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

[Rob Clack]

Are you calling John and myself thieves?

Apparently that is what I have said. Only you and John know the answer. Well John anyway as I know you had nothing to do with the images. I wouldn't have accused you of it anyway as you explained that it was nothing to do with you and I am happy with that.

[Rob Clack]

Oh, It's been said to his face....And I've been there. Took me some 18 months from 2015 to actually work out who the good guys were and that it wasn't just a 'spate'.....I'm more than happy with the company I keep......You have to make a stand somewhere

It's not the Alamo.

[Paul]

Apparently that is what I have said. Only you and John know the answer. Well John anyway as I know you had nothing to do with the images. I wouldn't have accused you of it anyway as you explained that it was nothing to do with you and I am happy with that.

I appreciate that, but John is my co-author and we share the responsibility for the book. That's the way co-authorship works.

[Rob Clack]

I appreciate that, but John is my co-author and we share the responsibility for the book. That's the way co-authorship works.

I am not happy with the way they turned up in the book and stealing is too strong a word and not one I would have used.

Perhaps I am just letting unimportant people get my back up.

[Howard Brown]

Hopefully, the thread won't wind up a modern Masada.....

[Rob Clack]

I wont comment anymore if that will help. I have said what I have to say.
Bur perhaps just a thread to discuss the contents of the book specifically the other authors.

[John Bennett]

Apparently that is what I have said. Only you and John know the answer. Well John anyway as I know you had nothing to do with the images. I wouldn't have accused you of it anyway as you explained that it was nothing to do with you and I am happy with that.

I think it's about time I said something, Rob.


When I sourced those images 7/8 years ago, I was probably aware that you had posted them somewhere (on Casebook, as many of us have done), but at no point in those postings did I recall you saying that they were yours to own or that you had the rights to them. Finding the copyright to images like those - particularly the illustrations featured in publications that had a wide circulation - is almost impossible. They're over 100 years old. To be frank, they're probably no more yours than they are mine. I cleaned them up, altered some of the contrasts, rejigged the resolution for print and put them down as ‘author’s collection’ in the CSI book, and owing to the uncertainty of such images, the “all attempts to locate the copyright holder...” stuff in the book was a general caveat seen everywhere which in no way prevented you from getting in touch with me on publication about ‘your’ images at the time.

You've had 7 years to do this and choose now to bring it up.

If I had used your 1990 photo of Durward Street and attributed it to ‘author’s collection’ you would have a very valid point to make. But I didn’t. There was no question of it being yours. And you were credited and paid for it. As were many other sources including Evans/Skinner (who contributed most of the images), Tower Hamlets, MoL, Getty, Mary Evans, Mirrorpix, etc etc. with what was quite a tight picture budget considering the nature of the book. It was hard going.


This is all I am able to say on this matter for now.


JB

[Paul]

I am not happy with the way they turned up in the book and stealing is too strong a word and not one I would have used.

Perhaps I am just letting unimportant people get my back up.

Well, it seems we both received the same DVD today. I'm planning to wallow for a while in a bit of Barlow and Watt. Maybe you should do the same.

[Rob Clack]

I think it's about time I said something, Rob.


When I sourced those images 7/8 years ago, I was probably aware that you had posted them somewhere (on Casebook, as many of us have done), but at no point in those postings did I recall you saying that they were yours to own or that you had the rights to them. Finding the copyright to images like those - particularly the illustrations featured in publications that had a wide circulation - is almost impossible. They're over 100 years old. To be frank, they're probably no more yours than they are mine. I cleaned them up, altered some of the contrasts, rejigged the resolution for print and put them down as ‘author’s collection’ in the CSI book, and owing to the uncertainty of such images, the “all attempts to locate the copyright holder...” stuff in the book was a general caveat seen everywhere which in no way prevented you from getting in touch with me on publication about ‘your’ images at the time.

You've had 7 years to do this and choose now to bring it up.

If I had used your 1990 photo of Durward Street and attributed it to ‘author’s collection’ you would have a very valid point to make. But I didn’t. There was no question of it being yours. And you were credited and paid for it. As were many other sources including Evans/Skinner (who contributed most of the images), Tower Hamlets, MoL, Getty, Mary Evans, Mirrorpix, etc etc. with what was quite a tight picture budget considering the nature of the book. It was hard going.


This is all I am able to say on this matter for now.


JB

Never thought about just asking?

And if I understand you correctly If I bought and paid for an image (which sometimes isn't cheap) post it on the web. It is fair game for you or anyone else to download and use as there own just because it is out of copyright? Just adjust the contrast a bit do a bit of clean up and nobody would be any the wiser.

Very ethical. This is why I put a watermark on my images.

And I brought this up now to show the double standards of people over recent events.

[Rob Clack]

Well, it seems we both received the same DVD today. I'm planning to wallow for a while in a bit of Barlow and Watt. Maybe you should do the same.

Yes I am about to put my feet up and watch it now. All said and done I hope you are well and your health is better these days.

[John Bennett]

Never thought about just asking?

And if I understand you correctly If I bought and paid for an image (which sometimes isn't cheap) post it on the web. It is fair game for you or anyone else to download and use as there own just because it is out of copyright? Just adjust the contrast a bit do a bit of clean up and nobody would be any the wiser.

Very ethical. This is why I put a watermark on my images.

And I brought this up now to show the double standards of people over recent events.

Thank you for your succinct reply, Rob. As much as I felt I was being honest here, I now feel like a total c*nt.

[Steve Stanley]

If....It's out of copywrite, surely it isn't 'yours'..Ok you've paid commercially for the use of it, but does that give you any legal rights to it?

[Rob Clack]

Thank you for your succinct reply, Rob. As much as I felt I was being honest here, I now feel like a total c*nt.

And I appreciate your honesty.

[Rob Clack]

If....It's out of copywrite, surely it isn't 'yours'..Ok you've paid commercially for the use of it, but does that give you any legal rights to it?

If it is my copy then it is reproduction rights.
Some of the images John used were out of copyright but he paid to use them in the book.

[Steve Stanley]

I admit to being unsure on this....Lots of grey areas