A New Ripper Book

[Cap'n Jack]

I guess, Tom, that you might have to wait for the midnight hour.
Knowing who it was I'm hoping that they have the common decency to pipe up.

[Tom_Wescott]

You mean to say that someone really did offer that photo to Cook as an original, not informing him of Philip's copyright? If that's the case, then my apologies to Andrew Cook, because it is he who has been duped as a certain Mr. Harris might have said!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

Is it just me, or is anyone else now thinking that his evidence regarding Best needs to be appraised by someone else before we start taking its validity for granted?

The book includes a photograph of part of the crucial letter, including the statement about Best having attempted to mislead Central News. However, I can't work out where the letter is meant to be - whether in the Star archives or in the possession of Brunner's family or Massingham's. (I also can't work out where the Star archives themselves are meant to be.)

Also, it's not clear what some of the other statements about Best's involvement in the Star's coverage are based on. For example, that he and O'Brian/Brien were despatched to the East End and came back with the "Leather Apron" story. I can't tell whether that comes from contemporary documentation, or family recollections, or what.

Obviously Andrew Cook has a lot more information about Best than he has included in the book. For example, the handwriting sample relates to his work for a French news agency in the late 1890s (though again, I found it impossible to work out where this document is supposed to have come from). It was in the hope that some more of this kind of information could be brought into the public domain that I suggested Jonathan might be able to do a follow-up interview.

[Chris]

You mean to say that someone really did offer that photo to Cook as an original, not informing him of Philip's copyright?

Philip said that claim had been "proven to be utterly untrue". And also that Andrew Cook had been told "by others" that he would need permission.

I fear I can guess who A.P. may have in mind, and if so it would make even less sense than usual.

[Cap'n Jack]

Tom, I'm absolutely obsessed by issues of copyright in regard to images from the LVP, as my understanding is that copyright over such images can only be vouched for by immediate family members intimately connected to the images who have registered that interest in a body of law, so that family interest is bound over in law.
And even that is questionable.
My feeling is that Cook, and the person who supplied him with the image, are operating within fair useage of the copyright laws... that doesn't make it right, but hey wake up and discover the blasted planet we live on.
What I'm saying is that you could reproduce the entire works of Conan Doyle without fear of copyright prosecution just as long as his family had not registered their continuing copyright interest.
It is not in the remit of an author to take folks to task for images in books that never belonged to them in the first place.

[George Hutchinson]

You mean to say that someone really did offer that photo to Cook as an original, not informing him of Philip's copyright? If that's the case, then my apologies to Andrew Cook, because it is he who has been duped as a certain Mr. Harris might have said!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom, Adrian Paul Webb is on my ignore list so I have no idea - and, like many, nor do I care - what he's said. I can't go into details here but there is evidence in Cook's reproduction that proves it could ONLY have been scanned from our book.

The only person who pissed me off who went to jail was the cyberstalker Lowde, and she didn't go to jail because of me, though I was part of the prosecution case and am on her ASBO for the next three years (along with some other Casebookers, actually).

However - as usual (and with presumably the usual obvious opposition?), the Ripper community has rallied superbly on this issue. A problem here is that Cook's editor is someone I actually know. This might help, this might not. All will out in the fullness of time but there's aspects of this I cannot discuss on Casebook right now as it may prejudice the complaint, and I also don't want Mr Cook to be made aware of how I know he's lied in case he tries to find a way to cover it up. When Sarah (the editor) returns to work next week, we'll be able to see where things stand. Cook has told me he is now happy to pay for the image but this is absolutely not the point. There's stable doors and bolting horses everywhere and he's going to have to get me a new horse, not a new door. Anything I get from this will be split with J G Whitby's neice, Margaret. As I said in an e-mail to Caz tonight, the thing that has annoyed me most of all is his destruction of John's legacy and Margaret's heritage by not even crediting the source, not that I wouldn't've been fuming anyway.

PHILIP

[Chris]

Tom, I'm absolutely obsessed by issues of copyright in regard to images from the LVP, as my understanding is that copyright over such images can only be vouched for by immediate family members intimately connected to the images who have registered that interest in a body of law, so that family interest is bound over in law.
And even that is questionable.
My feeling is that Cook, and the person who supplied him with the image, are operating within fair useage of the copyright laws...

As Philip isn't reading your posts, I'll just point out that this isn't an image from the Late Victorian Period, but is much more recent.

[The Grave Maurice]

Quite right. AP seems to be confusing this with the shot of Dutfield's Yard that Philip unearthed. While the copyright holder of the Whitby photographs isn't stated in Rob and Philip's book quite as loudly as some lawyers would advise, since they were taken in 1961 it's obvious that the copyright rests with someone. That leaves us to wonder how a professional editor could allow a photo to be reproduced in a new book without the appropriate clearance.

[Archaic]

Question For Philip

Hi, Philip. *From your last post, I'm wondering if it would be better for your copyright case if the rest of us stop discussing any aspect of it on the public message boards for the time being?

If the best way for us to support you is to 'put a lid on it', I'm perfectly willing to do so, and I'm sure other members will concur.

Good luck! Archaic

[caz]

I think that's probably wise, Archaic. But seeing the latest posts here - and in view of Philip's email to me - I'm thinking it might be wise for all of us to hold our horses right here and now before making any more public accusations against any individual without the necessary cast iron documentary evidence.

To explain myself in a very non-specific way, I would just say that it is theoretically possible for anyone to scan any image from one person's book, and for it to end up in a second person's book. So unless there is clear proof of who has done the scanning, and clear proof that the second person knowingly used a scanned copy in their own book without the necessary permission, it would be most unwise to accuse a specific individual.

Now I'm off for the weekend, so play nicely everyone, but above all think before you post.

Love,

Caz
X

[George Hutchinson]

Thanks for the comments. I've sent Caz a message explaining things a little. There's no reason you shouldn't discuss any aspect of the book you want, including the copyright breach (and, GM, the photo in the book is marked 'Courtesy of Margaret Whitby-Green', is referred to as being taken in 1961, and there's a whopping great copyright notice at the start of the book so I don't know how much clearer we could have made it), but I have nothing further to contribute until I hear from Sarah at Amberley.

PHILIP

[Stewart P Evans]

Idiotic Insinuations

You know what, this is why I am sick and tired of Ripperology, Ripperworld and all that goes with it. Especially idiots who spout off concerning things they know nothing about.

I have had more of my images ripped off over the years than I care to remember, used in both books and on the Internet without permission or credit. For example, when Jim Tully's book The Secret of Prisoner 1167 came out in 1997 he used my 1967 photograph of Gunthorpe Street (showing George Yard Buildings) without permission and without credit. I contacted him about this and he profusely apologised and promised to credit the photograph in his paperback edition and send me a free copy. This he did and I was happy.

This current matter is a private affair between Philip Hutchinson and Andrew Cook and is no business of anyone posting here. If Philip chooses to discuss it with others that is his prerogative. However, the matter is technically sub judice and should not really be discussed publicly. Philip and I have had close contact and have discussed matters privately.

On a personal level I will merely add that Philip was kind enough to supply me originals of his photo's, ergo I would have no need to scan them from a book and would not do so. Any images I supply for use are from my own collection and if I ever supply any belonging to others I always do so with permission and explain to the user that credit would be need to be given to the owner if used. Rob Clack will confirm this.

It should be noted that in the photo credits of Andrew Cook's book this image, no. 17, is not credited to any source. I actually only supplied a few images to Andrew Cook for which I received no payment or reward other than, eventually, two copies of the book. Again this is the business of no one else here on the boards but in view of more idiotic insinuations I find it necessary to say so. It would be nice if people minded their own business and did not get involved with that which does not concern them.

[The Good Michael]

Stewart,

I don't think you need to defend yourself. The ones who make insinuations against you, are not believed by the majority of us. Perhaps a newbie reading an attack against you might take pause for a moment, as for the rest of us, we trust your integrity. That's a fact. Instead of getting riled up and exasperated, you might want to stop and remember that almost all of us are with you, whether we agree on all your analyses or not. You are respected and trusted.

Cheers,

Mike

[Rob Clack]

On a personal level I will merely add that Philip was kind enough to supply me originals of his photo's, ergo I would have no need to scan them from a book and would not do so. Any images I supply for use are from my own collection and if I ever supply any belonging to others I always do so with permission and explain to the user that credit would be need to be given to the owner if used. Rob Clack will confirm this.

I can indeed. Stewart kindly supplied about 11 Photographs for me and Philip to use in our book, and all were credited to either Stewart or the copyright holder who Stewart got permission from on our behalf and they were then credited accordingly.

Rob

[Jeff Leahy]

Just to add to what Mike says. And as sometimes I am viewed as a critic of Stewart’s Ripperology theorizing. I’d like to add that Stewart's reputation as an authority and as a ‘Gentleman’ are above reproach. And on a personal level I always much enjoy his input even if we do not always see eye to eye. I trust he is feeling better and will soon be back on fighting form.

Pirate