Jump to content

Why I removed the Photos of old Warrington


Recommended Posts

Egbert wrote:


I can assure you I was not suggesting you remove them. My comment was made out of genuine concern.

Just because the photographer is now deceased does not mean the pictures are not someone's copyright. If, for instance, you are scanning them from a recently published book without permission, they could be the copright of the author. And the fact that you are not making financial gain is irrelevant.

However, I am not suggesting for one minute that you remove them. As I said before, I find them very interesting.



Egbert your original comment was quite correct, the only problem I could foresee is that it may have drawn attention to someone who may have felt that I may have (or may not have) been contravening the copyright law and perhaps felt it their duty to bring it to the relevant authority, and I am not prepared to take that risk, however small. Anyone wishing to view old views of the Warrington area I would respectfully suggest they purchase them from where ever they are able to obtain them, Oh! Bugger! I forgot members such as Mary from the USA will not find that very easy to do as will those other overseas Warrington - worldwide forum members, Bugger!.

And by the way Egbert I have been looking at most of your past posts and this is only my opinion they all appear to be rather negative so it was only a matter of time before you had a go at someone so I suppose this time it was 'lucky old me' :wink::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to post this on the other thread where I commented on the deletion of the wonderful photo uploads but thought I'd put it in here as a new topic regarding the deletion had been started


I would like to question how for example Warrington Museum and others can state that they own the copyright to photo's in their books or their donated or acquired collections.


In the case history books written by them or anyone else which contain old photos then obviosuly the writer owns the copyright to the written material but does/should that still include the historical photo's ?


I guess it would be upto them to prove that they do/did indeed own the copyright.


From a law firm


When deciding who owns the copyright to a photograph, it is essential to establish when it was



This falls into three categories:


Photographs taken before 1 January 1945


The only way in which copyright can exist for such photographs is where it has been revived.


There are different rules which could affect who owns revived copyright. Where the person who owned copyright when it expired was still alive on 1 January 1996, that person will own revived

copyright. However, where that person died before 1 January 1996, it will generally be the photographer or his personal representative who owns any revived copyright.


After 1945 but before 1989.


If you are the owner of the material on which the photograph was taken, then you are the first owner. In addition to the exception to the general rule in the case of employees, there was

another exception, which applied where a photograph was commissioned. If you commissioned the photograph then you would have been the first owner of the copyright, subject to any agreement to the contrary. If you were an employee and took a photograph for publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, your employer's ownership of copyright was restricted so that youretained some rights.


After August 1989.


The general rule about first ownership of copyright is that the author is the first owner. If you create a copyright work, you become the 'author' so in the case of any photographs you take you are the first owner.


However, an example where this may not be the case is if it was you who pressed the camera button and someone else who decided things like the camera angle, exposure and so on.


If you make a photograph with two or more people and each persons contribution to the photograph is not distinct, then you all become joint authors and joint first owners of copyright

and the permission of each joint owner will be needed before such a photograph can be used.


Thisgeneral rule about first ownership of copyright resting with the 'author' is, however, overridden in the case of photographs which are made by an employee in the course of employment; in this case, the employer is the first owner of copyright subject to any agreement to the contrary.


If you commission a photograph you will only be the copyright owner if there is an agreement to assign copyright to you. If you commission a photograph for private and domestic purposes, since 1 August 1989 you generally have the right not to have the photograph exhibited in public or otherwise communicated to the public (such as by broadcasting) or copies of the photograph issued

to the public.



and another one says.............


Copyright duration may vary depending on the work that seeks protection. European harmonisation took effect as a result of legislation that introduced new periods as of 1 January 1996. As a rule copyright protection will end upon 31 December of the 70th year following the year of the death of the author of the work. This duration applies to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works.


However different rules can of course apply:




For this type of work much depends upon when the photographs were taken:


Photographs taken on or before 31 December 1944


Such photographs would have been only entitled to copyright protection of 50 years up to 31 December 1994.




Photographs taken in the year 1945 could potentially enjoy a revived term of protection. Where such protection would have been for longer due to a particular member state?s more favourable

terms (eg Germany) protection would have been revived for such work by virtue of protection remaining current on 1 July 1995. Therefore such work would enjoy revival from 1 January 1996

until 31 December 2015.



Photographs taken between 1 January 1945 and 31 December 1995


Photographs would enjoy protection granted by copyright for a period of 70 years.



Photographs taken between 1 June 1957 and 31 July 1989


A 50 year term of protection would be granted commencing the end of the year in which publication took place. For those photographs that had not been published up to 1 August 1989 protection will expire by 2039.


Photographs taken between 1 August 1989 and 31 December 1995


In the event of unknown author/s the term would be either 50 years commencing the end of the year in which the photograph was made available to the public, or that term that would apply for

photographs taken on or after 1 January 1996, whichever is the longer.



Photographs taken after 1 January 1996



The usual term of protection will apply. That is the post-mortem term of 70 years. However it should be further noted that where:


Unknown authorship constitutes 70 years from the end of the year in which the photograph was made.


Unknown authorship constitutes 70 years from the end of the year in which the photograph was made available publicly, if done so during the period of 70 years from the year in which the work was made.


Once the identity of the author is ascertained the usual post-mortem term will apply.


The usual joint authorship post-mortem term will be applicable where relevant.





When assessing copyright protection for photographs it will be important to clarify the following:


1. Can the author (or authors) be identified?


2. In what year was the photograph taken?


3. Was the photograph ever published, or made available to the public and if so when?


4. In which country (or countries) was the work published?


5. If the author(s) died in what year was the death?


6. Is the work of EEA origin?



At which point Dizzy takes a photo.... then decides if she can upload it or not :lol:


Egbert... I sincerely hope that you read all that and then explain to me what it all means as I am still rather ushocked at deletion of all the old photos from here and as such my brain is not working

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding, is that as long as you acknowledge the source you are ok.


I take photo's for the cover of our magazine West Side. Can I get done for taking pictures and printing them? A bit of common sense has to prevail. And is it worth anyone going to the trouble of taking it to court?


We quote news articles every day when posting. that must be a copy right issue. :shock::roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Algy & Diz,

There is a simpler explanation re copyright on Photo net website. Apparently with regard to old photo's anything taken before 1911 is safe to use. This also applies to photo's in books which have been recently published, where the author/publisher has copyright of the text but not of the image as that has expired.


I'm also upset to see that the photo's have been removed, they were the most interesting thing I've seen for ages!

I'm glad though that I at least got to see them, thanks so much for that Algy.


It's really annoying that we in Warrington don't have easy access to even our own local history.

Diz, re your Mum's photo's, I would challenge the museum if they are claiming copyright if only to prevent them doing it to others.

There are probably loads that should be free and available to the public that they are claiming copyright to. If I notice any I'll certainly be challenging them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sha


Mum didn't compain after she saw them published a few years later and although she was rather rattled that she had not been asked the thought of others taking finding them interesting outweighed her desire to 'shout'.


I've just been on the museum photo gallery and their copyright states that they are happy for people to copy and use them as long as it is not for commercial or financial gain, otherwise you have to ask for permission. Mmmm commercial !?!?


I've just looked at a few of my local books and some that are written by the museum do actually have the Frances Frith Logo on the front and the books say images copyright of 'Frances Frith Collection'.


Frith was a photographer who took and published photos from 1860 until 1970 until the company closed following the retirement of the owners.


here's a bit about Frith and what happened next


From 1860 to 1900 the primary business was selling photographic prints for Victorians to paste into their family albums. By 1910, following the legalisation of postcards, the business had evolved into a postcard publisher, and became the UK market leader for many years.


Following closure of the business in 1970, Bill Jay, one of Britain's first photo historians, identified the archive as being nationally important, and "at risk". Bill managed to persuade Rothmans, the tobacco company, to purchase the archive to ensure its safety.


Frith was re-launched in 1976 as The Francis Frith Collection by John Buck, a Rothmans's executive, with the intention of making the Frith photographs available to as wide an audience as possible.


In 1977 John Buck bought the Collection from Rothmans and has continued to run it as an independent business since that time


Seems sad that one companies works with it's unique heritige value has finished up a businesman's pocket liner eh but hey I wish I had acquired them :wink:


Anyway that aside...... I have quite a few books that have no copyright on and one by a vicar who justs thanks the museum for giving permission to include some of their photo's. No copyright on that book either and it doesn't say which photo's are the museums so does that mean I could scan and upload those.


I recon the only ones that are a dodgy for uploading are the ones with the Frances Frith copyright.


Maybe I will upload some of the others tomorrow as I'm sleepy now hence my spelling and typos :D:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been fascinated with your recent postings of images of old Warrington, algy, and I don't think there was any need to remove them.


Intentionally or not, I think Egbert has reminded you that we are getting used to living in a CLIMATE OF FEAR, and you've behaved accordingly.


Such a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, to all of you for the interest and replies you have made, perhaps on reflection I was a little hard on Egbert I suppose he was only attempting to warn me of the pitfalls of what I was doing, also I must admit it started out as a bit of fun but then it became a tad' labourious uploading each one then adding the appropriate text, anyway I think it was a worthwhile exercise with "no bones or windows broken" at the end of it. I believe fugtifino summed it up in his reply when he states "that we are getting used to living in a CLIMATE OF FEAR".


On the subject of copyright the Museum has in two of it's publications (the latest within the last twelve months) published the same photo of my father showing him in his occupation of a driver and it is not a general view, he being the only person in the photo, I have the large original so I can only presume that it must have been obtained from his employer, I certainly have no objection in fact quite the reverse I'm extremely proud to see the picture of him in the context of the history of Warrington and knowing my Dad he would be "chuffed to little acorns", as they say. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, I suppose I have to accept that I will be cast as the villain in this little drama.

First let me repeat, that it was never my intention that Algy remove the pictures. I do not know where he was getting them from. He presumably does, and was sufficiently concerned to remove them. Probably needlessly, but I don't really know.

There is, I suppose, the argument that if he was scanning them from a recently published book, he could effect the sales of that book.

But then there are two ways of looking at that. He could stop some people buying the book because they have seen the pictures on here (and possibly printed them off). On the other hand, he could, by giving a taste of what was in the book, have encouraged other people to buy the book, thus doing the author a favour!

It would have probably been better if he had acknowledged the source and better still if he had obtained permission.

I have no personal axe to grind on this issue. It is a great shame the pictures are no longer here. I enjoyed seeing them as much as anyone else, although I have seen some of them somewhere previously - can't remember where.

I am aware that the museum do claim copyright on some of their books which include old pictures, but whether they are legally entitled to or not I don't know.

I also know that photography is not allowed in the museum itself, unless with permission, but again I do not know what the legality of that ban is.

I also know that breach of copyright has become a nightmare for professional photographers since the arrival of digital photography and the internet, just as it has for musicians, composers.

It would seem there are thousands of people who love music but don't think twice about cheating their favourite artists out of their rightful earnings.

To everyone who was enjoying Algy's pictures, I apologise. My post has resulted in something I never envisaged when I made it.

If Algy feels inclined to restore them to the site I, for one, shall look the other way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Algy - as these were being published on our website we would have been responsible for any infringement by allowing you to publish them - I had no problem with it so please feel free to put any old photos of Warrington on here - and if we believe there is an issue, we will remove them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egbert.. I was going to post again last night basically saying what you have said today ie that the Algy's photo upoads have probably given many people a new found interest in Warrington's past and as such encouraged them to go out and buy the wonderful local history books that are available and are so very interesting to read. Unfortunately my PC then got hacked and I have only just got it working again :oops: Nice reply to Algy from you today I thought


But..... Three cheers for Gary and great to hear we will be seeing more of your uploads Algy :D:D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of copyright the Museum has in two of it's publications (the latest within the last twelve months) published the same photo of my father showing him in his occupation of a driver and it is not a general view, he being the only person in the photo, I have the large original so I can only presume that it must have been obtained from his employer, I certainly have no objection in fact quite the reverse I'm extremely proud to see the picture of him in the context of the history of Warrington and knowing my Dad he would be "chuffed to little acorns", as they say. :D


A driver ? This isn't by any chance the photo you are talking about is it Algy :shock::? Hope not as it's one my mum had in her little file of family interest goodies but we have no idea why she had it. Gosh just think if it is yours we could be related :lol::lol:





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diz, I am a Wrinkley! but I'm not that old, no, that gentleman is not my dad as he was born in 1913. :lol::wink:

Mary, the problem with naming the source, I would not be abe able to do with all honesty as I have accumualated them over the years and never bothered filing where from mainly because my intention was not to display them to the public but just because I have an avid interest in the history of our town.

On reflection I would have thought that most would have been from the Thomas Birtles collection who's photos were donated to the people of Warrington and are under the care of our museum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diz, I am a Wrinkley! but I'm not that old, no, that gentleman is not my dad as he was born in 1913. :lol::wink:


Phew :lol: Didn't mean to infer than you were very very very old Algy and appologies for that but I didn't know how old mums photo is that I uploaded :oops: Maybe I will look through my books as no doubt that one will appear in one of them somewhere too :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...