Copyright of 1888 Ripper Photos

[GUT]

Interesting question!
Yahoo Answers had a similar query (and varying answers) here:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...7225617AAF30Ml
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/c..._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]

Interesting question!
Yahoo Answers had a similar query (and varying answers) here:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...7225617AAF30Ml
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/c..._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...

[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?