Copyright

Yes, I have read about this too. I don't really see how they can suggest that a 2-dimensional image of a 3-dimensional object can infringe copyright. They are entirely different things. If you have a photograph of a piece of architecture for instance are you able to walk inside. Anyway I am not photographing the building, I am merely capturing the light reflected from it. I would get an entirely different image if I tried to photograph it at night. It is a few politicians who have their heads on backwards while making new laws. Who was the fool who suggested the only place you can legally park a mobility scooter is in a car-parking bay?

Another thought here ............. Who will own the copyright of the building. Will it be the owners who commissioned the architect to design it, or the architects themselves? What about the copyright on the fixtures and fittings. Are these amassed as part of the building, even though they are often off the shelf components and already subject to copyright from their manufacturers. Remember too that the architects are influenced by buildings from the past and often reproduce motifs from those. Will that need to stop too?

You can now embed some photographs from Getty Images but that is not true of other stock photo libraries.

I wonder if anyone can resolve this dilemma. Prof wrote on post 242 of the 'Old Coventry Cathedral' thread that he believes one of the statues is St Lawrence and his grid-iron. After a Google search, I found a number of images of the said saint taken from ancient manuscripts and published on the British Library site. Yet it seems the British Library claim copyright on those images. How? The only logical answer to my mind is that they are claiming copyright to the digitized copy of the original. As they hold the original then they can make a new copy as and when the current copy runs out and by doing so keep it within their copyright. So, if that is true, then when members digitize old postcards they hold the copyright of that digital image. On another front, but also about copyright, some people are copyrighting whole buildings. For instance, the Eiffel Tower is copyright. Some take that to mean that you cannot take photographs of it. Surely that can't be true. A building is 3 dimensional whereas a photograph only records in 2 dimensions. There is also the idea that a photographer merely records the light reflected from the building so is not making a copy of the building itself. Anyway St Lawrence and his grid iron

Good Morning Pix, Having read all you say above, I think you have opened a new can of worms. It makes you think!

As this is a history forum Dreamtime, do you know of the Diet of Worms?

Another take on a "can of worms" Derek.

No Pix, surprise me ?

The Diet of Worms in 1521 was an imperial council that was convened to decide the fate of Martin Luther. It was held in Worms, Germany. The Holy Roman Emperor Charles V presided over the diet.

Not quite what I expected Pix, but interesting nonetheless. Thank you for your post. You boys always come up with the goodies. It would not have surprised me if you had come up with a picture!

I remember at school being amazed that Martin Luther had lived on a diet of worms and feeling let down later on when I found out what it really meant

The European Court of Justice has determined that a website must get permission from the copyright owner of an image before it can use the picture itself

Mmmmm . . . Interesting!

It's a confusing and conflicting issue. I do try to avoid copying and pasting images but I will hyperlink if the image is available. That makes them ephemeral as they vanish when they are taken down from the source. I do see both sides of the argument. I also try to stick to very old images where the original copyright has usually expired. I'm not sure where that breaks down over copies of copies of the original. To that effect I have recently bought some of the oldest books to enable me to illustrate my stuff.... when I get round to it. The other side of the argument is from sadness. I would never have got started on this project without a wealth of images both old and new of the city online. I may have occupied a small window where doing what I and Pete (Coventry Rebuilt) are doing is possible.

As I understand it & was taught by the National Union of Journalists: Copyright belongs to the author of any work. If someone commissions you to undertake the work, they are the author. If you do it for yourself, you are the author. However! There's a distinct possibility that big & clever websites have some kind of small print in their user agreements giving themselves the freedom to do what they like with any images etc. you may post or submit. However, you still have the copyright. Websites weren't around when I worked in newspapers.