This always gets me I am looking at historic images of trains and see some bull crap about this image is "owned by" or "from the collection of" "and may not be used without written consent" Case and point https://californiarevealed.org/do/f625b ... fae#page/1 The thing is if the image is from before 1925 then it is public domain and I am free to slap it on shirts and coffee mugs and sell it to my hearts content. /rant

Interesting legal question. Maybe some of our legal experts will weigh in.

There is no question that the copyright has expired and therefore the copyright holder or assignee no longer has any remedy if their work is being used.

But it could be argued that, when a library, archive, historical society, museum, or other such organization, is making a copy of something which they physically possess in their collection, and providing that copy to you, there is an implied license or contract in which they set the terms of how you can utilize said copy. Back in the days when you had to request photographic copies (not digital), it was very common for there to be an agreement that you were using this copy for individual, non-commercial purposes, or that you must give proper attribution, etc, etc. These copy prints were frequently stamped on the back with such language.

Then there is a further counterargument, that if this digital copy of the original work is being publicly exhibited, and you make a copy of that, the organization has no further right to restrict your use of that copy, since it was obtained in a public setting.

Congratulations.

You've just made the rational case for every online archive to remove, or not post, any imagery pre-1925. I am aware of archives that won't post such work in their collections, on a website or social media, because of people like you.

The fact remains that collections can retain overall copyright and rights restrictions. You and everyone else have access to that photograph online ONLY because of the curation work of both the CSRM and the prior owners of the collection from which it came.

You are free to download that picture, colorize it, and throw it in a frame and hang it on YOUR wall. But when you attempt to commercially sell that picture or reproduce it for mass sale to others (such as in a book or on a poster or art print), you are effectively claiming to be selling "intellectual property," property that is not yours. The CSRM (or whatever archive) asserts control over the collection and its items, and therefore your commercial reproduction. (The one notable exception to this is the Library of Congress and their collections of photos, prints, etc.)

Without in part the income, however meager, from selling rights to such works (plus billing for the costs associated with photo research, archival storage, scanning, etc.), there is no motivation for a museum or library to even keep such collections. These are the photos that grace the documentaries on PBS, network TV, etc. and fill books from bargain-table "remainders" to the best history books out there.

It is true that the vast majority of such "piracy"--a few trinkets on Etsy, a couple crafts at the flea market--are too trivial to take action against. But you only need one bestseller album cover, one bestseller book cover, or a successful poster in WalMart or Michaels, and then serious money can be involved.

You don't like their terms? Go find your own century-old photos, then.

To put it simple terms, if the image is simply a scan, there is no copyright per se. However, someone collected it, cataloged it, scanned it and made it available for you to purchase a copy. It's only fair that you pay for that and adhere to any restrictions attached. Otherwise, you'd be branded with a derogatory term of our choice.

However, if the scanned image has been worked on or modified, it may be considered a derivative work, thus subject to copyright.

Tread lightly.

Nope Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. I had this conversation with a university archive that tried to claim I needed permission to use sound recordings they archived from old Edison cylinders. They pretty much confirmed that I was right and that anything before the day I mentioned with public domain.

Okay. So, reread the first paragraph of my first post. Pay particularly close attention to the last sentence of that first paragraph.

As a musician, a graphic artist and webmaster that at times works with old images, I know copyright law. You are correct if the digital copy is a direct copy. However, not compensating the organization that took the time and absorbed the costs to digitize the recording and your using, or worse yet, posting the recording for others to copy without compensation to those that did the work is total bullshit. If you want to do the right thing, either find your own Edison cylinder and digitize it or compensate and agree to the terms offered by the archivist.

I didn't have a reason to dislike you before, but I may now.

One more thing.... If you copy anything from the web, do know that those entire websites are copyrighted, contents included as derivative works, and you're fair game if caught. Your only out would be a fair use claim and that won't stand unless it meets certain conditions.

I have defended and will continue to defend my copyrights. So be very careful as others do too.

Again wrong, the only part of the website that is copyrightable is the original content, or for work that is derivative enough to make it original. Say someone bought an old photo album at a train show. These photos have never been seen or digitalized before and let's say one of the photos was of operations of the Conway Electric Street Railway. Considering the line closed in 1921 any photo would be out of copyright. If they scanned and uploaded those photos to their personal website and somebody were to download them and start slapping it on merchandise or using it on their own website they would be free to do so. Now if somebody were to create a copy of that web page straight from its HTML code with styling descriptive text and other copyrightable content then yes they would be in the wrong.

I do put my money where my mouth is and donate to a lot of these archives. Vacation point I am also working on archiving a bunch of railroad trolley and Subway related music from 1925 and before. I'm not just saving it but I'm meticulously digitally restoring the audio and have spent money on tools to do this, I'm even digging up metadata to put into the MP3 files. I plan to dump all these files onto the internet archives knowing well that even though I put time effort and money into restoring these songs I have no claim to them and anybody may use them freely how they wish. Another way an organization can get money for images that are not protected by copyright is to upload a low res image and then offer to send a higher res image for a few. Just remember that the public domain is literally a constitutional right.

The Copyright Act of 1790 (since superseded by other Acts) is not the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

In defense of CSRM, they scanned an SP 1941 ETT for me to caption some photos for use in our NRHS chapter publication. I see nothing wrong with them charging a use fee especially for a for-profit organization.

Article 1 grants power to Congress to make laws. That doesn't bolster your argument.

If public domain images are part of a collection, the collection may be copyrighted even though the individual images within are not.

I'm not a lawyer and have not searched for precedent, but you could very well open a can of worms by taking an image from a collection and using it for promotional or profit purposes.

To avoid getting any personal body parts caught in the wringer, I seek written permission to use an image, music, whatever, whether copyrighted or not. That keeps the commotion down.

Copyright law is one of those things that far too many people think they know...
But dont.
People think they can randomly copyright photos others own (such as the idiot group which copyrighted a photo Id emailed them) as well as the masses who ridiculously misinterpret fair use...

I've got a five gallon bucket to hold my popcorn while watching the current flurry of heated discussions and lawsuits over copyright infringement mostly initiated within the music industry but now spreading into the other arts. The largest portion is currently against the AI companies who laughably claim fair use over your stuff for training their AI.

As to how this pertains to rail preservation, if you're a photographer or content writer and your work is published online, your work has been used without permission and compensation. Just so's ya knows.....