Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 2620LNWR track drawings.
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 31 Jan 2015 13:46

from:

Trevor Walling
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello,
        I was doing a tidy up on one of my pc's and I came across this. I had forgotten all about it and I don't know where I got it. It was probably somewhere online quite a while ago.
2110_310840_390000000.jpg2110_310840_390000000.jpg



Attachment: attach_2054_2620_LNWR_track_drawings.jpeg     571

posted: 1 Feb 2015 00:34

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Trevor,

I am sorry to point out, that those drawings are the copyright of the L&NWR Society. :(

Two track books have been published which contain the drawings, which also includes the one you have posted.

The books are one for the 1909 PW standards, and the other is for the 1916 PW standards.

All the best,

Brian

posted: 1 Feb 2015 18:15

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Brian

If these are the original LNWR PW drawings from 1009 and 1916, surely the copyright would have elapsed by now?

I don't claim to be a copyright expert, but that's my understanding.

Cheers
Nigel

posted: 1 Feb 2015 19:16

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Nigel,

I beg to differ, its not easy to explain, but for example, if you were to go to the NRM to order a drawing or document, you are required to complete a 'request for copy of drawing/document' which has on it the NRM copyright statements,

 "you may only use the item for personal use, and cannot distribute it or use it for commercial purposes, if you require to do either of these two later clauses, you need to get written permission to do so".

Now this also applies to other places such as the Ordinance Survey , Old Maps etc and many others.

Now each of the NRM, the OS and Old Maps etc, all use very old drawings, maps or documents which may ,under normal circumstances, be considered 'out of copyright', but it appears that such places or companies, now officially have sole ownership of such documents and can claim copyright over them.

All the best,

Brian

posted: 1 Feb 2015 19:27

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
Now each of the NRM, the OS and Old Maps etc, all use very old drawings, maps or documents which may ,under normal circumstances, be considered 'out of copyright', but it appears that such places or companies, now officially have sole ownership of such documents and can claim copyright over them.
Hi Brian,

They claim copyright on their own scans and copies. OS maps over 50 years old are out of copyright and can be scanned and copied by anyone who has possession of them. What you can't do without permission is to copy someone else's scanned image of them.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 1 Feb 2015 19:48

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Thank you for that info, you have hit the nail on the head.

As you say, the image has been scanned by the L&NWR Society, and someone bought a personal copy at some time previous.

It's just that I am making sure there will be no problem regarding the attached image.

I was speaking to the L&NWR society archivist at the later part of last year (2014) and he was saying, that in the past some people had been freely distributing copies of scanned images of drawings that they had bought, and they (the L&NWRS) were considering changing things to try and eliminate this practice.

All the best,

Brian

posted: 1 Feb 2015 20:13

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
It's just that I am making sure there will be no problem regarding the attached image.
Hi Brian,

If Trevor's image was scanned from the LNWR Society's new book I will remove it, unless Trevor posts it as part of a review of the book, in which case it may fall under the fair dealing provisions if it is only a tiny part of the book as a whole.

If it was scanned from an original drawing, I won't do that until the copyright owner requests it and proves it is still in copyright. I'm not really expecting to hear from the London & North Western Railway, or its successors. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 1 Feb 2015 21:01

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

As I stated in my previous message, my posting was just to ensure no problem arises.

Now to clarify the image, that image (the one posted by Trevor) was scanned some time within the last 5 or 6 years, however, the images produced, were of very low resolution, also of one bit depth which made may details in most of the images totally  'unreadable'.

So in 2013 all the PW track drawings were first cleaned and scanned again, this time using very high resolution and 8 or 16 bit grey scale depth, making the images much better quality, so much so, that it meant they could be used in the production of two books that were produced in 2013 though not actually published until early 2014.

The books, are printed at A3 landscape size, which it was found was the smallest size that would guarantee all information and detail within the drawings was fully readable, since the original drawings were the equivalent of just over A1 size (or the nearest imperial size thereof).

The quality of the resulting books is indeed excellent.

Like you I doubt that the L&NWRS would bother, as many members also use Templot, but bearing in mind what the archivist said, I thought it best to point out the aspect of copyright.

All the best,

Brian

posted: 1 Feb 2015 21:03

from:

Trevor Walling
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello,
I will leave that at your discretion Martin.It may have been here http://www.gracesguide.co.uk
Thank you.
Last edited on 2 Feb 2015 01:12 by Trevor Walling
posted: 2 Feb 2015 13:39

from:

Matt M.
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Just a quick note.

A scan does not make a new copyright.
Copyright can only be granted on creation of new material.
Reproduction in any form and with any method does not met that criteria.

Ownership of an original does not confer copyright if the original
copyright has lapsed, (usually life plus whatever that country of
origin has add for after death extension).
It only confers ownership and the relevant property law of the
owner's country.

In regard to companies with original ownership of copyright it can
be a little more complicated, but the basic principles are the same.
As the LNWR does not exist anymore I doubt there would be any
problem regarding copyright.

In reality the stuff that museums put about none reproduction of
items that are clearly out of copyright are stretching the law past its
breaking point. So far no one has been able to claim copyright
violation regarding images of none protected material that have
been used, even for commercial gain.
They can, of course, refuse to grant you access. Though that sort of
undermines the purpose of museums.

However there is a case to be argued that these museums are protecting
and keeping these items for our future reference do need some income
from said items to fund their endeavours. (I do not include Google and
other digital monsters in this).

Likewise groups like the LNWR Society deserve some recompense for the
effort of making these items more easily available to those who cannot
access this sort of information any other way.

It becomes more of a moral question than a legal one.
It is a complicated issue that needs addressing in a way that doesn't
only empower multinationals to choke supply for profit.

I have been involved in a project find and catalogue surviving drawings
of the New South Wales Government Railway. As part of that we are
making lower grade copies of original NSWGR drawings available to
researchers, modellers and historians through the Australian Railway
History Society (NSW division).
In monetary terms I won't see my time or expenses back for the
last three years. But a growing number of us involved want to move
the research on and stop people having to crawl through disparate
collections, (if they know of these collections existence), basically
re-inventing the wheel before they can get anything done.

Getting the balance between access to public information and
income for preservation of that information is one that
sovereign governments will have to address more clearly
in the digital age.

As they haven't got the current copyright laws right in the protection
of an artists income versus the power of multinational companies
I'm not holding my breath.

Regards, Matt M.

posted: 2 Feb 2015 14:10

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Matt M. wrote:
A scan does not make a new copyright.
Hi Matt,

Are you sure about that?

An optical scanner is essentially a camera.

It is an established principle that a photographer owns the copyright on the images he creates. If I photograph a drawing using my digital camera I clearly own the copyright on the image. How is using a scanner different, or alternatively where is the line drawn between the two? I could mount my camera on a travelling tripod and effectively create an identical result.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 2 Feb 2015 22:15

from:

Matt M.
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Yes I'm sure.

In the same way that putting a copyrighted item in a new
medium does not protect you from copyright breaches, the act
of copying does not met the criteria for new, creative work.

Copyright can be a complex issue due to the various
levels and types of copy protection that exist for the life
of the right. When you copy recorded music you tread upon
a number of rights, all of which are enforceable by law.

Those rights include mechanical, performance, recording and
distribution rights which are all tied together.

If that is a piece of music by J.S. Bach then you are unlikely to be
pursued by him or his family for breach of mechanical rights.
But the performers, (through various agencies), and the record
company will pursue you for the rest.
In this case it is the performance and its collection of rights that is
protected.

This is why Gilbert and Sullivan are so popular with amateur musical
societies. Out of copy protection 1961, though the parliament did
consider extending it as they were considered a "National Treasure".

(By the way, putting a disclaimer on your YouTube site does not
protect you from prosecution from rights holders. Also note that
copyright for America is life plus 80 years. This has been caused by
extensions granted by Congress protecting large companies like Disney.
This is not what copyright was meant for).

(You may remember the push to have the subject of a photo to have
monetary rights granted as well).

Images work the same way. But once dead the copyright cannot
be renewed by transferring to a new medium.

With the NSWGR drawings that I'm hunting down I've had reason to
reproduce some very large plans of surveys from 1908 for personal use.
These are 6 x 2 metres. Till recently the process of reproducing these
items digitally has been prohibitive. Plus there was no way to
handle and utilise a 100% 600ppi copy.

Now I can handle these on my laptop with no problems.
The only issue on hard copies is finding a printer large enough.
But it wasn't free. Even with a discount on the camera reproduced
copying done within the NSW Government's own departments it
was several hundred dollars before I even had to pay for digitally stitching
the item together. There was a try by the "Lands Department", who
have the equipment to do these things, to claim copy control but I told them
politely were to go. I also pointed out that I was covering the costs
for something the Government should be doing anyway.

The issue for me was trying to protect my investment of nearly $1000
from being on sold for $25 as a digital file by State Records.
I have no copy protection despite having payed for all of this to be done.
State Records has no copy control as the items are not in copyright.
The NSW government as owner of the drawings due to them being from
a State Agency in origin can't really enforce copyright as they are too old and
of public ownership anyway.

Thankfully State Records sees the whole process as being of use and
have agreed that these files will cost considerably more to purchase.
Preferably as a hard copy.

I have no interest in stopping people from accessing historical records,
but I don't see that I should subsidise others on way larger incomes or
the Government for that matter.
But I have no copy protection even though the medium has changed.

The subject of copyright and patent laws are extremely complex at times,
thus giving lawyers an excellent income.
As a rule of thumb, if in doubt don't do anything to breach.

But as a general guide once it is public domain, it is public domain.
Regardless of the medium you find it in.

Regards, Matt M.

posted: 2 Feb 2015 23:09

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Here's an outline of the current state of copyright in the UK:
Link

Technical drawings etc come under the Artistic heading.

This phrase may be relevant: Just like any other asset, copyright may be transferred or sold by the copyright owner to another party.

It might be possible for the NRM to claim that drawings passed through various railway companies, legitimately, until they arrived at the NRM, so that they are still the owner and copyright owner. However, seems dodgy to me, particularly if the copyright wasn't explicitly passed on. The duration of copyright is also a bit murky but I suspect 70 years from date of creation would apply. Certainly the NRM wouldn't be able to create a new copyright simply by creating a copy of something.

Nigel
Last edited on 2 Feb 2015 23:14 by Nigel Brown
posted: 3 Feb 2015 00:13

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I'm not convinced that the NRM, Old Maps, etc., are claiming copyright on the contents.

What they are claiming ownership of is their actual scan -- the digital file and the data patterns within it. It will be different from someone else's scan of the same original. At a simplistic level, if there was say a smudge on their glass plate it would appear on their scans and not on anyone else's scans of the content.

This seems reasonable to me as considerable skill and expense may have gone into the making of the scan and provision of the scanning equipment. When you buy their digital file from them, it is the file that you are paying for, not the scanned content.

If they simply pinned the original on a wall and took a photo of it, no-one would say that the photo isn't their copyright -- especially if it includes the drawing pins and a bit of wall. A scan is just a different way of doing the same thing, the principle is the same.

Martin.

posted: 3 Feb 2015 01:10

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Just had a quick look at the last scans I received from the NRM. These are copies from microfilm (the latter being the OPC/BR product, I think). There is also a form for requesting more scans, headed "Request for copies of drawings from microfilm"; can't remember but I must have filled in one of these to get the scans.

The copies themselves have no copyright notice on them (I think the old OPC/BR ones used to have a stamp). The request form has a copyright declaration thing to sign, by which one agrees to only use the copies for private study and research for non-commercial purposes, also not to make further copies (including electronic). Strikes me that this is simply a catch-all thing to protect NRM from abuse of their copyright where that copyright exists. As they refer to copies throughout I think you're right; it's the copies which they produce which they are protecting.

Nigel

posted: 3 Feb 2015 01:40

from:

Matt M.
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

The American Federal Court ruling in 1999 on
Bridgeman Art LibraryLtd v Corel Corp, regarding Corel's
use of digital images made by Bridgeman, (a British company),
copied onto one of Corel's commercially sold CDs, was no.

The original copyright had expired and were in the public domain.
The only claim that Bridgeman had was in the digital reproductions.
The court's ruling was that hard work, cost or technical skill of making
a copy is not a qualifier for copyright protection.
Originality is.

This has been worked over a number of times in various courts since and
the outcome has been the same.

The result has been the use of contract law, (licensing agreements),
to effectively create copyright were there is none, either due to copyright
running out or there having never been any in the first place.

This is a very dubious practice that has been defended on a few grounds
such as protecting the integrity of the the work in question, and morally
on the grounds they need the cash.

The argument against such behaviour is that it is against the spirit of the
original copyright law that was designed to protect artists and their dependents
against dying in poverty whilst others made large amounts of money
based on their endeavours.
(It was never originally meant to protect large commercial or public companies.
Due to the ability to trade copyright for money this has lead to large entities
with deeper pockets becoming involved).

The other argument regarding restricting access to what are public domain items
is that it is deeply wrong for museums, of all people, to deny free the of knowledge
and items that are in public domain.

There has been a trend towards allowing free access to images and such by public
institutions, (and some private ones that are seen as public), due to the unease that
this conflict has caused. But a lot of institutions move blithely on as though
nothing is happening.

But again I bring up the moral point.
Do you support the NRM in what it does for you and other future modellers and historians?
If you do, then a fee and a non-reproduction clause is in your own best interests.
However extremely restrictive practices and price gouging is not. Especially by private
companies utilising the same escape clauses to disregard the true copyright status
of items in their care.

Use of contract law to override copyright law is very risky and at some point will
end with tears for all the parties involved.

Regards, Matt M.

posted: 3 Feb 2015 06:51

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Matt,

I have just scanned a bit of out-of-copyright OS Map. I made non-default settings on the scanner, selected the precise area, scanned it to my computer, edited it after scanning in a graphics editor, saved it in .PNG format, and subsequently made further edits to the actual code. Here is the result:

89 50 4E 47 0D 0A 1A 0A 00 00 00 0D 49 48 44 52
00 00 00 C8 00 00 00 51 08 00 00 00 00 B2 5A B6
C9 00 00 00 15 74 45 58 74 43 72 65 61 74 69 6F
6E 20 54 69 6D 65 00 07 DE 02 03 05 30 0E AC FD
C2 BB 00 00 00 07 74 49 4D 45 07 DF 02 03 05 33
0F 25 D6 42 9E 00 00 00 09 70 48 59 73 00 00 5C
46 00 00 5C 46 01 14 94 43 41 00 00 2F 6B 49 44
41 54 78 DA 3D BB D9 8F 1C D9 B9 27 16  ... ...

and a lot more which I'm omitting simply to save space.

Are you saying that I don't own the copyright to the above text? No-one else would be able to make identical code. Even if they knew the exact sequence of edits which I made, my scanner has a dirty mark on one corner of the plate, and the map includes a unique crease which I have flattened in a very original way. :)

With suitable software you could copy the above text and display the image on your computer.

Assuming you don't have such software, here is the above code in more conventional format:

2_030144_380000000.png2_030144_380000000.png

regards,

Martin.

posted: 3 Feb 2015 08:30

from:

Matt M.
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

You can own the text but you still have no copyright on the image.

This has been tested in court with on screen 3D renderings of
original items.
It still doesn't count. The finished product is someone else's work
that you have translated into a new format. Whether you do it with
your own code or anyone else's it doesn't matter.
The law doesn't care that you put work into it, the original is
not yours to claim.
And mechanical artefacts introduced on the way by the devices used
also do not count as creativity.

Now if you utilised the original image as part of a new concept,
possibly rendering it useless as to its original function you may
have a case for a new copyright.

The item under contention is the original material, not your work.

If I took a painting and put a new frame around it, regardless
of who built the frame, there is no new copyright over the painting.

This is the same law that protects original copyright owners against
claims of new copyright due to changes of format.

As I pointed out with my own example, despite the money I laid out
having the large survey plan done I have no protection under the law
for my expenses. It becomes a "gentleman's agreement" situation in
which the main players, who are known to each other, respect the
time and trouble we have taken.
And I don't mind others having access to this but I did feel that
a higher fee may be required.

As a general rule, (and this can vary from country to country and
type of copyright), if it is out of copyright you can not put it
back into copyright. And if it is in copyright you can not claim
a new copyright unless you can prove involvement in the creation
of the the original item.

Regards, Matt M.

posted: 3 Feb 2015 10:25

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Matt M. wrote:
You can own the text but you still have no copyright on the image.
Hi Matt,

Please explain how I can "own" a piece of text other than by having the copyright in it?

I'm not claiming copyright of the image. I'm happy to acknowledge that it is in the public domain. I'm happy for anyone to display the same image anywhere.

But not using my text. Use your own.

If I can't say that, I don't understand what you mean by saying that I can own the text. :?

regards,

Martin.

posted: 3 Feb 2015 13:29

from:

Matt M.
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

What I'm saying is that if you use your skills to reproduce someone else's
creation, regardless of what medium those skills are in, it confers no
copyright protection for the end result.
This is because it is a copy.

Little changes like cleaning up and changing some of the coding
does not count. To take a real object, subject to copyright, and
reproducing it in 3D on a proprietary system takes a lot of personal
coding and the company that did that still lost in court.

If I took Templot and rewrote the code so it was suitable to run on
an Apple machine, calling it Template, that action would not make
me the owner, or give me protection from the oncoming lawsuit you
would be mightily justified in launching.
I am still working off your creativity, not being creative on my own.

Nor can you expect anyone to see a digital reproduction of an out of
copyright image and have to check whether the coding is owned
by someone. Lots of coding is owned by various people and
corporations. Whether I use the software than comes with a scanner
or camera or write my own, if I copy something it is still a copy.

Again this has gone to court multiple times in regard to various
methods used and the result is reproduction is reproduction
regardless of how you do it. There is no new copyright conferred.
The original copyright status stands. No ifs or buts.

Yes, you may own the code but you definitely don't own the results.
In other words you have no copy protection for the work
you have done copying.
Indeed, owning the code may help "nail" you in court for
any "rights" violation.

As I have mentioned, that is why these organisations have gone down
the contract law route; though this is very dubious as they are trying
to re-create copyright restrictions where they do not exist.
This will come to a head at some point, possibly in favour of corporations
which would be the worst outcome legally for all the rest of us.

Regards, Matt M.

posted: 3 Feb 2015 13:37

from:

Trevor Walling
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello,
      I did not intend to cause people to argue but this copyright thing seems to be a real point of contention.
However I would think the image I found would only ever be used on Martins site now for the purposes of research by members and others.That being the case I think it would be ok.If the human race suddenly becomes overwhelmed to start using an image of old LNWR track for commercial purposes I think it would be the least of our worries.
If we relied on lawyers before doing something the world would become deadlocked with contention about what constituted the right thing to be done as they would argue themselves to death.MMMMM?
Now there's an Idea. It brings to mind that Python sketch linked to on RMweb.
:)

posted: 3 Feb 2015 14:00

from:

Matt M.
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Trevor.

I don't think Martin and I were arguing... at least I hope not.
Just trying to clarify where copyright begins and ends.
That can be a very complicated subject at times.

My experience and knowledge of copyright is musically based.
It is by no means totally comprehensive but I try to keep up
as best I can. As I teach music it is important to be able to
explain the basics.

I agree that you are unlikely to find a Russian torrent site for
old railway plan drawings, though one never knows...

I don't trust lawyers to do something like this and get it right.
It is more a case for the real stake holders, the actual creators,
to work out what would be a better system and then for the
lawyers to draft it.

Lawyers tend to look at the world in a way that is very different
from the rest of us. I have followed some cases that from
a musicians point of view had some rulings that fly in the
face of what has been understood by musicians to be
okay musically for a couple of hundred years.
These are mostly brought on by non- musicians against
actual musicians and one recent high profile case here
brought on by greed, nothing more, ended with what
every musician I know considers a poor judgement
musically and, tragically, a suicide.

Regards, Matthew.

posted: 3 Feb 2015 14:01

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Matt M. wrote:
Nor can you expect anyone to see a digital reproduction of an out of
copyright image and have to check whether the coding is owned
by someone.
Hi Matt,

No, but I could easily put a mark across it saying © this file is copyright Martin Wynne. Then they wouldn't have the slightest difficulty in knowing it's my file.

If not, when you said I can own this pattern of numbers:

89 50 4E 47 0D 0A 1A 0A 00 00 00 0D 49 48 44 52
00 00 00 C8 00 00 00 51 08 00 00 00 00 B2 5A B6
C9 00 00 00 15 74 45 58 74 43 72 65 61 74 69 6F
6E 20 54 69 6D 65 00 07 DE 02 03 05 30 0E AC FD
C2 BB 00 00 00 07 74 49 4D 45 07 DF 02 03 05 33
0F 25 D6 42 9E 00 00 00 09 70 48 59 73 00 00 5C
46 00 00 5C 46 01 14 94 43 41 00 00 2F 6B 49 44
41 54 78 DA 3D BB D9 8F 1C D9 B9 27 16  ... ...

What did you mean? If they don't belong to me, who do they belong to? I created them only a few hours ago so they can hardly have gone out of copyright yet.

And it is only because I told you that they represent the coloured dots in an image that you said I don't own the copyright. If I had simply posted a list of numbers without ever saying what they were, you and a court of law would never dispute that I owned the list.

In fact I just entered the first 2 lines in Google, and:

"Your search - "89 50 4E 47 0D 0A 1A 0A 00 00 00 0D 49 48 44 52 00 00 00 C8 00 00 00 51 08 00 00 00 ... - did not match any documents."

I'm quite confident I would get the same result for any of the other lines.

However, I'm feeling generous today, so if anyone wants those numbers, feel free to copy them. :)

regards,

Martin. 

posted: 3 Feb 2015 14:37

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Matt M. wrote:
I don't think Martin and I were arguing
Yes we were. No we weren't. Yes we... :)

In fact it has given me an interesting little project for today -- write a program to display hex ASCII code as a bitmap image. No doubt someone has already done it, but it will be fun to see what a few famous texts look like as an image.

Martin.

posted: 3 Feb 2015 16:25

from:

Trevor Walling
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I suppose JMRI would be a good example of lawers being involved. :(


posted: 28 Feb 2015 09:38

from:

D Foster
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
This is a very helpful and useful argument :-)

("Arguments" - or discussions - are so much more useful than blank and unchallenged statements).

Not wishing to create discord but possibly assisting and definitely wanting some further clarification I have a couple of points.

1.  In my experience a lot of bodies have tried to claim copyright on photocopies.  I have countered this with the suggestion that if I copy the copy that I have received from them I will then have copyright on my copy...  Yes - insane.

However; I do accept that any archive has a reasonable case to raise a reasonable charge for material.  I don't know what the current situation is but this used to be called a "keeperage charge" - or something like that.  As I understand it this would be a one-off charge for material that was going to be used in any commercial way rather than just for personal use.

So - to put it simple - personal use would incur the cost of photocopy while commercial use would incur the photocopy cost plus an agreed (reasonable) charge.

My own interpretation of this was that I would not mind paying an archive a reasonable charge.  If, however, they wanted an exorbitant amount I had a choice of naming and shaming or using an alternate source for the same information...  If subsequently the archive had wanted to make a claim my belief was that they would have to prove that I had used material received from them and from no other possible source...  It should be their responsibility to prove that I had exclusively used their material and not my responsibility to prove that I had not - nor even to prove where it had come from.

I do not admit any responsibility for anyone trying this idea though!  Naming and shaming might be the safer option.

2.  The area in which I would like some guidance please...

When I take an original picture - film or digital - I have copyright on it.  That is clear.  Can anyone else claim a charge if I use the image commercially?

As I understand it any picture that I take from a public place is free from limitation.  If I have crossed the boundary onto any sort of private property - such as the railway - does the landowner or user have any right to claim a fee for any use of the image that I have achieved on their land?  (I hope this makes some sense).

---

Thanks in Advance for help :-)

Also - that link to the copyright site is very helpful :-)

D

posted: 1 Mar 2015 13:47

from:

Matt M.
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi D,

Copyright on photocopies only exists where the original source
material is still under copy protection. Publications or research papers
are not readily available can be copied with permission and there is
a copyright fee applied in those cases. It is mandatory for collection
by archival agencies in some cases.
The usual copyright restrictions apply.
The extreme version of this is 'print-on-demand' books of things like
thesis papers.

Copyright on photocopies of items no longer covered is not enforceable.

This is why, as I mentioned before, there has be a drift towards contract law
to enforce copy protection where there is none.
This is very dubious and some major institutions have moved away from
this system. But a lot still try to impose it. This is an issue of income
for a number of these institutions.

However contracts are contracts, even the ones that are unwritten, so due
care is required. The law costs money and larger organisations, private or
public, are not above using those costs to enforce a poor legal position.

In regards to what institutional holders of original information wishes to
charge you. Most will have a charge list for your perusal.

This list will have charges for showing copies at a meeting.
(Literally a pay-per-veiw charge during a lecture).
Different charges for putting items up for display at a meeting.
(Also there will usually be a requirement to discourage anyone taking photos
of said items during the time they are displayed).
There are lists of different charges for books and digital publications
depending on print runs and whether they are for educational purposes.

If you don't like the costs you don't use them. But as dubious as it is,
as I have mentioned, contract law applies and it will cost you money to defend.

If you have talked to the owner of the item that you consequently have used
without payment it could be said you have entered a verbal contract.
And you will find the popular misquote of Samuel Goldwyn "A verbal contract
isn't worth the paper it's written on" not quite true. There is no fixed
upper limit of a penalty with a verbal contract... And you would be
required to prove you sourced the item elsewhere.

With regards to photographs, I believe you are correct that a photo taken
in a public place is yours and yours alone regardless of what it captures.

However you may find yourself up against local laws regarding privacy,
especially in regards to images of children.
Also in this current climate those people in private or public organisations
tend to be a little over zealous in regards people taking photos... even if,
legally, you have done nothing wrong.

Unless the boundary of a private property is not obvious, you can
be prosecuted for trespass if caught. Which I guarantee will chew up
more money than you will make commercially from your photos.
And the photos will be used in court to prove the case against you.

Also note, corporate logos that are visible to the public can not be used to
stop you taking photos and making money from them.

However making transfers of corporate logos, (like railway company
logos on rolling stock), and selling them, without permission, is a
breach of copyright and legal action will be taken by most companies.

Making a corporate logo for your own model locomotive is not a breach
of the act as far as I'm aware. That is art.
Handing them out to others would be. Even for free. That is denying
the owner of the copyright income from their creation.
Most corporations like to protect their intellectual property
very carefully these days.

All these things are subject to subtle variations depending on the country
you are in, so do your homework first.

The thing to remember is that the law is not interested in what you think
is fair and right. It just works on interpretation and precedence.

Regards, Matt M.

posted: 1 Mar 2015 15:38

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Matt M. wrote:
Unless the boundary of a private property is not obvious, you can
be prosecuted for trespass if caught.
Hi Matt,

Not in the UK other than in specific places -- e.g. railways and Crown property ("Criminal Trespass" since 2005).

Signs on private land saying "Trespassers will be prosecuted" are meaningless. It's a civil matter between you and the land owner. He can sue you for any actual damage caused, but beyond that the most he can do is to ask you to leave, and use a "reasonable" (i.e. not very much) amount of force to make sure you do so if you refuse.

If you take photographs while trespassing on private land they remain your property and copyright. But if you publish them against the land owner's wishes that could be regarded as harassment (for which you can be prosecuted -- Protection from Harassment Act 1997).

The law is not always stupid. If you walk into a farmer's field through an open gate causing no damage, and take a picture of a cabbage, unless he has put up a sign saying "Trespassers must not photograph the cabbages" he would have little chance of taking action against you. Generally a land-owner must prove that your trespass has actually caused him some harm, loss or damage. For example if you published the picture to demonstrate that his cabbages are inferior in quality -- for that stay outside the gate and use a long lens. :)

A useful page is:   

 http://www.theguardian.com/money/2007/jun/08/yourrights.legal

Martin.

posted: 1 Mar 2015 15:39

from:

D Foster
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hmmm... How depressing :-(
And trespass too... :-(

Thanks for the response though :-)

I have an accumulation of years of photos that would be useful to modellers but have no desire to fight corporate greed so they will probably remain un-used.

It does, however, occur to me to wonder how the various railway magazines and books manage to publish - apparently without getting prosecuted...? Hmmm... And You Tube videos as well...?

Anyway - thanks again :-)

posted: 1 Mar 2015 15:57

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
D Foster wrote:
I have an accumulation of years of photos that would be useful to modellers but have no desire to fight corporate greed so they will probably remain un-used.
Hi David,

If you took the photos they are your copyright and you are welcome to post them in the Image Gallery on here. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 1 Mar 2015 16:56

from:

D Foster
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I would need some nice simple instructions for how to post them... But... what's the score on when and where I took them? Some are from public roads, some are around stations and some are from around the track when I was working. I have noticed that various drivers and others post pictures on various sites but...?

Then again... If I put the work into preparing a book to explain the various things - as with my nice and brief posts so far ( ;-) ) what could occur then regarding "rights" of whatever kind?

Thanks again... :-)

posted: 1 Mar 2015 17:36

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi David,

If you took the photos they are your copyright and no-one else can make any use of them without your permission. If you took them on railway property they are still yours to use in whatever way you want until such time as the railway company says otherwise* -- which is extremely unlikely and has never happened on here.

None of that changes if you post them on here -- they are still yours and you have not given anyone any rights to them. You can use them yourself as often and wherever you want.

There is however an assumption if you post them here that you don't mind visitors to this site using them for their own private non-commercial model-making purposes, which may mean their making a print from them. If that's not what you want you would need to make it clear when posting them.

You should also note that hot-linking to an image is not a copyright infringement, because you still have control over it. Hot-linking means someone making the image appear on another web site by linking to the file on this web site. If that was done, you could prevent the image appearing there by deleting it here, or changing it to something else, so it is still under your control.

Hot-linking may be regarded as theft of my server bandwidth, but that's a separate issue. At present it isn't causing any problems and I don't mind about it.

It's easy to upload pictures to the Image Gallery here -- go to:

 http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery_upload.php#gallery_top

If anything isn't clear, ask again. :)

You can see all the pictures already in the Gallery at:

 http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery_view.php?display=ALL#gallery_top

It's also easy add them to your posted messages on here.

*If you are still working for the railway company there may be rules about photography in your employment contract.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 1 Mar 2015 18:07

from:

D Foster
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Oops! Did I say working? I should have said "employed" ;-)
... I'm retired now.

Posting into posts is how please?

What track shots would be useful - as a starter?

:-)

posted: 1 Mar 2015 18:20

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
D Foster wrote:
Posting into posts is how please?
Hi David,

Which browser are you using?

If it is Firefox or Internet Explorer, you should be seeing a button just above where you are typing -- Upload new image for insertion. Just click it and follow the instructions.

If you are using some other browser such as Google Chrome or Safari it is a bit different -- let me know and I will explain.

What track shots would be useful - as a starter?
Whatever you have! There are quite a few track pictures already in the Gallery, but we can't have too many photos when building models and there is plenty of room for more. :)

Close-up details are great. For example a close-up of the sole plate and slide chair arrangements in the second switch of a tandem turnout would be very useful.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 3 Mar 2015 16:01

from:

Alan Turner
 
Dudley - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Martin Wynne wrote:
Signs on private land saying "Trespassers will be prosecuted" are meaningless. It's a civil matter between you and the land owner. He can sue you for any actual damage caused, but beyond that the most he can do is to ask you to leave, and use a "reasonable" (i.e. not very much) amount of force to make sure you do so if you refuse.


Martin.

That's not quite true. Trespass as a Tort is actionable per se, that is the act of Trespass is a Tort and no damage has to be proved (unlike Nuisance for instance). You are correct to say that if no damage has been done then there is little point suing you but the farmer can injunct you to stay off his land. A breach of an injunction is a criminal offence (Contempt of court).

regards

Alan


posted: 3 Mar 2015 18:10

from:

D Foster
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
This thread (that's only gone a teeny bit off topic) is showing up some interesting stuff...

What about "Right to Roam"?  ...  and - no, I wouldn't mind a farmer walking through my garden - at his own risk    ;-)

Meanwhile - I have no idea how correct the information was but, decades ago, when I joined the railway one of the things we were taught was that trespass on the railway is criminal trespass...  apparently once any officer of the railway company has requested a person to leave they must do so or they are committing a criminal offence - which means that they can be arrested and a bit more (reasonable) force used to remove them...  however, given the many and weird complications of a citizens arrest, there is no way that I would ever have arrested anyone...

We were also told that there was only one other incidence of criminal trespass - but we weren't told where that would be...  Not MoD land nor Nuclear land as far as I know - they have their own laws - which are more Draconian - you can get shot and killed...  I tend to think that that's good reason not to try to claim a right to roam there...

Meanwhile - back at (something like) the original topic...  I'm still looking for pics of sole plates...
I have noted that the 3 way at Butterely (which is a three way not a tandem) doesn't have a sole plate for the second set of blades.
:-)
Last edited on 3 Mar 2015 18:13 by D Foster
posted: 4 Mar 2015 15:16

from:

Alan Turner
 
Dudley - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

D Foster wrote:
This thread (that's only gone a teeny bit off topic) is showing up some interesting stuff...

What about "Right to Roam"?  ...  and - no, I wouldn't mind a farmer walking through my garden - at his own risk    ;-)

Meanwhile - I have no idea how correct the information was but, decades ago, when I joined the railway one of the things we were taught was that trespass on the railway is criminal trespass...  apparently once any officer of the railway company has requested a person to leave they must do so or they are committing a criminal offence - which means that they can be arrested and a bit more (reasonable) force used to remove them...  however, given the many and weird complications of a citizens arrest, there is no way that I would ever have arrested anyone...

We were also told that there was only one other incidence of criminal trespass - but we weren't told where that would be...  Not MoD land nor Nuclear land as far as I know - they have their own laws - which are more Draconian - you can get shot and killed...  I tend to think that that's good reason not to try to claim a right to roam there...

Meanwhile - back at (something like) the original topic...  I'm still looking for pics of sole plates...
I have noted that the 3 way at Butterely (which is a three way not a tandem) doesn't have a sole plate for the second set of blades.
:-)


Right to Roam applies to: mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land. So unless the agricultural land fits in with that you do not have a right to roam.

You are probably thinking of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 for other criminal trespass.

regards

Alan


Last edited on 4 Mar 2015 15:20 by Alan Turner
posted: 4 Mar 2015 16:11

from:

D Foster
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Oh! If only I'd started / been trained as recently as 1994!!! ;-) Then again, for all the problems of British Rail, I would have missed so many years of Real Railway. The job was a whole lot more fun back then, :-)

Of course something like "Right to Roam" is so little and poorly explained to the population at large... I expect that I'm like most people - I have never even heard of the 94 |Act - which would be buried in a plethora of other modern Acts that most of us know almost nothing about...

I think I'll go back to hunting out sole plates for now... ;-)
Last edited on 4 Mar 2015 16:12 by D Foster
posted: 4 Mar 2015 17:59

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I suspect if you're in the habit of roaming then you'd have certainly heard of the Right to Roam act 2000, which allows conditional access to recognised areas of mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land in England and Wales. The specific areas are covered on definitive access maps held by local authorities and are also shown on O.S. 1:25000 maps for England and Wales. The access is only conditional in certain senses, for example certain activities, such as motorised access, are excluded, and the landowner may have limited rights to prevent access for specific purposes at certain times of the year. The access rights are in addition to those covering public rights of way, such as roads, public footpaths, and so on.

In Scotland access is much broader; you can go more or less anywhere provided that you behave responsibly.

Nigel
Last edited on 4 Mar 2015 19:07 by Nigel Brown


Templot Club > Forums > Prototype pics > LNWR track drawings.
about Templot Club

Templot Companion - User Guide - A-Z Index Templot Explained for beginners Please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors.
indexing link for search engines

back to top of page


Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so.
The small print: All material submitted to this web site is the responsibility of the respective contributor. By submitting material to this web site you acknowledge that you accept full responsibility for the material submitted. The owner of this web site is not responsible for any content displayed here other than his own contributions. The owner of this web site may edit, modify or remove any content at any time without giving notice or reason. Problems with this web site? Contact webmaster@templot.com.   This web site uses cookies: click for information.  
© 2020  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems