Who owns a photo of a photo ?

[BADGER.BRAD]

Hello all,

In the Severn valley country park there are various boards showing life for the local people that include olds photos, I took a photo of one of these board to read later but them thought who owns the photo that I have taken ? Is it me or would it still be copy righted to the original photographer , can someone who has the physical photograph but was not the taker of said photo own the copy right ?

Thanks all

 

[ecoleman]

I'm not an IP specialist but my take on it would be if you have taken a photo of the whole board then I guess it's your photo.

If you had taken a photo of just the photo then there maybe an issue.

 

[Box Brownie]

Hello all,

In the Severn valley country park there are various boards showing life for the local people that include olds photos, I took a photo of one of these board to read later but them thought who owns the photo that I have taken ? Is it me or would it still be copy righted to the original photographer , can someone who has the physical photograph but was not the taker of said photo own the copy right ?

Thanks all

I'm not an IP specialist but my take on it would be if you have taken a photo of the whole board then I guess it's your photo.

If you had taken a photo of just the photo then there maybe an issue.

"Own" is in IMO is a strange expression when it comes to such a situation.

AFAIK you own your picture, this is not the Monkey firing the shutter question. The question should be framed in Copyright terms.....the information boards that you mention will be covered by copyright as will the included images and indeed the text.

Thus again AFAIK you could print your picture for your own wall or aide memoire but not use it in any way for commercial gain!

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

As I see it, there are two seperate things here: 1. the old pictures and 2. the board as a whole. Both are subject to copyright law but...

1. The old pictures will be the copyright of the original photographer and/or the commissioner.
   1. The date on which the picture was made will be critical as to whether these are still in copyright and when or if the copyright expired..
   2. If the copyright has expired, you are free to use them as you wish subject to the caveat that if the versions on the poster have been altered in a material way, the altered version may have aquired new copyright protection.
2. The poster as a whole will be subject to a seperate copyright and can only be shown if they are an incidental part of an overall scene in a public space and not the major subject of the new picture.

Please note: this is an opinion by a non-lawyer and cannot be relied on in any way, shape or form!

 

[sk66]

As I see it, there are two seperate things here: 1. the old pictures and 2. the board as a whole. Both are subject to copyright law but...

1. The old pictures will be the copyright of the original photographer and/or the commissioner.
   1. The date on which the picture was made will be critical as to whether these are still in copyright and when or if the copyright expired..
   2. If the copyright has expired, you are free to use them as you wish subject to the caveat that if the versions on the poster have been altered in a material way, the altered version may have aquired new copyright protection.
2. The poster as a whole will be subject to a seperate copyright and can only be shown if they are an incidental part of an overall scene in a public space and not the major subject of the new picture.

Please note: this is an opinion by a non-lawyer and cannot be relied on in any way, shape or form!

The picture and the board are the same thing in relation to the OP's taking a picture of it. Issue #1 is really the concern of the maker of the billboard.

 

[sk66]

I took a photo of one of these board to read later but them thought who owns the photo that I have taken ? Is it me or would it still be copy righted to the original photographer , can someone who has the physical photograph but was not the taker of said photo own the copy right ?

Any work of art is subject to copyright for a given term (UK is death + 70yrs). Those rights can be assigned, transferred, or waived. E.g. the original taker of the image probably licensed the image to a stock agency and the use of it for the billboard was licensed for a small fee. The original artist still has copyrights and the use is legal.

One of the exclusive copyrights is the right to make copies of the work; in any form. That includes making a drawing, another photo, etc. So, your picture of a picture is a violation of the original/current copyright; and therefore you cannot have copyrights to it. If your picture only included it incidentally (meaning it is not a primary subject/feature of your photograph) then it is not a violation because the new image is not a copy (and you would own the copyrights to it). There are exclusions for some things that are on permanent display (e.g. buildings); and there are exceptions to those exceptions.

Another exclusive copyright right is to display the image/communicate it to the public (put it on the internet). So, while you have possession of the image, you cannot actually use it for anything; if you did you could be sued and a judge could require the illicit copy (your photo) to be destroyed.

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

I have no intention of keeping the photos or using them for anything really, it was more a theoretical question. As the board is in the public domain and I wondered if this confused the situation.

 

[sk66]

I have no intention of keeping the photos or using them for anything really, it was more a theoretical question. As the board is in the public domain and I wondered if this confused the situation.

"Public domain" has a different meaning when it comes to copyrights. I assume you mean in/from a freely accessible (public) location. Basically, in a public location you can do anything you want, as long as it is legal and it does not violate someone else's personal rights (copyrights, privacy rights).

A billboard by its' nature is impermanent... it would not fall under the copyright exclusion for works on permanent public display (buildings).

 

[Ed Sutton]

A billboard by its' nature is impermanent... it would not fall under the copyright exclusion for works on permanent public display (buildings).

It's not a 'billboard' (advertisment) it's an information board.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The picture and the board are the same thing in relation to the OP's taking a picture of it. Issue #1 is really the concern of the maker of the billboard

I think you're quite wrong about that.

The case I was discussing is if the OP makes a copy exclusively of the photograph, i.e. includes no other part of the billboard. In that case, in the absence of any substantial modification by the maker of the billboard, the copyright that pertains is exclusively that of the photograph.

If that is out of copyright, then the OP is free to copy, use and distribute as he wishes.

The picture, as part of the billboard, is a different matter and quite an interesting one. Way back, when I was sent on courses run by the Newspaper Society or the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, there was a comment made by one lecturer about this very subject. Her advice was that a picture of an advertisement was technically like any other breach of copyright. However, at that time (more than 50 years ago) British courts took the view that, in the absence of any malicious intent, the breach was not actionable. The basis for this was that the advertiser had obtained further free advertising, which was the purpose of the work!

Of course, the law changes, so that lecturer's assertion may no longer be true.

It's not a 'billboard' (advertisment) it's an information board.

Now we're into can of worms territory. The legal term "advertisement" was held to cover things like railway station signs because they advertised the station or facilities. Frankly, that's the sort of discussion that makes some lawyers very rich!

 

[sk66]

The picture, as part of the billboard, is a different matter and quite an interesting one.

Using a picture that is out of copyright in an advertisement does not create a new copyright in the work. And obtaining usage rights to the work for use in advertising does not create a separate copyright in the work. If the advertisement is different enough to qualify for separate copyright as a new work/fair use, then the original copyright is not of concern...
The OP's concern remains the same; is there copyright protecting the work(s) or not. Who owns the rights is pretty irrelevant unless you are trying to attain some rights yourself.

It's not a 'billboard' (advertisment) it's an information board.

That doesn't really change anything...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Using a picture that is out of copyright in an advertisement does not create a new copyright in the work.

You're quite right and that's the point I was making.

However, making substantial changes to an out of copyright image, such that it can be claimed as a new derivative, would probably create a new copyright.

If the advertisement is different enough to qualify for separate copyright as a new work/fair use, then the original copyright is not of concern...

Again, you have got my point correctly.

The OP's concern remains the same; is there copyright protecting the work(s) or not.

That would depend on all the circumstances and probably make some lawyer very happy.

However, as I pointed out, while an advertisement as a whole will be covered by copyright, proving any actual loss will be an uphill struggle simply because the purpose of an advertisement is to inform the public and while reproducing it is technically a breach the worst case outcome would likely be a cease and desist order.

Who owns the rights is pretty irrelevant unless you are trying to attain some rights yourself.

That is the net result.