to the moderator,
I believe Andrew Fowler should be banned from here... the two photos above are mine , which he did offer to purchase... unfortunately Fowler is sos paranoid he thinks they are scans or fakes.. i can rest assuured i have them in my posession.. this is the second time Fowler has accused others of posting/selling photos which they do not own.... [personal attack deleted]
David, if you have proof that you are in fact the owner of the photos, I'll remove this thread from the board. The problem here is that owning prints or copies doesn't mean you have the copyright to same. Copyright of the photos would apply to the photographer or any of the photographer's lawful hiers, assigns, or agents. Even that as some limits since copyright expires after a period of time.
I had the the same problem and would not have posted them if I had not got the below email from a mod. I hope you don't mind me re-printing it here. He said proving the photos are yours is not enough by just sending scans of the images. When I asked for some photos to be removed I was told I had to prove "the basis" of the copyright and show that I did have copyright - does the same apply in this case ?
>Do I have to prove I own these photographs before you remove them ?<
No. Proving that you own the photos in question isn't enough; ownership of a copy of a photo doesn't equate with ownership of the copyright in the image. Most photos of Titanic are long out of copyright, so the first issue that needs to be addressed is whether these photos are in fact still protected by copyright. If they are, we'll address the appropriate action, which does not depend on who actually owns the copyright; if they're not, anyone is free to make any use they want of the images, So the first question is "What is the basis for thinking that these photos are still under copyright?"
>You said action would be taken. I said "appropriate action" would be take. If the photos are no longer under copyright, the "appropriate" action would be no action.<
>I can send you a clearer scan of my photo's to prove I own them so long so you don't use them on the web.>
As I said, the fact that you own copies of these photos does not prove that they're still under copyright, so sending me scans of the photos wouldn't be useful
>You said contact a moderator - what do I have to do when I contact one >? See above.
>Are you saying you will not remove the images ? I'm not saying we won't, and I'm not saying we will. The ultimate resolution depends on whether the photos are still under copyright. Best wishes.
So does the same above apply to the owner of the photos posted in this topic ? Do they also have to"prove the basis of copyright" as you said to me ? Or will it be different - they will just have prove they own the photo's and not the copyright which, like you told me I had to do. You said owning them is not enough.
I'm sorry for any distress I may have caused. They are such lovely photo's I wanted to share them with the people on ET. These photos will be long out of copyright by now surly ?
Also why did the person who tried to sell me the photo's call himself Stephen Browne in about 10 emails and then post on here under the name of David Smith ?
Recently when I asked for some photos to be removed a moderator told me proof of "Owning a photo" is not enough because most photos are long out of copyright! Hence I was told by a mod it was copyright I had to prove.
>>These photos will be long out of copyright by now surly ?<<
Depending on how old they are, this is very likely the case. Since this isn't a hard and fast rule (The order to which Fr. Brown belonged to still retains the rights to his photos) this isn't always a hard and fast rule. If you have any doubts, I would suggest that consulting an attorney who is trained in copyright law would be a good idea.
Beyond that, let's not make a Federal case out of this.
As a general rule, copyright rests with the maker of the image for a period of 75 years, and that means the photographer. In other instances, for example, when images have been bequeathed to museums, etc., ownership of the plate or negative can be an important consideration. So who owns the disputed Olympic negative/plates?
well, well well,
to be honest i have never heard so much about a couple of ratty old photographs.!!!
i really dont care about "copyright" or any other matter in this regard...... i am content to know that i have the two subject photo's in my possession and anything else that appears like them on here or any other site are merely scanned copies of the originals .... you can sell barter or whatever the copies .. but i will always have the originals...
i think there are some real immature individuals (aka Andrew Fowler) on this site and find your commets ( all of you ) to be highly entertaining... i look forward to additional mumbo jumbo comments about copy right etc !!
[Moderator's Note: Edited to remove inappropriate language. JDT]
Well I suppose they are now printed photograhs hence not many people would interested in buying them. Why did the owner of these photographs email me under another name ? He tried to sell me the photographs yet was not who he says he was ?
When I get time I will add better scans of the photos on my Titanic/Olympic site.