Canadian Copyright

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38355.html

I thought that we really ought to get back to the source of Canadian copyright legislation and so I searched and found it! Thanks to Clive for prompting me to get the definitive answer.

Basically, it seems that Crown Copyright is 50 years, so WW2 photos and post-war to Korea are out-of-coyright now.

Corporations and those photos/works that corporations paid for and therefore own the copyright, have a 50-year limit.

Where the photographer is not known it is 50 years for publications and 75 for say photos but where the photographer is known then it is Life + 50 or 75 as the case may be.

I read this, and am willing to be corrected, that if there is say a veteran taking a photo then copyright would still subsist. If it was a paid-for photo then as it would be expected that the photo copyright would belong to a corporation, 50 years applies. An official war photgraph would be out-of-copyright.

I am putting forward the suggestion that all GM of Canada, Chrysler, Ford, OF CANADA etc. official photos are out of copyright even if they were Crown Copyright originally.

[Keith Webb]

Does the same apply to official Australian photographs and footage?

Well, I had a look at the extremely complex Australian copyright law and basically it appears to be the same, ie 50 years from first publication or in the case of a private photograph 50 years after the death of that person.

Is it possible for the Government to renew copyright?

Here's the link to the page dealing with duration of copyright if anyone is interested.

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Keith, I have to assume that the rules apply generally, although in the UK there is no question of renewal except when the old 50 years' rule got extended to 75 except for maps strangely enough which I think remain at 50 years.

[servicepub (RIP)]

David, You stated;
"I am putting forward the suggestion that all GM of Canada, Chrysler, Ford, OF CANADA etc. official photos are out of copyright even if they were Crown Copyright originally."

The corporate photos, by definition, could never have been Crown copyright. Only government photos, Cdn Army, National Film Board, Cdn Broadcasting Corp., etc.. are considered Crown.

The corporate photos THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED can be considered copy-right free and you can 'pull' these from books and magazines and re-use. Courtesy demands a credit to the original photographer/copyright holder. However, the Canadian coyright act allows the holder of an image some say in how that image is used. In other words, if Ford has 500 original photos of WWII trucks that have never been published, they can still claim control over the reproduction of those photos in much the same way that a museum can control the commercial reproduction of artwork. An example is the IWM fee for reproduction in a publication of 'their' photos, many of which are out of copyright protection.

PM follows later today.

Clive

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

What I like about this site is the quality of the discussion and the advice. Clive, you must be right whatever the Act says simply because the de facto owner/holder of photographs or negatives can say that they simply will not release them unless conditions are met. You mention Ford, well that's a good example because Ford's British photo library is massive and has some real treasures. I am told that it may close, and I want to get in their quickly before it does as I understand that they have photos of WW2 vehicles in their arvchive. The ladies that run it are marvellous and really helpful. However aside from any courtesy that Clive has reminded us about, it would always be prudent to ask if any can be reproduced and on what terms. I for one would not like to cause offence and clarify in writing if necessary that it would be possible to use the photos that I wanted in such-and-such a book or magazine. Clive, you mention Corporation-owned photos not being Crown Copyright. This is correct inasmuch [and you are the expert here] as they were not produced for say the Department of National Defence who paid for them and thus were the copyright owners. We know that some Ford and GM of Canada official photos ended up in the National Archives as formerly DND photos. I know that the Archives will say that their records do not show who owns the copyright but when I made the comment in my previous posting I was thinking about the Act and the definition of 'owner' in relation to DND-sponsored photos. I myself have a collection that includes WW2 shots taken locally of the Canadian Mechanization Depot but they were made for the DND with copies to interested parties, and I believe them to be Crown Copyright originally as official photographs. I know GM Media Archives say that the Corporation does not have any rights over them and never did. Clive, you must be right to imply that some photos say were never Crown Copyright as they were sponsored/owned by the Corporations and never released publicly. Then even though the 50-year rule applies, contractual conditions could be placed on them. .ADDED: I have just reminded myself that some stills of vehicle assembly in the CMD, Southampton were taken from a film made in October 1940 by the Film Board or equivalent at the time and thus were definitely Crown Copyright which has now expired.

Could I therefore suggest that this is more correct:

'I am putting forward the suggestion that subject to conditions placed on them by the owners for their release, all GM of Canada, Chrysler, Ford, OF CANADA etc. official photos are out of copyright even if they were Crown Copyright originally [because they were produced and paid for the DND] '

I would feel more at ease about reproducing GM of Canada photos because Oshawa published a lot of photos in their war album and period magazines, plus distributed photos for recognition purposes worldwide so they are arguably condition-free. I have no idea still if Vintaage Historical Services in Oshawa have any wartime photos...they professed that they have nothing on production figures etc.

As to acknowledgements, as Clive rightly says, this is courteous. However certain archives with photos often it seems waive any rights that they may not legally have provided a polite request is made. However they do request an acknowledgement plus often a negative number where relevant. I cleared my use of Imperial War Museum photos recently, and no charge was levied for the right to reproduce. As you know British copyright is now 75 years so the IWM do have copyright in WW2 photos but not maps.

Can I finish here by adding that I have been in touch with the National Archives of Canada several times and they said in a letter 2 January 2004 'The copyright on these particular items has expired and they can be used for your upcoming project' provided that the compulsory line was added as mentioned above.

May I thank you once again Clive for your comments ["Clive" because we are not pissed off with him!]

[servicepub (RIP)]

Moving away (slightly) from the copyright question. I have noted that some GM photos are numbered in identical series and fashion to Ford photos. This implies that the photos were taken buy a third agency - possibly DND. Do you have any knowledge of this?
I could guess that the Army would want a photographic record of vehicles, components, assembly, fixtures, facilities, etc... but then we find all sorts of "PR" photos. These PR photos include parking lots full of CMPs, panoramic shots, etc... and it would be unlikely that DND would care about these so the implication is that the photos were taken by the companies.
This only becomes important when issues of "Intellectual Property" arise. If the photos were taken by and for DND then the copyright has expired. If they were taken by and for the companies, copyright has still expired but they may "control" the use of their photos.
Dave, I am chasing down the corporate permission for the photos we discussed and should have an answer in a few days.
Clive (not Mr. Law unless you are really pissed at me ;o) )

[David_Hayward (RIP)]

I can speak from a GM aspect only with any degree of confidence. I know that GM of Canada employed local photographers to take shots of odd scenes such as parades of military vehicles of all types in Oshawa, and then published the same in CANADIAN WAR WORKER their wartime magazine that went around the world and their war album. On top of that they published many official shots of vehicles that on the face of it were used for all sorts of purposes including books, identification sets, and their publications just mentioned.

The answer may be that official photographs of trucks, boards of spare parts & tools, chassis components, etc. were for the DND and 'shareware'. On the basis that they have probably been published somewhere at one time or another, and were in sets that have gone around the world, there is no copyright problem.

As regards photos that have been published that clearly were not official shots then if they have been published, as many have, then again no problem.

Finally we have those photos taken for company purposes and have never seen the light of day before. If there are any then 'conditions' may apply. GM Media Archives will readily agree publication of such photos IF they know that GM actually owned the copyright. If there is no evidence as to who took the photos they do not want to know and take the attitude that they cannot be involved. In that event a prudent author would say [as I have seen and done as a magazine editor] that the copyright owner was not known and anyone claiming the rights should contact the publishers.

In the case of Fords, we know of course that they also provided official i.d. shots with model numbers and descriptions which GM of Canada did not seem to have done. These were published in identification packs, parts books and the like, and also the Ford wartime magazine [whose name escaped me for the moment..I have seen copies]. I would have to suggest that the same points above apply. However Ford are much more 'hands-on' about their photo archive it seems than GM and anything that is clearly not an official photo that the DND would have procured should be carefully considered.

I wonder if we wil ever turn up a complete set of GM of Canada photos? We know more or less their reference numbers but rather like Dr Who back episodes, various photos are missing 'presumed wiped/lost'.