thread.
As for her Cat's Meat business - from memory the hard info suggests late 1889. It is conjecture that puts it earlier.
It is family memory which involves this business, in its later iteration, with cutting up huge sides of horse flesh. It is conjecture that the earlier iteration also involved a similar process.
However, she clearly was involved in a much bigger way in that business than as a casual seller - in contrast to Hardiman for example.

[Edward Stow]

Actually... yes we should be discussing it here. I forgot this thread is about the suspect book!

[Paul]

An acknowledgement is fine and I would only ask for a fee if it came out of the publishers pocket and not the authors.
Still, I know where all my photographs have come from and if I didn't I wouldn't claim them to be my own and write "every effort has been made etc. etc"

I know an acknowledgement would have been sufficient for you, which is why it's difficult to imagine that anyone who is friends with you would have used one of your images without asking. Of course, there's obviously no doubt that it has happened, but I can't see what benefit there would have been for us to have used images known to be yours when we would have had every reason to think you'd have asked for nothing more than an acknowledgement. Either it wasn't appreciated or known that the images were yours or there was a royal cock-up somewhere along the line. I can't speak for Ricky, of course. You are not alone in having images misused. I was the first to publish the Lusk photo, which now appears everywhere...

[Guest]

One point worth remembering about CSI Whitechapel, is that the publishers made a dreadful hash of the photo credits. I contributed about twelve images to the book, (and no payment was ever offered for the use of the images, nor was I expecting any payment), but I was surprised to see my photographs credited as "Author's collection".

If I recall correctly John told me that he had provided the publisher with the correct credits for the photographs, but these details somehow didn't make it into the book. So a lack of credit, save a small mention in the "special thanks" section was a fault with the publishers rather than with the authors.

Andrew

[Rob Clack]

One point worth remembering about CSI Whitechapel, is that the publishers made a dreadful hash of the photo credits. I contributed about twelve images to the book, (and no payment was ever offered for the use of the images, nor was I expecting any payment), but I was surprised to see my photographs credited as "Author's collection".

If I recall correctly John told me that he had provided the publisher with the correct credits for the photographs, but these details somehow didn't make it into the book. So a lack of credit, save a small mention in the "special thanks" section was a fault with the publishers rather than with the authors.

Andrew

That's why proof copies are sent out to authors to check.

[Rob Clack]

I know an acknowledgement would have been sufficient for you, which is why it's difficult to imagine that anyone who is friends with you would have used one of your images without asking. Of course, there's obviously no doubt that it has happened, but I can't see what benefit there would have been for us to have used images known to be yours when we would have had every reason to think you'd have asked for nothing more than an acknowledgement. Either it wasn't appreciated or known that the images were yours or there was a royal cock-up somewhere along the line. I can't speak for Ricky, of course. You are not alone in having images misused. I was the first to publish the Lusk photo, which now appears everywhere...

And the Annie Chapman in life photograph.

[Paul]

A little while back, someone was saying such issues should be dealt with privately.😉

As far as I am concerned, there's no harm in discussing things openly. Using someone else's text or images without permission is wrong. But it happens. And for lots of reasons. I don't try to diminish it or try to ridicule those who reveal it, and I am grateful to those like Mark and Jonathan who reveal it. I would not knowingly and wittingly misuse someone's text or images, and I very firmly believe that none of my co-authors would either. I think something went awry in the case of Rob's images and I welcome the opportunity to apologise to Rob on behalf of all involved with CSI Whitechapel. What is good about the public discussion is that it brings a very serious matter to everyone's attention and it shows that these things can and do happen to the best of us.

But there is a difference. There are those who repeatedly do it. And who don't care.

[Paul]

One point worth remembering about CSI Whitechapel, is that the publishers made a dreadful hash of the photo credits. I contributed about twelve images to the book, (and no payment was ever offered for the use of the images, nor was I expecting any payment), but I was surprised to see my photographs credited as "Author's collection".

If I recall correctly John told me that he had provided the publisher with the correct credits for the photographs, but these details somehow didn't make it into the book. So a lack of credit, save a small mention in the "special thanks" section was a fault with the publishers rather than with the authors.

Andrew

The publishers sold CSI to a magazine publisher who combined it with some material about suspects from a book by Richard Jones. John and I didn't know anything about it until somebody bought a copy and told us! You can judge for yourself the regard in which authors were held, let alone the concern for such niceties as proper picture credits. "Every effort has been made...." is simple and easy and covers a multitude of sins.

[Paul]

That's why proof copies are sent out to authors to check.

Not always. The text is supplied to be checked, but it doesn't necessarily contain the picture credits, acknowledgements, or dedications.

[Paul]

And the Annie Chapman in life photograph.

Precisely.

[Rob Clack]

Not always. The text is supplied to be checked, but it doesn't necessarily contain the picture credits, acknowledgements, or dedications.

Strange. All the ones I have seen have, must depend on the publisher.