Copyright of 1888 Ripper Photos

[Azarna]

I got into quite a conversation with a friend last night about Ripper related images and their usage in books etc.

Obviously I know that photos taken by modern Ripperologists, such as shots of locations today, are copyright to them, as with any photo. I am aware of the usual rules of copyright.

The questions arose over the images of 1888.

If the images had been published, for example contemporary newspaper illustrations, then presumably they are out of copyright and now in the Public Domain.

But what about the images of the victims, the police mortuary images or the Kelly crime scene images? Did their copyright start from the first time they were published? Or have they always been public domain because of their nature?

[Pcdunn]

Interesting question!
Yahoo Answers had a similar query (and varying answers) here:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110817225617AAF30Ml

but they mention United States copyright law.

Apparently, like all issues relating to Copyright, it depends upon the law in the country where the photos were taken.
Here is a link to a Fact Sheet about United Kingdom copyright law:

https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

Now, to a point mentioned by a responder on Yahoo: Are crime scene photos evidence? -- Yes, it seems logical.
Would crime scene photos belong to the police department responsible for the investigation? -- Again, it seems logical.

Looking at the Fact Sheet on the U.K. Copyright Law, I came across this:
"Crown Copyright

Crown copyright will exist in works made by an officer of the Crown, this includes items such as legislation and documents and reports produced by government bodies.

Crown Copyright will last for a period of 125 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made.

If the work was commercially published within 75 years of the end of the calendar year in which it was made, Crown copyright will last for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was published."

I'm thinking "an officer of the Crown" could include policemen and crime-scene photographers. What do you think? Is this helpful?

-- your friendly librarian...

[GUT]

Interesting question!
Yahoo Answers had a similar query (and varying answers) here:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110817225617AAF30Ml

but they mention United States copyright law.

Apparently, like all issues relating to Copyright, it depends upon the law in the country where the photos were taken.
Here is a link to a Fact Sheet about United Kingdom copyright law:

https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

Now, to a point mentioned by a responder on Yahoo: Are crime scene photos evidence? -- Yes, it seems logical.
Would crime scene photos belong to the police department responsible for the investigation? -- Again, it seems logical.

Looking at the Fact Sheet on the U.K. Copyright Law, I came across this:
"Crown Copyright

Crown copyright will exist in works made by an officer of the Crown, this includes items such as legislation and documents and reports produced by government bodies.

Crown Copyright will last for a period of 125 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made.

If the work was commercially published within 75 years of the end of the calendar year in which it was made, Crown copyright will last for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was published."

I'm thinking "an officer of the Crown" could include policemen and crime-scene photographers. What do you think? Is this helpful?

-- your friendly librarian...

If that summary is right and I have no reason to doubt it, than they are out of copyright.

However, that will only apply to the originals.

So if I use them in a book this year, the version in my book is in copyright, crazy isn't it. (that's my understanding of Brit copyright anyway) in effect it means if you can get the original it's fine to use but lifting a copy out my (imaginary book) isn't.

[Pcdunn]

Right, GUT, and it doesn't really take into consideration how often the Internet tends to "borrow" and "post" photos-- unless they indicate the source of the photo, they could be breaking Copyright Law. (Not that it'll deter them, probably...)

[GUT]

Right, GUT, and it doesn't really take into consideration how often the Internet tends to "borrow" and "post" photos-- unless they indicate the source of the photo, they could be breaking Copyright Law. (Not that it'll deter them, probably...)

Almost certainly are.

But copyright law is so complicated especially across borders.

[Azarna]

Some of the pictures, such as the mortuary photos are on thousands of websites and in every Ripper book and magazines.

Perhaps one of the published Ripper authors may be able to clarify as they must have found this information out to use the pictures in their books.

I am working on my own book right now, and considering adding some pictures, if that is possible, of course. I would definitely want to do everything above board though.

[Shaggyrand]

Even if copyright was still a factor, though I really do not see how it could be, wouldn't all the images be covered by Fair Use? Any Ripper work, nonfiction of course, could easily be argued as commentary, criticism, research, and scholarship. Hell, many could easily be parody as well. Plus there isn't really any way to argue that using the images is for profit on the image or that publishing them yet again is hurting the original copyright in anyway, which again should allow them to be covered by Fair Use.
The only time it would be otherwise would be if an author did something specific to the image and made it a transformative work, like used a specific saturation effect and specific highlighting color, to make what they wanted the reader to focus on. The transformative elements in the specific context of the image could, in theory anyway, be copyrighted.

[Damaso Marte]

Its all a moot question unless we think the actual copyright holder is going to start suing or threatening Ripper authors and websites.

[GUT]

Its all a moot question unless we think the actual copyright holder is going to start suing or threatening Ripper authors and websites.

Why wouldn't they?

[GUT]

Even if copyright was still a factor, though I really do not see how it could be, wouldn't all the images be covered by Fair Use? Any Ripper work, nonfiction of course, could easily be argued as commentary, criticism, research, and scholarship. Hell, many could easily be parody as well. Plus there isn't really any way to argue that using the images is for profit on the image or that publishing them yet again is hurting the original copyright in anyway, which again should allow them to be covered by Fair Use.
The only time it would be otherwise would be if an author did something specific to the image and made it a transformative work, like used a specific saturation effect and specific highlighting color, to make what they wanted the reader to focus on. The transformative elements in the specific context of the image could, in theory anyway, be copyrighted.

Fair use, doesn't generally apply to commercial use.

[Shaggyrand]

Fair use, doesn't generally apply to commercial use.

That's not true at all, its used commercially all the time. Commercialization only makes it a bit clouded.
It is the nature of the work and how the copyrighted images are being used that defines fair use. These are images where the originals can not be superseded in the view of the public and the image is not the primary focus but illustrative context to the work's body. It's not like covering a song, selling a t-shirt of the image, or heavily unsourced quotation that covers the same ground in an attempt to supersede the original.
The work in question would be designed to further knowledge of the topic and use of the images should be covered because of that, the same reason occasional citing (sourced, of course) of other authors work is covered.

[Pcdunn]

Again, it may vary from country to country. This link offers answers from a American viewpoint:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html

[GUT]

Again, it may vary from country to country. This link offers answers from a American viewpoint:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ial-30100.html

Something I think I commented on earlier, it will vary based on where you are.

[GUT]

Again, it may vary from country to country. This link offers answers from a American viewpoint:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ial-30100.html

Something I think I commented on earlier, it will vary based on where you are.

And it's often a problem when discussing legal issues on an international site.

[Shaggyrand]

And it's often a problem when discussing legal issues on an international site.

Very true. I forgot you were in Australia. I was talking in the US & UK. Australia is much, uh lets say, tighter about it- parody and satire weren't even covered until about a decade ago. A few years ago Australian Law Reform Commission did recommended changes to the fair use regulation but nothing came of it after some heavy fear-mongering from PricewaterhouseCoopers. I believe the Productivity Commission is doing a new study on relaxing the regulations.
What can I say? I'm a big fan of fair use, the call to fix the US's Digital Millennium Copyright Act and how other countries approach it.