Photograph Copyright. A Reminder.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

A reminder about posting images on CWDF that you have found elsewhere.

The forum has a rule on this:
 

Quote

It is not permitted to post any material unless the copyright is owned by you or unless you have permission from the copyright holder. Members are deemed responsible for the material they post on the site

Pictures on the internet are not free for the taking. in general, if you don't know the copyright status, it is safer to provide a link to the original, rather than placing the picture in your post. 

 

This is History and Heritage, so by it's nature, many photos will be old. Being old, does not necessarily mean they are out of copyright. The law is complex, a mixture of when the photo was taken, when the photographer died and who owns the copyright, which isn't necessarily the photographer. 

Some guidance here:
https://www.dacs.org.uk/advice/articles/what-is-visual-arts-copyright/photographs

 

If a picture has been released under a license that allows reuse, for example, Creative Commons, follow the rules of the license. If attribution is required, post the attribution.

If you have a picture you want to post, where you don't know the source, say that the source is unknown. In the unlikely event that the copyright holder objects, we can take it from there. 

[Heartland]

If the strict interpretation is made of this rule even if it accreditation is given for the source this website will loose a lot of images, but then the text will be just as useful

 

I was curious to see if the objection relates to the Llangollen Breach where drones have been used. I respect that some of those that do so are profit orientated, and have little interest in history. On trying to contact at least one of this group of individuals no reply has been received.

 

Then such visual recording is very useful for understanding modern transport situations and watching it on U tube does provide information about progress

 

And as to Llangollen I guess they will never be interested in the relationship between the breach and Thomas Jebb !

 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

Seeing as how AI businesses are trawling the entire web for material, and don't give a toss about copyright, I think that cat is well out of its bag for good. If you're not using other people's stuff commercially, I really can't see there's any problem, and I speak as someone who puts copyright material out all the time.

Actual art you can have an argument about (though you'll lose against the power of the IT barons), but I'm afraid about photography I have little sympathy. Cut the pixel size down a bit, flip it or reprocess and you've got an entirely different product. That was true before ChatWoteverItIs. Now, a world with LLMs and a functional copyright system can't exist.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

1 hour ago, Heartland said:

If the strict interpretation is made of this rule even if it accreditation is given for the source this website will loose a lot of images, but then the text will be just as useful

 

I was curious to see if the objection relates to the Llangollen Breach where drones have been used. I respect that some of those that do so are profit orientated, and have little interest in history. On trying to contact at least one of this group of individuals no reply has been received.

 

Then such visual recording is very useful for understanding modern transport situations and watching it on U tube does provide information about progress

 

And as to Llangollen I guess they will never be interested in the relationship between the breach and Thomas Jebb !

 

Youtube vids on here are effectively links to Youtube. The embedded video is coming from their servers and all the information slurping works as it would if you viewed it directly from the youtube web site, or with the youtube app. The makers of the video still get paid their fraction of a penny, if their vid is monetised and they agree to the youtube T&Cs, which allow all this. 

30 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Seeing as how AI businesses are trawling the entire web for material, and don't give a toss about copyright, I think that cat is well out of its bag for good. If you're not using other people's stuff commercially, I really can't see there's any problem, and I speak as someone who puts copyright material out all the time.

Actual art you can have an argument about (though you'll lose against the power of the IT barons), but I'm afraid about photography I have little sympathy. Cut the pixel size down a bit, flip it or reprocess and you've got an entirely different product. That was true before ChatWoteverItIs. Now, a world with LLMs and a functional copyright system can't exist.

What billionaire run companies can get away with legally and what laws they can happily ignore is not a good guide to what you, I and CWDF can get away with!

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Heartland said:

I was curious to see if the objection relates to the Llangollen Breach where drones have been used.

 

I think it more likely it is mark99's fascinating series of photos from 60 years ago. One of the copyright owners might have piped up asking for a credit. Or deletion. 

[Chris Lowe]

54 minutes ago, MtB said:

I think it more likely it is mark99's fascinating series of photos from 60 years ago. One of the copyright owners might have piped up asking for a credit. Or deletion. 

Almost

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Chris Lowe said:

Almost

 

Payment??!!

 

 

[DShK]

6 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Youtube vids on here are effectively links to Youtube. The embedded video is coming from their servers and all the information slurping works as it would if you viewed it directly from the youtube web site, or with the youtube app. The makers of the video still get paid their fraction of a penny, if their vid is monetised and they agree to the youtube T&Cs, which allow all this. 

What billionaire run companies can get away with legally and what laws they can happily ignore is not a good guide to what you, I and CWDF can get away with!

Can I launder my copyrighted images through AI image generation then? Run it through one and change it a bit, then it's ok?

[Ronaldo47]

Some people , and organisations, seem to think that, because they own a photograph or other artistic work,  they own the copyright in it. 

 

My understanding is that, to be enforceable, the copyright in a work,  has to be transferred from its creator to someone else by an assignment in writing. 

 

I have seen Victorian photos on the web for which copyright ownership is claimed, where any copyright that existed has clearly expired, and I doubt that the alleged copyright owner could produce the chain of assignments from the creator that would be necessary to substantiate a claim to copyright infringement in court.

 

I have a book on railways where a number of the photos, evidently obtained from the National Railway Museum, are said to be "Crown copyright" . They can't be, as crown copyright only exists in works made by state employees, and the photos were clearly taken by pre-nationalisation, or pre-grouping, private  railway companies.  My understanding is that copyright materials obtained by the state, retain their original status in respect of copyright and are therefore not "crown copyright" in the strict legal sense. The same book claims crown  copyright for facsimile extracts from newspapers published 200 years ago.  For copyright to exist, a work must be original, and making an exact copy of something does not create a new copyright in the copy. 

 

Whereas there are specific statutory  legal offences for unjustified claims to ownership of patent and trade mark rights in their respective acts, there is no specific statutory offence for unjustified claims for copyright ownership in the copyright acts.

[MrsM]

It's an Interesting and confusing field. Last year someone accused my sewing group of acting illegally as we regularly share and swap sewing patterns. It took an email to the Copyright office to clarify that this was permissable. 

[Chris Lowe]

The Government take on it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet

 

Photographers Rights.

https://www.institute-of-photography.com/your-legal-rights-as-a-photographer-in-the-uk-a-comprehensive-guide/?srsltid=AfmBOopTjP0pXXPH-a3aalON3SrH5zcBb4a1THumWQViZD5WsYIqAjTo

[ditchcrawler]

9 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I have a book on railways where a number of the photos, evidently obtained from the National Railway Museum, are said to be "Crown copyright" . They can't be, as crown copyright only exists in works made by state employees, and the photos were clearly taken by pre-nationalisation, or pre-grouping, private  railway companies.  My understanding is that copyright materials obtained by the state, retain their original status in respect of copyright and are therefore not "crown copyright" in the strict legal sense. The same book claims crown  copyright for facsimile extracts from newspapers published 200 years ago.  For copyright to exist, a work must be original, and making an exact copy of something does not create a new copyright in the copy. 

 

In that case would the ownership of the photos been with the rail companies  they related to and then all those company assets transferred to the Government with nationalisation including copywrite ?

[Ronaldo47]

1 hour ago, MrsM said:

It's an Interesting and confusing field. Last year someone accused my sewing group of acting illegally as we regularly share and swap sewing patterns. It took an email to the Copyright office to clarify that this was permissable. 

I remember that the late Bob Monkhouse, who was a great collector of old films, was unsuccessfully prosecuted by an organisation (I forget which one) for lending copies of some of his films, free of charge,  to his friends, but the experience made him reluctant to continue his perfectly legal practice.   

 

In the 1960's there used to be, and still might be,  quite strict regulations about showing films to the public. When I was a student, I used to operate the 16mm  projector for the student union's film club. At that time, it was not permitted to charge admission when  showing films to the public anywhere within (I think) 6 miles of a commercial cinema. So to be legal, we had to have a film club where only members could attend showings. That was OK as the charge was  for club membership, not for admission to a specific showing.  You paid for membership at the start of each term, and were given a membership card with a number of tear-off tickets which you had to  use to gain admission. 

Edited January 27 by Ronaldo47
Typos

[Derek R.]

A paragraph and lines from the Gov website posted by Chris Lowe:

 

"Images that have been found on the web may be used in the following situations:

• you know the copyright term has expired;
• you have permission from the copyright owner for exactly what you want to do with it (for example, to display it on your website) - this may be in the form of something like a licence you purchase from a picture library or a Creative Commons Licence ; or
• you use the images for specific purposes known in law as permitted acts"

So, what is a "permitted act"? Does this 'specific purpose' cover copying an image for which no known creator is available to ask?

 

We're all in trouble, no matter what we do. Is breathing still allowed?

[ditchcrawler]

11 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

In the 1960's there used to be, and still might be,  quite strict regulations about showing films to the public. When I was a student, I used to operate the 16mm  projector for the student union's film club. At that time, it was not permitted to charge admission when  showing films to the public anywhere within (I think) 6 miles of a commercial cinema. So to be legal, we had to have a film club where only members could attend showings. That was OK as the charge was  for club membership, not for admission to a specific showing. 

When I first worked offshore we couldn't get TV wo had 16mm films which were changed out once per fortnight and shuffled between platforms on a daily basis which the company paid a lot of money for. This later changed to films DVD with TVs in cabins.  On the platforms closer to shore we managed to get terrestrial TV  the company had to pay for the number of TVs on the platform which worked out to quite a bit.

[Chris Lowe]

Permission if often easy, I used to use a lot of images from Small Films but they freely gave permission to use them.

[mark99]

If you have hundreds of captured old images, often > 70 years old (and you did not catalogue them) and you then share them amongst other specific enthusiasts  "not for profit" but to celebrate uk heritage (and generate a bit of adult discussion), is it such a crime?

 

Who are the losers?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 27 by mark99

[Ronaldo47]

I haven't kept up to date with the law since retiring more than a decade ago, but I think that copyright infringement normally comes under  civil law rather than criminal law. 

 

The Patent Office (to use its legal name rather than its trading name of The Intellectual Property Office)  did set up a scheme for those wanting to use so-called "orphan works",  that is to say, works that are prima facie still in copyright but no-one knows who owns it, whereby you could pay the Patent Office an amount corresponding to what it considered to be a reasonable royalty rate. When/if the copyright owner turned up, the money would go to him. I don't think they made clear what would happen if it was never claimed, but experience suggests that governments are adept at finding ways to acquire unclaimed assets.

 

When I worked for the old GEC in the 1990's and 2000's, they were normally happy for anyone who asked, to reproduce any of their copyrighted technical stuff free of charge as long as an acknowledgement was given.  

 

 

Edited January 27 by Ronaldo47

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I don't think they made clear what would happen if it was never claimed, but experience suggests that governments are adept at finding ways to acquire unclaimed assets.

 

Same here. 

 

The first house I ever bought cost £18,000 and all of that went straight to the Crown, as the previous owner died intestate with no-one to inherit. So the Crown grabbed it and sold it to me. 

 

 

[Derek R.]

9 hours ago, mark99 said:

If you have hundreds of captured old images, often > 70 years old (and you did not catalogue them) and you then share them amongst other specific enthusiasts  "not for profit" but to celebrate uk heritage (and generate a bit of adult discussion), is it such a crime?

 

Who are the losers?

 

 We all lose. We lose those tangible pieces of evidence that things existed as they once did. We lose history as it was, owing to the selfishness of those who abide by pedantry. No regrets from this party. Like, share.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

Copyright laws may be dumb. They may be skewed to favour the powerful, who can afford expensive politicians to make the laws and expensive lawyers to enforce them. They may be complex and confusing. You can choose to ignore them and many do. If you do, there may, or may not be consequences and you don't get to decide which. There is also a potential risk to the forum and it's owner and benefactor, if we don't have a stated and enforced rule on the use of copyright material. You agree to abide by the forum rules when signing up to and using CWDF, including that one.

[Arthur Marshall]

40 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Copyright laws may be dumb. They may be skewed to favour the powerful, who can afford expensive politicians to make the laws and expensive lawyers to enforce them. They may be complex and confusing. You can choose to ignore them and many do. If you do, there may, or may not be consequences and you don't get to decide which. There is also a potential risk to the forum and it's owner and benefactor, if we don't have a stated and enforced rule on the use of copyright material. You agree to abide by the forum rules when signing up to and using CWDF, including that one.

That's a pretty good summimg up of everyone's attitude to the law - we generally ignore those we disagree with. The final two sentences are the crucial ones - if we want to continue using something that is to our benefit then we have to adhere to the boss's rules. There's always the alternative of swanning off and starting something with a different set of rules, but it might be a bit lonesome.

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 - if we want to continue using something that is to our benefit then we have to adhere to the boss's rules. There's always the alternative of swanning off and starting something with a different set of rules, but it might be a bit lonesome.

Like " Thunderboat " 

[Derek R.]

23 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Copyright laws may be dumb. They may be skewed to favour the powerful, who can afford expensive politicians to make the laws and expensive lawyers to enforce them. They may be complex and confusing. You can choose to ignore them and many do. If you do, there may, or may not be consequences and you don't get to decide which. There is also a potential risk to the forum and it's owner and benefactor, if we don't have a stated and enforced rule on the use of copyright material. You agree to abide by the forum rules when signing up to and using CWDF, including that one.

I'll close the door on the way out. Good luck folks.

[mark99]

On 28/01/2026 at 08:11, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Copyright laws may be dumb. They may be skewed to favour the powerful, who can afford expensive politicians to make the laws and expensive lawyers to enforce them. They may be complex and confusing. You can choose to ignore them and many do. If you do, there may, or may not be consequences and you don't get to decide which. There is also a potential risk to the forum and it's owner and benefactor, if we don't have a stated and enforced rule on the use of copyright material. You agree to abide by the forum rules when signing up to and using CWDF, including that one.

 

Then apply the rules evenly across the board. I challenge you mods to go into every post with an un-attibuted image and place a warning.

 

I know you won't and that highlights the ambiguity here. You make it up, suck in the content, enjoy the stats as long as there is no complaint. If there is a petty whine you get a bit sanctimonious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29 by mark99