I have an old school photograph which was taken with a panning camera
resulting in a very long narrow strip.

I tried Jessops and Boots to get a copy made but they refused on the
ground that it was copyright.

Fair enough, but this was taken about fifty years ago and there's no
photographer's name on the print so I don't know how to set about
getting copyright clearance. Even if the photographer is dead and
gone or, being a company, has been dissolved, the copyright apparently
subsists for 75 years after the death of the photographer or the
demise of the company.

It occurred to me to deal with this in the same way as people deal
with restrictive covenants on land and take out insurance to cover any
possible claim by photographer's great-grandchildren or the Official
Receiver of the company.

Does anyone know how to get around this problem? How much research
effort is one supposed to do to track down the heirs of a long dead
photographer?
--

Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263

"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"

Alasdair Baxter wrote:
I have an old school photograph which was taken with a panning camera
resulting in a very long narrow strip.

I tried Jessops and Boots to get a copy made but they refused on the
ground that it was copyright.

Fair enough, but this was taken about fifty years ago and there's no
photographer's name on the print so I don't know how to set about
getting copyright clearance. Even if the photographer is dead and
gone or, being a company, has been dissolved, the copyright apparently
subsists for 75 years after the death of the photographer or the
demise of the company.

It occurred to me to deal with this in the same way as people deal
with restrictive covenants on land and take out insurance to cover any
possible claim by photographer's great-grandchildren or the Official
Receiver of the company.

Does anyone know how to get around this problem? How much research
effort is one supposed to do to track down the heirs of a long dead
photographer?

Why didn't you say that you were the photographer? if that's too hard, just
goto a private studio they'll probable overcharge you for the copy, you
could always scan it into a computer and then reprint it yourself.

--
ThePunisher


..

"Alasdair Baxter" wrote in message
...
I have an old school photograph which was taken with a panning camera
resulting in a very long narrow strip.

I tried Jessops and Boots to get a copy made but they refused on the
ground that it was copyright.

Fair enough, but this was taken about fifty years ago and there's no
photographer's name on the print so I don't know how to set about
getting copyright clearance. Even if the photographer is dead and
gone or, being a company, has been dissolved, the copyright apparently
subsists for 75 years after the death of the photographer or the
demise of the company.

It occurred to me to deal with this in the same way as people deal
with restrictive covenants on land and take out insurance to cover any
possible claim by photographer's great-grandchildren or the Official
Receiver of the company.

Does anyone know how to get around this problem? How much research
effort is one supposed to do to track down the heirs of a long dead
photographer?
--

Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263

"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"

2 practical solutions.

a) Photographically copy the original. I know
from having done it, to keep the focus at
the centre and the edges of these long photos
you have to lay the original on a curve ie
a circle with centre as the lens.
Then do what you like with the negative except
publishing i suppose.

b) Glue some card to the back of the oriiginal,
press between boards and weights and trim edges with
blade and straight-edge. Then any copyright
notice or such is obscured - oh!, damn, not another
inchoate offence.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.freeservers.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine

email (remove 4 of 5 dots)

Alasdair Baxter wrote in
:

I have an old school photograph which was taken with a panning camera
resulting in a very long narrow strip.

I tried Jessops and Boots to get a copy made but they refused on the
ground that it was copyright.

[snip]

Does anyone know how to get around this problem?

Get hold of a typewriter and some A5 paper. Type up a note to yourself
from 'the photographer' saying "sorry but all my negs were destroyed in a
fire in 1976 so I can't provide you with a copy, but if you have the
original photo you could take it to a highstreet developer who should be
able to make a copy for you."

Then give it some inscrutable signature.

Don't try to *sell* the copy that you've made though.

"Demetrius Zeluff" wrote (snipped)

Does anyone know how to get around this problem?

Get hold of a typewriter and some A5 paper. Type up a note to yourself
from 'the photographer' saying "sorry but all my negs were destroyed in a
fire in 1976 so I can't provide you with a copy, but if you have the
original photo you could take it to a highstreet developer who should be
able to make a copy for you."

Then give it some inscrutable signature.

The technical name for this is forgery. Forgery is a criminal offence.
Breaching a decades old copyright is not. I would suggest that you use
technology to overcome your problem.

On Sun, 23 May 2004 01:25:11 +0100, Alasdair Baxter put finger to
keyboard and typed:

I have an old school photograph which was taken with a panning camera
resulting in a very long narrow strip.

I tried Jessops and Boots to get a copy made but they refused on the
ground that it was copyright.

Fair enough, but this was taken about fifty years ago and there's no
photographer's name on the print so I don't know how to set about
getting copyright clearance. Even if the photographer is dead and
gone or, being a company, has been dissolved, the copyright apparently
subsists for 75 years after the death of the photographer or the
demise of the company.

It occurred to me to deal with this in the same way as people deal
with restrictive covenants on land and take out insurance to cover any
possible claim by photographer's great-grandchildren or the Official
Receiver of the company.

Does anyone know how to get around this problem? How much research
effort is one supposed to do to track down the heirs of a long dead
photographer?

Legally, there's nothing you can do. Jessops and Boots have no choice
but to refuse to make a copy for you, as they can't knowingly breach
copyright. If you consience allows it, though (and mine would, under
the same circumstances), you can copy the photo yourself with a
high-quality scanner, or get a friend to do it. Or (as others have
suggested) you could get a fake permission form drawn up and present
that to the shop. But I would be less inclined to go down that route
as it's then more than mere copyright infringement, you're engaging in
deception as well.

Mark
--
-- http://photos.markshouse.net - now with added kittens! --
"Let's see colours that have never been seen"

Alasdair Baxter wrote in
:

I have an old school photograph which was taken with a panning camera
resulting in a very long narrow strip.

I tried Jessops and Boots to get a copy made but they refused on the
ground that it was copyright.

Fair enough, but this was taken about fifty years ago and there's no
photographer's name on the print so I don't know how to set about
getting copyright clearance. Even if the photographer is dead and
gone or, being a company, has been dissolved, the copyright apparently
subsists for 75 years after the death of the photographer or the
demise of the company.

Who owns the copyright? Normally the creator of the work holds the
copyrights, but this isn't always the case, especially with commissioned
pieces. Perhaps the school owns the copyright?

Have you tried contacting the school and asking them who the photographer
was?

Once you have made some efort to find the photographer you could try taking
those documents to [some photograph developing place] and asking them if
they'll do it. You're only after one copy?

You could also try saying that you need a copy for private research and
study, and that this is non-commercial private research and study, and that
you are allowed to make a copy under "fair dealing".

On Sun, 23 May 2004 11:55:05 +0100, "Bystander"
wrote:

The technical name for this is forgery. Forgery is a criminal offence.
Breaching a decades old copyright is not. I would suggest that you use
technology to overcome your problem.

But is breaching a decades old copyright in a business context a
criminal offence? Would Boots or Jessops be criminally liable if they
copied the photograph for me and charged a fee?

If the matter is not criminal, is there no mechanism for insuring
against a claim by the original photographer for infringement of
copyright? Might be expensive but so what?

Alternatively, is there no photographic equivalent to PRS where you
can pay a royalty to a central body for copyright permission?
--

Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263

"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"

On Sun, 23 May 2004 14:05:03 +0100, Alasdair Baxter put finger to
keyboard and typed:

On Sun, 23 May 2004 11:55:05 +0100, "Bystander"
wrote:

The technical name for this is forgery. Forgery is a criminal offence.
Breaching a decades old copyright is not. I would suggest that you use
technology to overcome your problem.

But is breaching a decades old copyright in a business context a
criminal offence? Would Boots or Jessops be criminally liable if they
copied the photograph for me and charged a fee?

Not criminally liable, but if the original copyright holder found out
then they could be sued in a civil court. And they are perfectly
within their rights to decline to carry out an action which would
place them at risk of being sued, even if it's unlikely.

If the matter is not criminal, is there no mechanism for insuring
against a claim by the original photographer for infringement of
copyright? Might be expensive but so what?

I'm not aware of any such mechanism. If you know that you're not
allowed to do something, then insuring against being caught doing it
(which is what this amounts to) is probably something that the
insurance companies would decline to cover.

Alternatively, is there no photographic equivalent to PRS where you
can pay a royalty to a central body for copyright permission?

No, there isn't.

But this is all really rather pointless - why not just scan the photo
yourself? That way, you're not asking anyone else to breach copyright
on your behalf, and, as long as you're prepared to take the risk of
being sued, there's no problem.

Mark
--
-- http://www.FridayFun.net - now with added games! --
"If this world makes you crazy"

On Sun, 23 May 2004 14:35:04 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

I'm not aware of any such mechanism. If you know that you're not
allowed to do something, then insuring against being caught doing it
(which is what this amounts to) is probably something that the
insurance companies would decline to cover.

But if I buy a property with a restrictive covenant which means I am
not allowed to do something with it, it is normal practice to take out
a one-premium insurance policy to cover me should the beneficiary of
the covernant or his heirs decide to sue. I don't see a big
difference between the two situations.

It's not so much doing something which I am not allowed to as finding
the right person to ask permission of. In the end of the day it is a
matter of money -- royalty fees -- and I am quite happy to pay those
if I know who to pay them to.
--

Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263

"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"