Adding illustrations to an article

[Richard ParsonsParticipant @richardparsons61721]

 

 

I am just completing an article for submission to M.E..  The problem is that there are illustrations I want to use (on the web) but I do own the copy right.

How do I proceed?

 

[Richard ParsonsParticipant @richardparsons61721]

Request for advice.

[Les Jones 1Participant @lesjones1]

Hi Richard,

                     I am not clear about the question. Is it that you have put the illustrations on a web site not belonging to you and have lost the original graphics files ? Or is the question related to copyright ?

 

Les.

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Question sounds pretty clear to me; if there are illustrations in the form of pictures, then you have to obtain written permission from the owner of the images before you can republish them. If they are illustrations in the form of drawings and you want to use the originals, then the same thing applies – you need permission. But if you redraft them, and you are not in violation of any trade marks, then you are probably okay to use them without fear of major recrimination.

 

The situation relating to a failure to find the copyright holders is slightly more vague – what it appears to come down to is that if you can show that you’ve made a reasonable attempt to locate and contact the owners, but have got nowhere, or received no reply, then you can probably use the illustration, but you should indicate somewhere in the piece exactly what the situation regarding this is.

 

Ultimately though it’s the publisher’s responsibility over what happens, but responsibility is normally devolved to the editor, so it would be David that will be able to give you the definitive answer.

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Richard

If you own the copyright, probably not a problem other than the qulity may not be suitable for publication as usually web images are fairly low res.

If a photo, this could be a problem, if a drawing we can probably get it redrawn.

regards david

[Richard ParsonsParticipant @richardparsons61721]

 

Ok here is the nub of the problem. 

In my article I ‘bubble on about M. Chapelon’s ‘241 A1’ and ‘241-A65’’. The latter is now in Zurich (see http://www.241a65.ch/).  I could wander over to Zurich which is some 850-900 Kms away (as the crow flies but my wings are now badly moth-eaten) to take my own pix if I can. I also quote from others writings verbatim but give them due credit for their works

I would like to use a picture of the preserved ‘‘241-A65’  and others things to illustrate my points.

 whould it b enough to give the authors of these images which  are in the public domain  (the internet) the credit for them?

[Peter HallParticipant @peterhall61789]

The situation here appears to be straightforward. Broadly speaking, if you did not create
the item in question (whether a photo or a piece of writing)  you have no right to copy it (ie reproduce it) without permission from the person who did.

 

You say that:-

 

“I also quote from others writings verbatim but give them due credit for their works”

 

Unless you have their permission to do so, you are breaching their copyright and possibly breaking the law.

 

“I would like to use a picture of the preserved ‘‘241-A65’  and others things to illustrate my points.”

You may not do this without permission from the person who took the picture.

“whould it be enough to give the authors of these images which  are in the public domain  (the internet) the credit for them?”

 

No, not without their permission to reproduce their work.

 

I should say here that I know even less about Law than I do about Model Engineering, but in mitigation, I spent most of my working life in “creative” industries – art, craft, design, photography – and have some direct experience of this sort of thing. Some people will say that copyright is complicated, but it isn’t really. It’s ignorance and the widespread practice of ignoring copyright that makes it so. I’ll refer back to what I said at the top. If you didn’t make it, it’s not yours to use without permission.

 

Pete

 

 

[Les Jones 1Participant @lesjones1]

Hi Richard,

                      Is your statement in your original post  ” but I do own the copy right” correct or is it a mistake ? If you did not take the picture I do not understand how you own the copy write.

Les.

 

[Richard ParsonsParticipant @richardparsons61721]

Sorry Les it is a typo- I do NOT own the copyright, but the pictures are in the public domain

[Peter HallParticipant @peterhall61789]

Hi Richard

 

“In the public domain” means that a work is not covered at all by intellectual property rights. This is not the same as being published on the internet.

 

Having reread my previous post, I realise that I wasn’t being as helpful as I might have been. If submitting work for publication in a magazine, I would suggest you contact them directly. I hate to add to David Clark’s already (I assume) considerable workload, but he will be able to offer advice relevant to your particular situation. The danger with posting a question like yours on an open internet forum is that just about any barrackroom lawyer will wade in with an opinion

 

 You may have detected that I have an axe to grind here. This is not really the case, but I find it disappointing that many people see fit to reproduce the work of others and regard it as their right to do so. This does not apply to you.

 

 In posing your original question you show intelligence, sensitivity, comprehension and an understanding that there are issues at stake.

 

How should you proceed? With caution!

 

Good luck, and I look forward to reading your article in ME.

 

Pete

[Billy MillsParticipant @billymills]

Richard

Google produced 241-A65 images on http://www.martynbane.co.uk, have you asked Martyn for permission to use his pictures? Presumably the Swiss have refused your request or have you asked them?

Perhaps someone else reading this thread has some images of the train?

 

Regards and HNY to all.

Alan. 

[Ian AbbottParticipant @ianabbott31222]

From the point of view of one who creates images, photo and drawn, and text, here’s my two pen’th.

 

Text.  You can quote a passage,  but it must be “Quoted”.  As in ‘Fred Bloggs says, “Blah, blah, blah.”.’

 

An image.  If you do not have copyright for the image, you must have the permission of the person who has, and be able to prove it, usually in writing or similar such as Adobe Acrobat with an electronic signature.

 

If the copyrighted image is the basis for your image (copy, drawing or such), then usually you are safe, but good manners says that you credit the original.  A copy must be recognisable as such, or you could be looking at a forgery charge, or at least intellectual theft.

 

There are exemptions for educational/instructional use, but again permission is the safest way to go.  In your case, if the image is the property of a museum or preservation society, then often a credit is all that is required, but with permission.  Museums tend to be generous with writers, as it is as good as advertising for them.  They may ask to peruse the finished article before being published.

 

And.  There is nothing more galling and likely to start fisticuffs, than to see your intellectual property parading down the street on the front of someone else’s  T shirt. Been there, didn’t get the T shirt.

 

The safest way of working, unless you are in the text book trade, is to use only your own material.  I would pursue someone who used my work illegally, as should anyone.  The reason that we have copyright laws is because some people nick other people’s stuff. 

 

Ian 

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

I agree with Ian, but I think that even if you disregard Richard’s typo it’s pretty clear. If Richard owned the images, then by presenting them to ME he would grant implicitly the right to use them, although the terms may be negotiated. And if he doesn’t own them, then the copyright owner has to do the same thing. And with modern publication, that isn’t as straightforward as it used to be. It’s quite possible, for instance, for the original owner to give permission for a one-off publication use of a photograph, but not for digital copies to be available in the online back issues – or at a bare minimum to specify different conditions for this.

 

I would have thought that the normal Harvard convention for quotes was fine – a number in the text, and a corresponding list of references at the end of the article.

 

And this isn’t barrack-room law – it’s pretty clearly stated in a lot of places, but regardless of that, most of it is a matter of common courtesy. Yes I have been a victim of plagiarism before, but fortunately it’s never left me out of pocket.

[John OlsenParticipant @johnolsen79199]

Just to make things really complicated, the laws around the planet vary in different jurisdictions. I think in Britain you have the same situation as I do here, eg the copyright expires fifty years after the decease of the author. So in theory at least, Model Engineer could publish pictures of old locomotives taken “back in the day” except that someone should be checking when the photographer died. As may be imagined, this is likely to be difficult to check. Fortunately it is also difficult for anyone to prove they own the copyright of an old photograph that some deceased ancestor may have taken years back.

 

It is worse for the Americans, since their law gets amended every few years to ensure that Mickey Mouse never goes out of copyright. This effectively means that nothing produced after about 1926 or so will ever go into the public domain.

 

A further difficulty is that some of the museums who have the originals have decided that they are sitting on a gold mine and can tie up the reproduction rights of photographs that are actually out of copyright by making you sign an agreement when they supply you with a copy, and of course they will want to charge you more if the photograph is to be published rather than just put on your wall. Being sued over this sort of thing is probably more than the magazine would wish to take on, as even winning is likely to prove expensive. I beleive there was some controversy in the UK over the National Portrait Gallery trying this sort of thing, although I don’t know how it came out.

 

Note that putting something up on the Internet does not change its copyright status in the slightest. While I am sure that most courts would agree that by doing so, the owner has accepted that the ordinary person may pretty much do what they like with it for private purposes, it does not necessarily mean that at “for profit” organisation could use it in a publication. For a comparable example, consider those flyers that arrive in your letter box. Although they are given freely to anyone whether they want them or not, they are still subject to copyright, and you could not use the pictures to make a flyer of your own for some other purpose without permission.

 

Of course , I am not a lawyer, and the law wherever you are may vary anyway.

 

regards

John

 

Edited By John Olsen on 01/01/2011 22:32:13

[TerrydParticipant @terryd72465]

Hi John, 

 

The position in the UK is:

 

“Essentially, the 1988 Act (Copyrights, patents and Designs) and amendment establishes that copyright in
most works lasts until 70 years after the death of the creator if known,
otherwise 70 years after the work was created or published (fifty years
for computer-generated works).” – For more information see here in Wikipedia.

 

Terry

 

P.S. Happy New Year to all

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by John Olsen on 01/01/2011 22:29:08:

 

It is worse for the Americans, since their law gets amended every few years to ensure that Mickey Mouse never goes out of copyright. This effectively means that nothing produced after about 1926 or so will ever go into the public domain.

 

One wonders why they bother, though. Around the rest of the world, the term ‘Mickey Mouse’  is generally reserved for inferior versions of the real thing…

[Author]

Posts