Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    This is exactly right and in this discussion relevant.

    Copyright expires 70 years after creator’s death. So any image or photo that fits that criterion is free for all to use.

    What one must remember about reproductions of such images is that the reproduction itself may be a copyrighted work. For instance, the Dutfield Yard’s photograph. The original photo is no longer copyrighted, and may be freely copied by all. However, the published version of the photo has been altered. The photo plus enhancements are thus a new copyrighted work, which will not expire until 70 years after creator’s death.

    When is a reproduction copyrightable? When the new reproduction has an individual creative effort involved. This is where the gray area enters. But certainly there is NO creative effort involved in scanning an image in a modern day flatbed scanner and publishing the result. Photoshopping it after scanning would, though.

    Likewise, museum reproductions of e.g. paintings are difficult to do well (because paintings are shiny) and therefore copyrightable by the photographer/museum.

    Note that copyright payments are different from access fees, that is, someone charging you a fee simply to allow you to scan or photograph their physical copy.
    In many (most) cases, museums, archives and private collectors do not hold the copyright to images or works in their collections and therefore cannot charge fees or enforce copyright. But since they control access to their collections, they can invent various fees for users simply to access the work in question.

    All in all, images like Lechmere photo or Dutfield Yard is not copyrighted, so if you own or have access to an original, they can be freely copied. The published versions, however, may be copyrighted.
    If I remember correctly the trouble I had with publishing the photos in The London of Jack the Ripper Then and Now is that some of the images from the London Metropolitan Archives were that they were part of a collection. The Princess Alice photograph for example was in the Truman Collection and the London Metropolitan Archives couldn't grant me permission to use it, I had to contact Trumans, which I did and the very nice archivist said fine no problem just credit Trumans. Some of the other photos they wanted silly money. I already paid for a copy of the photographs and they wanted more money saying they owned the copyright. I pointed out that there was no copyright and that they owned reproduction rights. Thankfully I managed to obtain the photos we needed from other places.

    Comment


    • I made the point earlier that the Lechmere photograph was quite possibly taken by a son of Charles Lechmere who died in the 1960s, so the photo may still be in copyright.
      I was given the picture by members of the family and I used it to raise money for the Bethnal Green Tube Disaster memorial because three members of the Lechmere family were killed in that incident.
      This was explained to Menges several years ago when he decided to spread the image around but he very deliberately took no notice.

      I may - or may not - have gained a new copyright by enhancing and altering the image slightly for the TV company. Taking a screen shot and ripping the photo off does not excuse breach of copyright.

      But in any event - I did not approach the issue with respect to a breach of copyright but as a matter of that terribly unfashionable concept of 'good form'.

      I purposely didn't mention breach of copyright at the time as I was aware that threats of legal action were regarded as being off limits. The quid pro quo of that is that people behave decently...
      Yes in those innocent days I naively expected people within the so-called Ripperological community to behave with a modicum of common decency with each other. How foolish I was. The Lechmere photograph incident - to many of you no doubt a matter of no importance - taught me all I needed to know.

      It is not only common decency. It is enlightened self interest. If we want people like Robert to spend all his spare time scurrying and rummaging around vintage fairs for rare and interesting photographs, that he will share with us, then in the words of Michael Caine: 'Behave yourself'.

      With regard to Robert's photos it would have been 'good form' to acknowledge him irrespective of whatever legal obligations there might be.

      Comment


      • By “spread the image around” Eddy Butler means I posted it once briefly on Casebook and once briefly on Facebook before removing them. The total time they were up on either website could not have been more than an hour or two.

        Regardless...

        The photograph was filmed by the television production company and that film was broadcast on television in at least two countries. The photo I “spread around” was taken of a television broadcasting the documentary and used in the context of a discussion on Casebook about said documentary.

        That’s fair use.
        A single frame of a documentary can be used.
        End of discussion.

        Now how about your buddy sitting down and copying word for word others published works?

        You all don’t have too much to say about that, I’ve noticed.

        JM

        Comment


        • Errr no Menges took it off Casebook when I asked him to, then he made the threat that he would put it back up if I discussed Lechmere again. I took that to be a joke - perhaps he had a dry sense of humour? But obviously not as I did discuss Lechmere again and within moments Menges put the image back up. Such is the way some people react to discussions about Lechmere.
          I then wrote to the Admins (how naive of me) - the only time I ever contacted them - to ask for it to be taken down as it was in breach of their own rules... to be told to get lost.

          A while later I brought it up in a blunt manner with Menges directly when I stumbled across him somewhere on Facebook. He disappeared from the discussion and put the image up again.

          The whole incident was an illuminating character sketch.
          The concept of 'common decency' is completely alien to some.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JMenges View Post
            By “spread the image around” Eddy Butler means I posted it once briefly on Casebook and once briefly on Facebook before removing them. The total time they were up on either website could not have been more than an hour or two.

            Regardless...

            The photograph was filmed by the television production company and that film was broadcast on television in at least two countries. The photo I “spread around” was taken of a television broadcasting the documentary and used in the context of a discussion on Casebook about said documentary.

            That’s fair use.
            A single frame of a documentary can be used.
            End of discussion.

            Now how about your buddy sitting down and copying word for word others published works?

            You all don’t have too much to say about that, I’ve noticed.

            JM
            I have said all I have to say about that particular matter. Some of us don't have to drone on like a broken record.

            Comment


            • It should come as no surprise to learn much of the above is a lie.

              Revisionist self-pitying bullshit that’s become typical of Eddy Butler.

              But If you’d like to start trading illuminating character sketches of each other I’m all for it. I’ll stick to the facts.

              JM

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                I have said all I have to say about that particular matter.
                Thank god. You’ve done yourself quite enough harm as it is.

                JM

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JMenges View Post
                  Thank god. You’ve done yourself quite enough harm as it is.

                  JM
                  Haven't you got any phone conversation to record and then slap a podcast moniker on it.

                  I think most people are aware you are only here to shit stir. Nothing about doing the right thing.

                  Comment


                  • I have to bounce and won't be back for a while.

                    I believe I asked that the issue of the plagiarism and book be the focus.

                    I'm not asking again.

                    Lets knock off the personal jabs....all of us.
                    To Join JTR Forums :
                    Contact [email protected]

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                      Haven't you got any phone conversation to record and then slap a podcast moniker on it.
                      It’s more than you’ve ever done for the subject and 30,000 subscribers would agree.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Nathen Amin View Post
                        Hi Paul; as I suggested, think its a very murky subject area, even the retouching to create a 'new' picture. I mean, how much retouching will be required to make the new image sufficiently different from the original. I'd be surprised if just subtle recolouring and perhaps a bit of sharpening is enough, but I guess it would need to be tried on a case by case basis in a courtroom which obviously isn't practical and why so many people continue down this path. I think the gist is that claiming definitively that one has copyright or doesn't have copyright is really not a simple matter and only one that could be settled on an individual basis.


                        One could argue they have retouched a picture, but how much is sufficiently? This may be down to a judge's interpretation.



                        Marina Amaral is a fantastic photo colouriser who recently released this fabulous work where she coloured in a number of historic pictures from history (think fully coloured pictures of Hitler etc). I would guess she has used out of copyright pictures (i.e. 70 years) and recoloured them in herself, which having heard her speak is a laborious process. She definitely would have copyright on those, surely, as they are just so radically different from the originals.



                        https://www.amazon.co.uk/Colour-Time.../dp/1786692686


                        I guess I can only reiterate it's quite a murky subject and claiming one has copyright is not as crystal clear as it seems. I think text is much more clearer hence why I'm thankful I'm an author not a photographer, though I do need to get more use out of my DSLR!
                        Hi Nathan,
                        Thank you for that. The thing is that as John Bennett has explained, he was unaware that Rob claimed ownership of those images, and that Rob was approached and paid when his ownership was known. John also made it clear that he tried to establish the owners of the images used and pay them, and he mentioned Evans/Skinner, Tower Hamlets, MoL, Getty, Mary Evans, Mirrorpix, and Rob. John and the publisher also ensured that the book carried the "every effort" caveat, which meant Rob or any other copyright owner could have come forward and made their case. I'm not sure what else could have been done to establish the copyright owners.

                        Whilst the facts may not have been previously known to Rob, but it is clear that John did his best to establish and credit and pay the owners of images used in the book. Any which slipped through the net, as Rob did because John didn't know he was the owner of those images, were covered by the standard "every effort" caveat. John appears to have done everything he could do with regard to the images and, I dare say, more than many.

                        The misuse of images is unquestionably wrong and I am pleased that Rob has raised it, although it's a pity that doing so made the sinned against appear to be sinners. Copyright and so on is a very difficult area when it comes to images and the extensive use of images on the internet has complicated it no end, often making the "every effort" caveat crucial.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                          I have to bounce and won't be back for a while.

                          I believe I asked that the issue of the plagiarism and book be the focus.

                          I'm not asking again.

                          Lets knock off the personal jabs....all of us.
                          Thanks for reminding us...
                          The Whataboutism gambit was taking over....It doesn't matter if anyone else was filmed faking photos whilst buggering hamsters, or if there's a Masonic lodge charged with the downfall of Cobb...All immaterial to the precise charges bought here initially....Disprove them or....Well, leave the thread, I guess?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JMenges View Post
                            It’s more than you’ve ever done for the subject and 30,000 subscribers would agree.

                            JM
                            Out of respect for Howard and his wishes I shall ignore that but for anyone who is interested they can check the acknowledgements of the main Ripper books for the past 13 years and see how many times I have been mentioned and how many times you have.

                            Comment


                            • Rather than turn this into a popularity contest - which I would surely win- I agree we should stick to the topic at hand. Something you and Ed have so far proven yourselves totally incapable of doing.

                              JM

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                                Hi Nathan,
                                Thank you for that. The thing is that as John Bennett has explained, he was unaware that Rob claimed ownership of those images, and that Rob was approached and paid when his ownership was known. John also made it clear that he tried to establish the owners of the images used and pay them, and he mentioned Evans/Skinner, Tower Hamlets, MoL, Getty, Mary Evans, Mirrorpix, and Rob. John and the publisher also ensured that the book carried the "every effort" caveat, which meant Rob or any other copyright owner could have come forward and made their case. I'm not sure what else could have been done to establish the copyright owners.

                                Whilst the facts may not have been previously known to Rob, but it is clear that John did his best to establish and credit and pay the owners of images used in the book. Any which slipped through the net, as Rob did because John didn't know he was the owner of those images, were covered by the standard "every effort" caveat. John appears to have done everything he could do with regard to the images and, I dare say, more than many.

                                The misuse of images is unquestionably wrong and I am pleased that Rob has raised it, although it's a pity that doing so made the sinned against appear to be sinners. Copyright and so on is a very difficult area when it comes to images and the extensive use of images on the internet has complicated it no end, often making the "every effort" caveat crucial.
                                With all due respect Paul this is what John said:
                                Originally posted by John Bennett View Post
                                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.

                                JB
                                So while he was aware that I had posted the images, at no time before publication did he message me and simply say "Rob, are those images yours and can I use them or if not where can I obtain permission to use them." So every effort was not made.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X