JTR Exhibition in Docklands

[Dan Norder]

Or, to be absolutely clear for those people who need it:

Can you go to a conference and take photos of things there: speakers, displays, attendees, etc. and then keep them for personal use or post them online? Yes, of course. That's essentially what Adam did, and it's all lots of people who go to conferences do.

Can you go to a conference with a tape recorder or video camera and record snippits of events, or the people in the audience, or displays, and keep them for non-commercial use? Of course. Adam could have gone that far and been fine, but he didn't even do that much.

Can you go to a conference and record a whole (or substantial) part of an event or events and then either sell it or give it a way for free? No, of course not... at least not without permission from the speakers and/or organizers (depending upon what we're talking about). Did Adam do that? No, not even close.

I don't know why people who went around taking photos at conferences and use them without asking permission from the people in the photos (not that they need to) think that other people shouldn't be allowed to post photos of other events... or this particular one, anyway, as there's been no shortage of photos of other events posted here that nobody complained about. Use some common sense.

[Dan Norder]

So, I can give someone a video camera have them go to the conference, which I am not paying to attend, and then post that video on the web for free?

Depends what they video tape. The presentations at the conference are under copyright by the speakers. Martin Fido's speech, for example, was not created back in 1888.

On the other hand, people do go to the conference and take photos of people hanging out, or video tapes of the attendees. That's perfectly fine and happens all the time, because those or not the text of presentations and so forth.

The items in the Jack the Ripper exhibit are old and in the public domain. Museums like to try to pretend that they own the copyright on them just because they own the items themselves, but that's not how the law works. Someone else can take a photo of an item that's in the public domain and do with it what they want. The only exception there would be for things like the newly filmed videos being displayed at the exhibition.

It's all pretty simple and basic, Ally, and most people already know this and act that way at conferences and museums without it needing to be explained to them. Don, however, seems to want to try to change copyright laws so they protect anything he has any association with but that they don't protect anything he wants to take from others. I'm not surprised you show up to defend him again, but of course I am surprised that, as a former conference organizer yourself, you wouldn't understand the differences between reproducing copyright materials and just taking photos.

[Ally]

Dan,

So, I can give someone a video camera have them go to the conference, which I am not paying to attend, and then post that video on the web for free? Wouldn't that limit the number of people who are willing to pay to attend the conference if they know the content will be up and available without them shelling out a penny?

There is a fee to attend the exhibition. If the images of the exhibition are available online, then why would someone pay to attend?

Hey anyone, since I am not going to be able to attend the US conference, if you are already planning to go, I'll give you fifty bucks to videotape the sucker and send it to me. Hell, live feed even! As long as you take the video yourself, the images within it are up for grabs.

[Dan Norder]

I apologise - didnt think it would be a problem, admittedly I did not read all 25 pages of this thread to see if I was allowed to post them, shall I take them down then?

You are most certainly allowed to post them. The guy complaining about it hasn't a leg to stand on, legally or morally.

[George Hutchinson]

Hi Adam.

Leave the photos be. I'm afraid you've had a baptism of fire here. If you've been reading Casebook for some time you will know there are many alliances, non-agression pacts and axis powers throughout. I'm kind of lucky in that I don't really have issues with anyone (well, I've got one person on my ignore list and that's it).

I'm sure most people were grateful for your photos. Good thing I haven't put up my own, eh?

PHILIP

[AdamWalsh]

I apologise - didnt think it would be a problem, admittedly I did not read all 25 pages of this thread to see if I was allowed to post them, shall I take them down then?

In other news - went to Tate Britain today and enjoyed viewing Walter Sickerts two beautifully haunting paintings "The front at Hove" and also "Miss Gwen Ffrangcon-Davies as Isabella of France" which is an amazing piece to see up close, I was fascinated looking at that Sickert signature inches away from me, wondering if that was the hand that made history with the Liston knife as well as the brush.

[Supe]

First of all folks, let is be known that Dan Norder is the publisher of a competing journal that publishes occasionally--very occasionally--while Ripperologist appears each month like clockwork. Indeed, we were recently one day late in order to incorporate a very late-breaking story and we received a half-dozen inquiries from subscribers asking why we were "so late." Anyway, anything Dan Norder says about Ripperologist or its editors must be considered in the context of envy.

Dan,

Do read my post again, this time for comprehension. It is quite clear I was not objecting to the publication of photos of individual artifacts but to Adam Walsh's photos of portions of the exhibit as a whole, the design and writing of an exhibit being a as much a work of art as a play or musical show.

As for your other complaints, all I can speak about is the unwarranted charge that "whole chunks of text" are lifted from modern news reports. Not true--but then you've never let factual accuracy get in the way of your accusations about Ripperologist or its editors. As for your other hysterical plaints, I would suggest you write Executive Editor Adam Wood with your grievances rather than act the petulant public prat.

Finally, entertaining and informative as the pages of Ripperologist are each month, perhaps you should devote less time to reading our magazine and more time to your own--and heed the words of another also-ran in another field, the Avis rent-a-car company.

Sorry about this interlude folks, but it happens from time to time.

Don.

[Dan Norder]

Let me get this straight, Don... you object to Adam Walsh posting photos he took himself of items that by their very age are in the public domain because you think that setting them under glass gives a new copyright, yet work for an e-zine that lifts illustrations out of modern publications and off the web as well as whole chunks of text out of any modern news report that happens to mention the word "Ripper" and reuses them all without permission?

Take, say, the photo that ran with the news brief on the alleged "Smiley face murder" in the recent "I Beg to Report" section... That's not some old image, that's a group of modern photos assembled in a specific way for creative purposes taken from another news source. So you can do that but Adam can't take his own photos of old objects?

Or, say, the images of Carrie Brown and Frenchy from page 76 of the same issue... Those images were not taken from their original sources, they were lifted from Ripper Notes #19, because the extensive editing I did to the pictures to clean them up is still clearly visible. Not only have you mislabeled the Carrie Brown sketch as having come from a contemporary newspaper (it's from a fiction book), but the crop job done on the Frenchy photo in Ripperologist even still has the top of the text from the photo caption as it ran in Ripper Notes. And those are certainly not the first items your publication has taken without permission straight from other periodicals.

Seems to me that you should take care of problems like that before getting on Adam's case here.

[Supe]

Adam,

so no harm was done.

In my opinion harm was done. Putting together an exhibit of this scope is as much a creative effort as painting a picture or writing a book and sharing those efforts with the world without authorization is plain wrong regardless of the legal situation. Moreover, any series of individual photos presents a distorted view of an exhibit as a whole.

I may feel strongly about this because I have been involved in creating several permanent exhibits in the United States on thr writing end. But I do feel that taking and posting photos of an exhibit, especially when asked not to, is a much a theft of intellectual property as a pirated music CD. And at least in the latter case the entire work is provided.

Don.

[caz]

Oh spoil the surprises for everyone, why don't you, Adam?

...if it was written with Diamine archive ink...

Big 'if' there. It wasn't, according to Diamine's chief chemist

...The fading was apparently faked by diluting the ink...

Again, not according to Diamine's chief chemist.

...I guess people were unhappy with mold growing on their pens...

And your guess is as good as - Diamine's chief chemist?

...Nonetheless, I'd love to see the diary...

Yes, probably best before you comment further. If you don't plan to go to the exhibition (when it can be brought to you courtesy of Adam) and you want to continue this conversation, could you do so on the appropriate thread because I'll be the one who gets lynched, not you.

Thanks.

Love,

Caz
X

[AdamWalsh]

Hello, Adam.

Small world, eh?

Everyone - meet Adam. I've known him for a few years, and not through JTR.

PHILIP

Hi Philip

Hope your feeling better! Enjoying those tapes by the way (will send the other I.B ones on soon!).

[George Hutchinson]

Hello, Adam.

Small world, eh?

Everyone - meet Adam. I've known him for a few years, and not through JTR.

PHILIP

[AdamWalsh]

a few more images.

[AdamWalsh]

Hello,
Im new here but old to the case. Just thought Id share some sneakily taken photos from my visit to the JTR exhibition in Docklands. I dont think you were supposed to take photos but I did anyway when it was clear, didnt use the flash though so no harm was done.

It was good, pretty "minimalist" though to be honest in terms of size and what they have, its only 3 medium sized rooms and its all pretty spaced out but yeah, the highlights of course seeing in person THE letters that epitomised the case and the worlds interest - the "Dear Boss" and "From Hell" letters themselves (although I fear they may have been reproductions, not sure?). Also a great collection of period amputation knives and blades that they suggest wouldve been the killers tools. A nice original body removal cart from 1888. The highlight for me personally was actually the original (not a print) Walter Sickert painting "Jack The Rippers bedroom" - the painting that many people think is his admittance of his guilt in some ways, he is a viable suspect in my opinion. That was cool seeing it as Ive not seen any Sickert paintings in person before. Im sure there are a few galleries in London that have some of his work on display, where can I find his works around London normally? The Tate Modern maybe?

[Sam Flynn]

^ Please, no Maybrick here!!!

You may find this handy, Phil: