I read the posts at that link. They don't really shed any light but rather restate the question. Hopefully some Britannic enthusiast will see this and chime in. There is a theory that the number was changed when she was taken out of service for a while then reentered. No written documentation backs this up so far and the photos after her reentry in to service do not show the identification number clearly.
A very blurry photo, but I can still make out the G618. That's an interesting find. Do you suppose that the ship may have had both numbers at one time or another? Some navies to this day change pennent numbers every few years or with each new commission, or when a ship is trasferred to a different fleet.
The current thinking is that she was initially assigned G608. Then she was laid up for a while.
It is thought that when she came back into service for the last time she was assigned G618.
It sounds logical enough. The missing pieces we didn't have were actual photos showing both numbers. Now we have them so now it's up to us to discover the "why".
I'll go straight to the point in order to avoid future misunderstandings. The link posted by Bob links to an enlarged detail of an original photo taken from my private collection. The photo (with digital watermark) was first presented more than a month ago in the TRMA forum -and some days later in the Britannic website. So it isn't certainly a new find. In order to make the number more visible I had also posted this enlarged image (without watermark) in the TRMA forum.
Those who follow my work, know that I strongly support the sharing of information and I have no problem to see my material presented in other webpages -but only when the source is clearly reported.
I do not wish to start a heated debate regarding copyright issues (since the image was posted without watermark) but I expect from the moderators to take all the necessary actions. I have nothing personal with Bob -who I consider a very good researcher- but even in case he didn't know the source of the photo he should have checked it before posting.
PS: The photo is question was taken in October 1916 at Moudros.
Sorry, I didn't know the source of the photo. It had no watermark on it and I forget where I even got it from. I have removed the link so the photo is no longer visible. It was not my intention to infringe on any copyright.
>>Now we have them so now it's up to us to discover the "why".<<
It may have been an administrative thing. As I understand it, the Britannic was bailed back to White Star then taken back for a reprise of her role as a hospital ship, hence the change of the identifying number. This sort of thing happens in navies all the time, sometimes due to a reclassification or reaquisition.
Don't take this as gospel as I'm not up on Royal Navy practice in the Great War.
I have been having some off the board conversations with Mr. Michailaikis regarding the post I made above with a photo he "claims" is copyrighted. First, in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety I removed the photo link. It turns out the enlarged photo I posted was not watermarked nor did it in any way indicate that it was a copyrighted photo.
Mr. Michailikis stated:
"but even in case he didn't know the source of the photo he should have checked it before posting."
Now if a photo has no copyright notations or watermark, how does one go about doing that? I believe that if Mr. Michailikis has copyrighted material floating around on the net that the onus is on him to notify that these images are copyrighted. It is the insinuation that I was negligent in posting this photo that I consider an insult. I value copyrights. But to be accused of ignoring copyrights when the copyright holder did not see fit to place any copyright notification on his photo points to his negligence not mine. An apology from Mr. Michailikis for his erroneous assumption that I knew that the photo was copyrighted and that he was the copyright holder would be greatly appreciated. I would have considered it a courtesy for Mr. Michalikis to have contacted me privately about his copyright before making accusations against me in this forum but unfortunately he felt that a public admonishment was more appropriate. So much for collegiality
Bob, copyright violations on the internet are so common that it's difficult if not impossible to keep track of all of the players who are doing it. For obvious reasons, violators who nick somebody elses photos aren't going to be forthright and honest about it and they will do what they can to cover their tracks. That makes things tough for people such as yourself who try to act in good faith...and I do believe you acted in good faith. The safest bet is that when in doubt or when nothing is said one way or another, assume that it's copyrighted.
It's not a perfect solution, but until somebody comes up with something better, it's well to stick with it. If somebody has a better way of dealing with this thorny problem, I'm all ears.
Your's is certainly a solution which would work but should we just act out of fear?
Most of the photos we view, post, download, etc. here are taken well before 1923 which from everything I have read on the subject causes any copyrights to be expired. It seems to be contended that if one buys a copy of one of these photos then puts his watermark on it then it assumes a new copyright. I just think that is dead wrong. Copyrights are meant to protect the creators of photos. Putting your watermark on an old photo does not create a new photo.
I would appreciate anyone posting who has some specific knowledge of the law in these areas.
I do not understand why Mr.Read continues to repeat that I have protested because I considered the image to be copyrighted. My original post can be found above and clearly states that since the image WAS NOT WATERMARKED there were no copyright issues.The point is that the image (an enlarged detail of a 1916 photo) was posted by me ALWAYS as a set with the original photo -the latter clearly watermarked. I find it highly improbable that Mr.Read simply failed to see the original watermarked image and simply chose to download only the (non-watermarked) enlarged version. If that was the case, I advise him to change his research method.
As I said to Mr.Read in private, I made my protest public because: A)was irritated to see my material presented in a PUBLIC forum as a new find and B)to make clear to new users that the practice of posting downloaded material without previously checking the source is wrong and shows lack of respect to the work of other researchers. It's simply not polite and must be avoided because there is the risk of copyright violation.
I still respect Mr.Read as a researcher but some of his remarks in his last private message show many things about the man's character. Any future communication received from him will be completely ignored.
A brief comment on Mr.Read's last post, which I read after writing my message.
First, I am the owner of the ORIGINAL photo (not a copy).Second, an image with a watermark (or other addition/transformation) on it is protected by new copyright because is considered a NEW creation. However, the person who puts a watermark on a photo must have the permission to do so by the photo's owner. So let's end this discussion here.
Not so fast Mr. Michailikis. You've had your say, now maybe others would like to have theirs.
I believe it is the moderator's prerogative to call an end to a discussion. You opened Pandora's Box so let's see what's inside.
First, no one is disputing that you own an original photo. We will leave aside the discussion about whether yours was the only print made from the negative for the time being.
The issue at hand is whether simple ownership of a photo taken before 1923 by a photographer other than the current owner of the photo constitutes a copyright. I have been doing some research into the subject and I can find no current laws which would would grant a copyright in this situation. I challenge Mr. Michailikis or anyone else to produce a legal citation which would confirm copyright status on a photo such as this. (I am referring to the watermarked photo you are claiming copyright on.)
I looked at the material and the most salient passage I found was at the end. I quote:
"Although I am an attorney I do not specialize in copyright issues and I do not answer copyright questions on an individual basis, debate or provide free legal advice."
How many times do I have to repeat that this is not a copyright issue? You had every right to use the image, since it was not watermarked. So please stop changing subject and stay focused to the problem.
The problem is that you have downloaded material presented by another researcher on specific websites almost a month ago and then presented it in this forum as a new find without bothering to give credit to the source.
Your justifications simply don't stand:
-You wrote that you couldn't remember from where you downloaded the image.
So what? Currently,I have dozens of photos I would like to use in my website but I am not doing it because I do not know the source or I have not obtained permission yet. This makes me stupid?
-You wrote that it was not proper to react in public and that my reaction offended you.
Didn't I have the right to make a public protest regarding something that was posted on a public forum? It was my choice to go public and I explained my reasons above (but first in private).Despite this, you put things on a personal level (and of course not in public) making sarcastic comments regarding the quality of civilization in my country. Who do you think you are? If you cannot accept public criticism for your mistakes and discuss in a polite manner then you should quit posting in public forums.
PS: Make no mistake. I will also follow your posts VERY carefully.
This discussion is very much about copyrighted material. You insisist on trying to make it a personal attack against me. I maintain that your watermarked original photo is NOT copyrighted because of a watermark and is in the public domain.
You stated:"Currently,I have dozens of photos I would like to use in my website but I am not doing it because I do not know the source or I have not obtained permission yet. This makes me stupid?" To ask the question is to answer it.
The law is: no copyright = public domain. I will abide by that law and I will not set up self restrictions out of fear of offending someone who doesn't know the law. If you can cite a law which protects pre 1923 photos please cite it or drop it.
In public forums I will maintain a certain decorum. In private postings I don't guarantee anything. I give no quarter and I ask none.
I know I am subject to public criticism if I post in a public forum. Friends and colleauges contact me off forum if I have made a mistake or have offended them. Since you expressed your initial criticism publicly I consider you neither a friend nor a colleague and will react accordingly in future posts.
If you follow my future posts VERY carefully as you threaten , you might be surprised how much new information you will learn. On second thought...
>>Your's is certainly a solution which would work but should we just act out of fear?<<
It beats being sued by somebody.
>>I believe it is the moderator's prerogative to call an end to a discussion.<<
Consider it done. This thread is about the Britannic's hull number, not any personal grievances we may have with each other. They may or may not be justified...I don't know...but if you all want to hash it out, please do it privately.