Need guidance on posting photographs

[Jim Courtney]

Over the years I have collected just about every book on the C&SnG and its predecessors.  In many of the fantastic discussion threads on this site, I will remember a published photograph in one of my books, say The Pictorial Supplement . . .,  and am tempted to post a scanned copy of the photo to make a point in discussion or ask a question.  But I am somewhat leery of doing that.

Is it appropriate to scan and post photos from copyrighted books here?  I realize that many of you either own the negatives or your own copies of the photographs that have been published.  Most all of the fabulous photos that Chris posts are from the Denver Public Library, and therefore in the public domain.

You guidance would be appreciated.

[Mike Trent]

Jim, there have been some issues in recent years regarding copyright issues.

I am a moderator on the NGDF, and there, Don Richter has chosen to ask people not to post photos without permission or even quotations from other sources, simply to avoid any problems.

Here, it would be Darel Leedy's decision.

As nothing here could be described as being a "for profit" (God forbid these days) enterprise, he may not have any reservations.

So, best wait for his comment.

In the meantime, ther certainly could be no issues of describing a photo or a source of information in terms of where it could be found, such as the Volume VIII Pictorial has a wonderful and very rare picture on page #78 of #60 as the Leadville Switcher. (Yes it does) Box headlight, big ugly backup light, footboards.

Check that out while we wait. Very cool.

                       

[Jim Courtney]

Thanks, I do remember the photo of #60.

Your response just confirms my concerns.

[Chris Walker]

I like to link to the actual photograph at the DPL just so I can show due credit.  If I do a quiz I credit the homepage of the DPL and then supply the link later.  I won't flog anything out of a book, usually I can illustrate the same with something from the DPL anyway in most cases.
Unfortunatly the Nabble format precludes image tags so I have to snip save and insert images to go with the attribution url.
This should save a lot of hassels.

P.s.  Would Weston please take care in noting his found image codes as the inclusion of an extra digit, space or dot etc can throw off the search somewhat frustratingly.  I make the effort to check my links before posting.

[Robert McFarland]

I believe there's one in CRA#12,too.

[Robert McFarland]

Check p92 of CRA#12.

[Mike Trent]

Chris, that is exactly what the DPL has asked in the past if photos from their collection are reproduced.

There is no problem at all with what you are doing. I have gotten that direct from them and so has the NGDF.

[Darel Leedy]

At the top of the forum: "The authors of each post are solely responsible for the content of their post."
You guys can post whatever you want. I'm not going to moderate people's posts. There are some notable members here who do have extensive photograph collections and who do own the rights.
This forum is for friends to exchange information and have a lively conversation. Its not for profit (in fact it costs me money to keep your screen from filling up with ads). The quality of the images would not be suitable for print. If someone who owns the rights wants something taken down, we will take down.
If someone thinks something malicious is happening, then it's their choice to pursue it. I'm having fun with the blog and forum and will just keep doing what I'm doing till some agency says to do otherwise.
 
I do hope that this thread doesn't turn into another diatribe about copyright laws like it already has on every other group and forum.

[Jim Courtney]

Thanks, Darel, for your clarification of this issue.  

[Chris Walker]

I have the same quandary too, there's a picture in the CRRA showing a siding that Harry Brunk missed, taken in the last days of the C&S too and would be good to show in a thread on the Mills of I.S. that I'm working up.  Ahhh, sigh I guess I could just draw the picture like Harry did but, I can't draw.  

I suppose after I die the Maxwell, Kindig and Jackson photos will all come on line.

[Darel Leedy]

Someone can correct me, but I don't believe any model railroad group/forum has ever been shutdown or sued due to someone posting a picture of a picture in a book when used as part of a conversation.
There are a few published authors of books in this forum who could provide their thoughts.

[Chris Walker]

Darel, "Do not tempt Fate", my dear departed Mother would have said to me.

[Darel Leedy]

Roper says he'll protect me. Lol

[Derrell Poole]

FWIW - as far as I'm concerned I'm living proof copyrights and ownership of intellectual property laws are ca-ca! The DSP&PHS refused to correct a credit line to indicate Mal Ferrell's article in the Oct. 2012 issue of "the bogies and the loop" was almost a direct copy of my work in the Outdoor Railroader issue on the Tiffany Reefers. (That good ol' boy crony "society" can KMA until the likes of both male and female windolf and their pet schoppe cease to have any control over the society).  Furthermore. Ferrell published, without my permission, the drawings on page 361 of "The South Park Line". (Apparently he felt that since he could not get ahold of me he had every right to use my work without permission - even tho I told him pointy blank when I gave him the drawing in the early 1990s that he MUST obtain my permission if he ever wanted to publish it!!!). While I appreciate that he gave me credit I was not given the courtesy to grant that permission. I was not given the opportunity to review the drawing for any corrections or updates. And I have never been compensated or given the opportunity to waive compensation - out of friendship.

I am the creator of that drawing and I am also the author of the words and thoughts that went into my articlers. When I assume room temperature I will pass those rights to my children. Thereafter should they choose to dispose of those rights someone else will have opportunity under the law to copyright them - here is where I disagree with the law espe4cvially about historical information; once the originator disposes of the rights they should pass to the American people as part of their heritage - in other words I hold no ownership over the intellectual information from any photo I have - even when I own the negatives - if I did not create the image.  

So. As far as I'm concerned I've come to understand that protection of information and photos in this little corner of history is MEANINGLESS!