Photo Arthur Percival Foley Rhys Davids

[rammjaeger]

Hello,

the quality of my photograph of Arthur Rhys Davids in the printing file for a soon to publish book is not satisfying me.

I would be very grateful if anybody has a publication worthy photograph for me.

Please, send me a PM or an e-mail to rammjaeger@gmx.de

Very best regards

Hannes

[alex_revell]

Have you had persmission to reproduce this photo.

[rammjaeger]

You can be sure that I am checking the descent and copyrights of my pictures. And by the way I do not need your or other persons permission to reproduce old contemporary - today copyright-free - German papers and books.

[tcrean7828]

Mate,
What is the name of your book and when will it be out?

ttfn

tcrean7828

tom

[Ginger.]

Originally Posted by rammjaeger

You can be sure that I am checking the descent and copyrights of my pictures. And by the way I do not need your or other persons permission to reproduce old contemporary - today copyright-free - German papers and books.

Well done Rammers... you've just pissed off the bloke that's probably best placed to have helped you!

['14-'18aviationcollector]

Originally Posted by alex_revell

Have you had persmission to reproduce this photo.

Hi Alex,

That is a very interesting point that you bring up, and one that I have thought about. I have at least one photograph of Rhys Davids, but probably more like three or four. How many have you been able to find? Are you able to say? I saw a copy of High in the Empty Blue when I was last at Langdon Badger's house, and remember thinking that at least 50 % of the photos overlap with those in my collection (compiled by Gerald Muir), but that there are some photos in the book which ar not in the albums, and vice versa.

I actually e-mailed Hannes to offer to supply photographs for his book, as I do for any author or potential author, since I would like to see the photographs published. I thought this had been discussed before. Isn't it the case that after 50 years photographs become public domain, or am I mistaken? I bought the photograph collection from Gerald Muir directly, and have always asumed that I am free to publish any of these photographs. Am I correct or am I mistaken?

Thank you and regards,

David.

[rammjaeger]

Well done Rammers... you've just pissed off the bloke that's probably best placed to have helped you!

His post was not made with the intention to help me - you know that very well.

[rammjaeger]

By the way many different people can own the same photograph with the same same topic/motive/person. This does not make one of them to the general holder of the copyright for all existing copies of this specific picture. Important historic pictures were often made and distributed in big numbers. However, this matter is different if one person is owning the only negative.

[alex_revell]

David,
Ever since the late fifties and early sixties researchers have freely shared photographs which they have come across - usually in the photo abums of people they have traced - with other researchers. This led to a blurring of the question of who owned the photographs. However, this didn't matter one bit, because everybody shared photos and gladly gave them for publication on request - as they still do today. For instance: you mention the collection of Gerald Muir. Years ago, Gerald sent me many photos from his collection, not asked for - indeed I didn't even know him at the time - but because he thought they might be of interest to me. I don't remember now, but I may well have returned the favour in sending him photos of 56 sqdn people/aeroplanes which I thought would interest him. That's how things worked in those days. I haven't a large photo collection and in my recent book for Schiffer on fighter sqdns, people responded brilliantly to my requests for photos, as people, including myself, always do.
However, of late things have changed. Several collections, which have been acquired in the way I have just described, have been sold, for money, to museums and other institutions. This has meant that individuals are being charged for photographs which the original donators to the collections would have gladly provided free. To give an example. In a recent book many of the photos were obtained from the Fleet Air Arm Museum. This collection of the FAAM was obtained by its purchase of the Stuart Leslie/Jack Bruce collection. This collection was built up over the years in the way described above. Knowing this, both Stuart and Jack would always respond to anyone asking to use any of the photos in the collection, because that was the way it had been built up and that was the way everybody mutually helped in the spread of knowledge. One of the photos - credited to the FAAM in the book - came from me. One of the many which I had sent to Stuart and Jack over the years. I'm extremely annoyed that the author should have been charged by the FAAM for its use because I would willingly have given it free, as I had to Stuart and Jack in the first place.
As you can see from the above, because of the way photos were shared over the years, the question of ownership is very hard to establish. In fact, because of the way photos were freely shared, the question never arose, or was even thought of. I, and I suspect many other researchers, would be hard put to it to remember just where a large number of our photos actually came from in the first place, we've had them for so long. It just doesn't matter to us that much. I have seen many photos which I found myself, and had copied from their original source, attributed to others by the author of books, usually, conveniently, to someone now dead
The question of the Rhys Davids photos is a little different. I traced Vivien - RD's sister - when researching HITEB. She loaned me many family photos to copy - some of which found their way into Brief Glory - and she gave me the originals of the photos I wanted of RD during his days in 56 Sqdn. In that respect, I feel that I own the copyright of them. However, that is not to say that I would not gladly make available copies from the originals, always better than prints of many generations, to anyone who, as a matter of courtesy, first asked. It would not occur to me for one moment to refuse or to ask for any payment.
Rammjaeger,
You are quite wrong in saying that because I asked the question, that I had no intention of helping you with the photo of RD. Please do not attribute to me aspects of your own character and way of behaving. I would be quite agreeable to mail you a scan of any photograph. However, I would first like to know in what context you would use it in your book. Someone - I can't remember who, and I'm not suggesting for one moment it was you - recently used this site to denigrate the character of RD by calling him a 'murderer' over his part in the shooting down of Voss. I would certainly not give help to anyone who wanted to use the photo in that context. If you would let me know the context in which you would use the photo and tell me which one you want, I will send it to you. To end. You mention, in your usual aggressive manner, that you do not need permission from anyone to use old German books and papers. Nobody has suggested for one moment that you do. Perhaps understandedly, because English is not your first language, you do not realise how aggressive and indeed arrogant, such remarks sound to English speaking people.
Alex

[rainbase]

This subject interests me.

Apparently, the laws were changed regarding this not too many years ago. Fifty years used to be the copyright life of old photographs. If the original owner didn't renew the copyright, it became part of the public domain.

Now it's different. Corporations are allowed to buy copyrights and warehouse them. Albris and Microsoft both do this. To me, there is something Orwellian and slightly sinister about this. (What if you never saw the famous picture of the guy stopping the tank in Tiannamin Square again - did it really happen?)

Truthfully, the concept that a photograph of say, the lifeless crushed body of one of our WWI heroes would be "owned" by some 21st Century Corporation is a little repugnant to me. It just seems to cheapen the sacrifice those brave guys made.

When Niama Films was going to release my own documentary in conjunction with "Der Rot Baron" (originally to be distributed through Warner Bros.), it was met with a barrage of potential copyright lawsuits. Not over any specific pictures, but a general blanket threat.

Ooops.

There's a fellow who let me know here in the forum that he owned pictures in my film and demanded that I couldn't use them. I politely responded that if he let me know which images he thought he "Owned", I would gladly remove them from my documentary. Of course there was no response to my question.

So does just saying you own an old photo make it so? I often wonder how that works. Who knows how many "originals" were printed from any given negative? Will each one that turns up in a hidden trunk in an attic count as original? I don't know; it all seems rather "sketchy" to me.

Just my opinion.