mudcat.org: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?

DigiTrad:
SEEDS OF LOVE


Related threads:
Where did Cecil Sharp collect? (5)
Sharp in Appalachia (92)
Sharp and Wales (43)
Important new article on Cecil Sharp (107)
Sharp and tunes (12)
Cecil Sharp and Scotland (13)
Sharp's Appalachian Harvest (38)
Contents for Sharp/Karpeles book (12)
Contribute to Cecil Sharp's Collection! (96)
finding a manuscript written by C Sharp (7)
More news about Sharp (9)
Cecil Sharp's Folk Epiphany (2)
Sharp: English Folk Songs...Appalachians (3)
Cecil Sharp Collection (20)
Tunes collected by Sharp (25)
Cecil Sharp (21)
William Hedges info? C Sharp song source (2)
book: Dear Companion: Cecil Sharp in America (6)
100 Years since Cecil Sharp heard 'Seeds of Love' (33)
New Cecil Sharp Book - 'Still Growing' (6)
Cecil Sharp, Seeds of Love, 100 in Aug (3)
Who is Cecil Sharp? (39)
Farnsworth & Sharp (2)
Cecil Sharp Journal? (7)


GUEST,Nick Dow 28 Sep 21 - 06:58 PM
GUEST,Nick Dow 28 Sep 21 - 07:08 PM
Nigel Parsons 28 Sep 21 - 07:41 PM
punkfolkrocker 28 Sep 21 - 07:51 PM
r.padgett 29 Sep 21 - 03:19 AM
The Sandman 29 Sep 21 - 04:57 AM
GUEST,Mike Yates 29 Sep 21 - 05:04 AM
GUEST,Hootenanny 29 Sep 21 - 05:11 AM
GUEST,Derrick 29 Sep 21 - 05:38 AM
GUEST,Nick Dow 29 Sep 21 - 07:38 AM
GUEST,Nick Dow 29 Sep 21 - 08:12 AM
GUEST 29 Sep 21 - 08:30 AM
GUEST 29 Sep 21 - 08:33 AM
GUEST,Nick Dow 29 Sep 21 - 08:44 AM
GUEST,Phil d'Conch 29 Sep 21 - 09:30 AM
GUEST,Nick Dow 29 Sep 21 - 10:38 AM
Mo the caller 29 Sep 21 - 11:06 AM
GUEST,Hootenanny 29 Sep 21 - 11:23 AM
punkfolkrocker 29 Sep 21 - 11:49 AM
GUEST,Nick Dow 29 Sep 21 - 12:21 PM
Howard Jones 29 Sep 21 - 12:34 PM
GUEST,Hootenanny 29 Sep 21 - 12:40 PM
GUEST,Nick Dow 29 Sep 21 - 02:43 PM
Howard Jones 29 Sep 21 - 02:53 PM
GUEST,Phil d'Conch 29 Sep 21 - 03:24 PM
GUEST,Phil d'Conch 29 Sep 21 - 03:35 PM
GUEST,of 29 Sep 21 - 08:33 AM 29 Sep 21 - 05:22 PM
GUEST,Nick Dow 29 Sep 21 - 06:48 PM
Jim McLean 30 Sep 21 - 03:17 AM
r.padgett 30 Sep 21 - 03:37 AM
Jim McLean 30 Sep 21 - 04:00 AM
GUEST,of 29 Sep 21 - 08:33 AM 30 Sep 21 - 05:47 AM
GUEST,of 29 Sep 21 - 08:33 AM 30 Sep 21 - 05:50 AM
Nigel Parsons 30 Sep 21 - 05:53 AM
Stilly River Sage 30 Sep 21 - 10:08 AM
GUEST,Phil d'Conch 30 Sep 21 - 12:07 PM
GUEST,Peter Laban 30 Sep 21 - 12:39 PM
Jim McLean 30 Sep 21 - 01:36 PM
Tony Rees 01 Oct 21 - 02:06 AM
Jim McLean 01 Oct 21 - 03:06 AM
Tony Rees 01 Oct 21 - 02:49 PM
Jim McLean 01 Oct 21 - 03:31 PM
GUEST,Nick Dow 02 Oct 21 - 03:05 PM
Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:








Subject: Tech: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Nick Dow
Date: 28 Sep 21 - 06:58 PM

Could some kind soul give me a word to the wise, as to why Getty Images are selling some of Sharp's Photos for between £150 and £350 each! It's not as if they are out of copyright. I have the paperwork from C# House to prove it. This does not sound right to me. The photo's appear to be something to do with Heritage Images who do not appear to be anything to do with the EFDSS. Warning lights are going off here! (Rightly or Wrongly)

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/gipsy-somerset-c1905-photograph-taken-during-cecil-sharps-news-photo/498835595


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Nick Dow
Date: 28 Sep 21 - 07:08 PM

I've Emailed them as follows.

I am surprised to find you are selling photos taken by Cecil Sharp of his informants. Please could you confirm you have the right to do this, and weather any of the revenue is being returned to the English Folk Dance and Song Society at Cecil Sharp House.

I'll wait for a reply before blowing the whistle. If you know better than me please post away.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Sep 21 - 07:41 PM

As copyright on photographs appears to run for the life of the photographers +70 years (very similar to copyright on music and the written word) in the UK, then it would seem that photographs by Cecil Sharp (died 1924) are no longer within copyright.

If Getty images are the only source of some of these photos then they will charge what they think the market will pay.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Sep 21 - 07:51 PM

Who holds the archive of physical negatives and original prints,
from which copies are produced...???

The recent developing get rich quick trend for NFTs is something to watch out for
regarding iconic images, etc, of trad culture...???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: r.padgett
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 03:19 AM

Totally lost me as usual

Is this simply to profit from some ones photographic work, the images

are surely a historic record of the moment ~ what makes the photo worth

such prices and are they not a barrier to people seeing them? Yes I can

see the photos online ~ but is this to deter other users from using the images?

Ray


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 04:57 AM

good man,Nick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Mike Yates
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 05:04 AM

Can I slightly widen this, please? I am no expert on copyright law. Over the years I collected (on tape) quite a number of songs and folktales. Many of these recordings were issued on LPs and CDs. Over the years I have noticed that many of these recordings have appeared on places such as YouTube. Should I have been asked for permission to do so? Like I say, I just don’t know what the law has to say about this. One set of recordings of unaccompanied traditional singers appeared with added instrumental accompaniment. Some readers may remember that the collector Peter Kennedy had done the same thing to some of his recordings. These were then issued for sale by him. There was, rightly I think, quite an outcry about this and he withdrew the cassettes that he was trying to sell. I contacted the person who had added his music to ‘my’ recordings and was accused on-line of being a member of ‘the folk Taliban’, or some such nonsense.
I have never collected songs in order to make money for myself ( even though at times it has cost me quite a bit of my own money) but have always tried to pass on any royalties to the singers involved. If some unknown person reissues ‘my’ recordings then they are surely denying the artists (or the artists family) payments that should be made to them. So, I suppose what I am trying to ask is, do these anonymous people who ‘post’ these recordings on line have the ‘right’ (legally or morally) to do so?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 05:11 AM

Has nobody in the past made copies from Sharp's negatives? If so then there are probably other sources.
They are apparently no longer in copyright.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 05:38 AM

Nick,
If I read the piece below correctly the copyright has expired.
The paragraph below comes from this source.

https://photo.ballandia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Photography-and-the-Law-in-the-UK.pdf


Copyright exists in almost anything that has been produced as a result of a person's skill, labour and judgement.   That's important to know because almost all man-made objects in the world around us that we photograph could potentially be covered by copyright. Does that mean you can't photograph an everyday object as a still life, such as a wine bottle? Although copyright may exist in such a design, most mass-produced items are unlikely to cause copyright problems. In the case of things like jewellery, fabric, glassware, porcelain and pottery, all of these are subject to copyright. The same applies to photographs, paintings, drawings, etchings, lithographs, tv images and even theatrical performances - although a single photograph from a performance is unlikely to breach copyright. So what's not covered? Well, there's no copyright in a person's appearance, ideas or news; although copyright would exist in a photograph of a news event, as it's a body of artistic work, even though the news content isn't. In photographic terms, an `idea' can be more abstract in meaning. Attitudes in the photographic and legal communities are constantly changing. For example, if a photographer places a blonde model on a blue chair outside the London Eye and another uses a brunette model on a pink chair at the same location with the same pose then surely it's an original work of art by his or her skill and labour? Well, it used to be seen that way in the eyes of the law and the photographic community, but attitudes are beginning to shift. If the case went to court it would be up to a judge to decide if the similarities were accidental or whether the photographer deliberately set out to copy the image. If all this seems to be worryingly restrictive as you wander around town with your camera then rest easy as incidental inclusion of a copyright work, for example a street scene with a shop sign or trademark in the background, isn't an infringement of copyright. The same applies to buildings or sculptures that are permanently situated in a public place or in premises that offer open access to the public. How long does copyright last? In the UK copyright begins at the initial creation and lasts for 70 years after the creator's death, beginning 1st January the following year. Once this time has elapsed, the work falls into the public domain and may be used freely. For more information on copyright law visit www.copyrightservice.co.uk


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Nick Dow
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 07:38 AM

Thank you all for replying. Just to let you know, the copyright on the photos was renewed by the EFDSS. At one time they used a literary agent to deal with the photos. Today I have requested photos for my book 'A Secret Stream Vol 1.' and filled in and submitted the 'Commercial Copy Licence Request' provided by the VWML. In my mind this settles the copyright argument, unless I have made an error. So far I have had no reply from 'Getty'. The negatives remain with VWML, and there may have been a deal with 'Getty', however if you read the blurb next to the photo (link above) there is no mention of EFDSS. So far this stinks as far as I can see, however I will not bother the VWML until I am sure of my facts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Nick Dow
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 08:12 AM

Here is the requested EFDSS Declaration for use of it's items. It covers everything, and could not be clearer. This stinks even more now!

I acknowledge that it is my responsibility to obtain any necessary third party consent to reproduce the items supplied by the Library from the owner of any such copyright in the materials, and I enclose a copy of such consent.
I will indemnify the Library against any claim which may be made against it if I fail to obtain an appropriate consent or fail to abide by the terms of consent.
I understand that the EFDSS reserves the right to refuse a licence if use of the material is deemed to infringe on the moral rights of the EFDSS, the creator, or the copyright holder.
I will not use the materials supplied by the Library for any purpose other than that specified in this form.
I will not copy and/or distribute the materials supplied by the Library to a third party.
I undertake to include in the publication an acknowledgement of the Society, naming it as “The English Folk Dance and Song Society”.
I will pay the appropriate fees in respect to licensing as well as any access fees where necessary.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 08:30 AM

It might be that although the negative or existing prints are out of copyright the owner of a photograph can make a new print and hold copyright on that.

Many art galleries don't allow photography. That way they can photograph their Rembrandt, or whatever, have copyright in the photo and charge for it what the market will stand.

Unless they already have a deal with Getty Images is there anything to stop EFDSS selling prints for less and using the income for it's (and our) own benefit?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 08:33 AM

to continue - and of course if EFDSS did want to do that it may be most cost effective to have someone else to the marketing and admin. Someone like Getty images.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Nick Dow
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 08:44 AM

Good point. I'll hold fire.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 09:30 AM

The Getty blurb is straight copypasta from Heritage or am I missing something here: Gipsy, Somerset (?), c1905. Artist: Cecil Sharp

Blurb: 1-218-988 - EFDSS/Heritage Images
Gipsy, Somerset (?), c1905. Photograph taken during Cecil Sharp's folk music collecting expeditions. British musician Sharp (1859-1924) collected folk songs from older people in rural areas of England in the early years of the 20th century.


Compare Getty Images (link above)
Gipsy, Somerset (?), c1905. Photograph taken during Cecil Sharp's folk music collecting expeditions. British musician Sharp (1859-1924) collected folk songs from older people in rural areas of England in the early years of the 20th century. (Photo by EFD SS/Heritage Images/Getty Images)

Sharp catalog at Heritage (97 images)

Fwiw: Heritage also runs one of those internet metadata 'censorship engines' or 'copyright botnets' for images. The exact name escapes me at the mo. IIRC that would make looking out for EFDSS copyrights online part of Heritage's business model.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Nick Dow
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 10:38 AM

Yes I got that far on my own. Heritage appear to be a subsidiary of Getty. In the light of the EFDSS declaration how do they get the right to charge anybody for the photos? That was the point of the thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: Mo the caller
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 11:06 AM

Mike Yates asked about Youtube. I'm no expert either but I know that Youtube will take down anything that there is any query about. During lockdown Jon Spiers put up a virtual session each week, hoping to replace some of his lost income by sales, donations and Youtube payments. One week he played a traditional tune and someone complained that it was 'theirs' because they had recorded it, and it was taken down, even though it was Jon's arrangement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 11:23 AM

I believe that when photographers put their work with agencies such as Getty or Alamy or whoever that they still retain the right to sell their own work.
The agency works purely as an agent retaining a percentage of the price at which they they sell prints and passing on the balance to the photographer.

What puzzles me is If copyright runs out 70 years after the death of the photographer. How can anyone claim to own the copyright of Sharp's pictures? You might be in possession of the original negatives but surely you can't claim ownership of something that has expired.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 11:49 AM

Ok.. I need to think about this slightly related situation..

My dad was a factory machine operative and keen semi-pro photograper.
He photographed all kinds of family, factory and Pub social occasions
around our old council estate and small market town.

So, the images may now have some social history value from the 1950s to 1970s.

He died about 25 years ago.

I used to work in photography before I got sick of the people in that industry,
and digital photography helped put me out of work..
But one of my favourite jobs was as photo archivist for an industrial museum back in the 1980s.
I also worked on a social/folk history book project for a commmunity education project..

That's areas of my personal background..


So, I'm now clearing out my old family council house,
and have finally got off my arse and taken possession of dads's negatives.
I need to find time to clean and scan the large collection of negs...

I hate petty legalistic bureaucracy, but will have to take copyright seriously
if I decide some of my father's images may be of use to working class social history projects,
or maybe monetizing some how...???

Question is, who has copyright - me or deceased dad...?????

Obviously there are no written documents / wills,
we were a good traditional old fashioned factory council estate family...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Nick Dow
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 12:21 PM

Thanks every one. The photos were bequeathed along with the song Mss to the VWML, therefore copyright rests with them hence the Declaration.
I take the point that Getty may be working as agents, and if that is the case the rest is none of our business. However if that is the case why not say so? A simple line sold on behalf etc. and this thread would not have been started. However I would still have been surprised at the price. Looks like an Email to the library may now be justified. Still no reply from Getty.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 12:34 PM

The Gettyimages website says "Photo by EFDSS/Heritage Images/Getty Images", which suggests to me that they've entered into a licensing arrangement with EFDSS to sell the images.

Copyright on sound recordings is complicated. Quite separate from any copyright in the material being recorded, there is copyright in the recording itself, which is shared between the publisher of the CD and other contributors (usually the performers, but possibly also the recording engineer and others with a significant involvement). If it is broadcast or played online then the broadcaster/website should have a licence, and royalties are paid from these. However to receive anything you have to be a member of the appropriate copyright organisation (in the UK, these are PRS/MCPS/PPL), unless you are prepared to go to court to try to enforce them yourself.

I believe YouTube has a licensing arrangement, and most of the CDs on there are as a result of deals with the record companies or their digital distributors.

Punkfolkrocker's late father's photos will be part of his father's estate. If there is no will he should look up the rules on intestacy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Hootenanny
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 12:40 PM

I don't understand how copyright can be bequeathed. Sharp has been dead for more than 70 years. If the law is that copyright "only" exists until 70 years after the photographer's death. That's it surely.

Has anybody queried this situation with BAPLA ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Nick Dow
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 02:43 PM

Howard I hope you are right, re licensing arrangement. No doubt all will become plain forthwith. From a personal point of view I hope VWML got a good deal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 02:53 PM

According to the Practical Law website, different rules apply to copyright arising before the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 came into force. Transitional provisions in the Act mean that many unpublished artistic works continue to enjoy copyright until August 2039 even though their creators died many years ago. It goes on to say, "The complexity of copyright law governing images created before 1989 means that where there is any doubt, it is safest to err on the side of caution and assume that a picture is in copyright."

In any event, when the images were bequeathed to VWML this was presumably immediately after Sharp's death.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 03:24 PM

Nick: In the light of the EFDSS declaration how do they get the right to charge anybody for the photos?

I read the declaration, differently...apparently. It's mostly disclaimer. Perhaps lost in translation but, exactly wherein is the EFDSS first party claim of copyright? Have either Getty or Heritage made any copyright claims against publishers?

If the rights are still with the Sharp family, how did your second party application address that first line:
I acknowledge that it is my responsibility to obtain any necessary third party consent to reproduce the items supplied by the Library from the owner of any such copyright in the materials, and I enclose a copy of such consent.

I think we're conflating/confusing physical property, access and copyrights old & new.

One may reproduce old photographs but not new reproducitons of same. The actual thing used in the new production stream must also be out of copyright. ie: Clipping a 1920 image from a book published in 2020 can get one it hot water (if found out.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 03:35 PM

PS: Audio same-same. I can post my old 78rpm recordings on ytube but... using my Rounder CD for an 'original' shall not be considered sporting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,of 29 Sep 21 - 08:33 AM
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 05:22 PM

"One may reproduce old photographs but not new reproductions of same"

That's my understanding. If I (or VWML) own an out of copyright photograph I can copy it and claim copyright on my copy. For you to copy the original, or even look at it, I have to give you my permission because it's mine. VWML probably has to let you see it under whatever rules govern it but probably doesn't have to let you copy it without you agreeing that they retain copyright of the new thing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Nick Dow
Date: 29 Sep 21 - 06:48 PM

Thanks. All very complicated. If what Howard said about a joint licence is correct No problem, If it's not then somebody is losing out somewhere. Beats me why anybody breaks the law when there are so many legal ways to be dishonest. Look at the legal profession, just like Poker Dice, guaranteed to lie on any side, and frequently the wrong one.
Thanks for all the detailed replies I'm wiser if a bit more cynical.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: Jim McLean
Date: 30 Sep 21 - 03:17 AM

The photographs taken by my late wife, Alison Chapman McLean, appear regularly without any credit or reference. The photo of Davy Graham on his web page, sitting with Louis Killen is an example. She took this and others of Marin Carthy, Bob Davenport, Bob Dylan in the early 1960s and can be seen on Richard Fariña’s web page under Troubadour. So simple research would find the copyright owner.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: r.padgett
Date: 30 Sep 21 - 03:37 AM

Oh heck

Ray


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: Jim McLean
Date: 30 Sep 21 - 04:00 AM

How do I get Wikipedia to credit Alison with the photograph (Davey Graham and Louis Killen)?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,of 29 Sep 21 - 08:33 AM
Date: 30 Sep 21 - 05:47 AM

"How do I get Wikipedia to credit Alison with the photograph (Davey Graham and Louis Killen)?"

I don't know but if you have inherited the copyright you may (or may not) still be able to assert the moral right for her to be recognized as the author.

A summary here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-rights-granted-by-copyright


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,of 29 Sep 21 - 08:33 AM
Date: 30 Sep 21 - 05:50 AM

... if she was originally credited as the author I wonder if that counts as an assertion even though not done in the words we see on the first leaf of books


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 30 Sep 21 - 05:53 AM

Phil d'Conch makes an interesting point:
One may reproduce old photographs but not new reproductions of same. The actual thing used in the new production stream must also be out of copyright. ie: Clipping a 1920 image from a book published in 2020 can get one it hot water (if found out.)

Again there is the analogy to music. Music is copyright for writer's life + 70 years. But a publisher also has a 25 year copyright on their layout. Being in a church choir I notice that Novello re-issue the major cantatas (Passion of Christ etc.) on a regular basis. Early ones tend to be in buff coloured covers, then blue covers, then red. Each one has a 25 year publisher's copyright, so the latest version benefits from this copyright (with the usual exceptions for small excerpts, difficult page turns etc.) but there is no restriction on copying if you source one of the earlier versions. It is not so much extending the original copyright as getting a new copyright on the new version.

Publishers now tend to mark music with "It is illegal to photocopy music", or "It is illegal to photocopy this music" which both overstate the case. While there may be copyright on the music when originally issued that copyright is not endless.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Sep 21 - 10:08 AM

Jim,

You might consider putting up a page about your wife on Wikipedia and post some of her most frequently shared/borrowed/posted photos with the licensing information. Small versions if you're restricting it or larger ones if you're going Creative Commons route and want attribution. You could watermark them also.

You can edit Wikipedia yourself and add that information to places where you find her photos. That's the beauty of Wikipedia.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 30 Sep 21 - 12:07 PM

The reissue of Burl Ives' first album had to be dubbed from a clean shellac copy.

As many major record labels have discovered, much to their chagrin, it is also possible to own the copyrights and yet possess no "originals" due to recycling, fire, flood, sticky shedding, &c &c. You may find yourself dealing with the devil just to get physical access to your own stuff.

Moe Asch & Stinson Trading Co. masters & stampers are an entire body of publishing case law unto themselves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 30 Sep 21 - 12:39 PM

It's the curse of Google images. If it comes up in search, it's on the internees so it must be free to use. Or that seems to be the mouse operandi.
It can be immensely frustrating, some will be willing to give uou a credit once you contact them, quite a few just ignore you.

I have a wardrobe full of the t-shirts. I rarely put any photos on the Web without a watermark anymore and only leave them up briefly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: Jim McLean
Date: 30 Sep 21 - 01:36 PM

Silly River Sage: thanks for that, I have attempted a change!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 01 Oct 21 - 02:06 AM

I edited the photo caption at Wikipedia: Davey Graham to include the explicit statement "photo credit: Alison Chapman McLean", also on the image description page. That should do it, I think...

Regards - Tony


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: Jim McLean
Date: 01 Oct 21 - 03:06 AM

Tony Rees. Many thanks Tony, that’s wonderful, cheers,
Jim


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 01 Oct 21 - 02:49 PM

No problem, Jim...

Stilly River Sage wrote:
"You can edit Wikipedia yourself and add that information to places where you find her photos. That's the beauty of Wikipedia."

Indeed, anyone can edit Wikipedia - although there is a "notability" criterion (bar) that has to be passed (as potentially reviewed/discussed by others) before a page on a new subject can be put up, and stay up - I have had the odd one questioned, though in those (2) cases - of 65+ - managed to put up a convincing enough case that they were retained.

Editing pre-existing pages, image files, etc. is a lot easier, but there is still a learning curve, and you have to have a certain sort of particular mind and sometimes patience to deal with the required syntax etc., which can be quite exacting. Also deciding what it is you actually want to say (or avoid saying) and how to phrase it, takes a while, and various iterations, in some cases!

Cheers - Tony


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: Jim McLean
Date: 01 Oct 21 - 03:31 PM

I did try Tony, but got a bit confused. Thanks again. I lost Alison to cancer this year so your efforts mean a lot. Thanks, Jim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Cecil Sharp's photos for sale. Illegal?
From: GUEST,Nick Dow
Date: 02 Oct 21 - 03:05 PM

I received a reply from Tiffany at the VWML. The whole thing is unsatisfactory, but unfortunately legal.

Many thanks for your email alerting us to this, I appreciate it. I sometimes look at Mudcat to see if there's anything useful for us to know, but hadn't for a while.

It's a bit vexing, but the Sharp photos are out of copyright so legally it's above board. Getty says they're part of the Hulton Archive (this was the major British press photo archive) which they acquired in 1996, so presumably the photos were made available to the Hulton Archive before then. I'm told that going back many years, Brian Shuel was marketing Sharp photos on behalf of VWML so it seems likely he mediated this, and they got them from the Hulton Archive.
Tiffany Hore

No sentiment in business then!
Nick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
  Share Thread:
More...

Reply to Thread
Subject:  Help
From:
Preview   Automatic Linebreaks   Make a link ("blue clicky")


Mudcat time: 17 January 11:02 PM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.