Period photos

[Archivist]

Interesting discussion, which I am pleased to see. Picking up on Chris KC's comments, I had already been thinking about the issue, perhaps in the broader context of copyright generally. It is an area that I tried to look at and understand some years back when we started the Archive Project. Sadly, it proved to be a minefield and far too much to take in by a bear of small brain. Even if I had managed to acquire the lot yesterday, would I have acquired  copyright with them and, therefore, the right to publish on the web site? Of that, I am less certain. I had a conversation with a great supporter of the Archive's aims and potential donor/loaner yesterday evening on this very topic (though to be clear, he wasn't necessarily trying to protect his images, more it was an abstract discussion about the topic in general)

I think it important that such images be 'recorded' in the Archive first of all, decisions about publishing them can then be made on a case by case basis.

Yes, I do know Helmut and watch his postings with delight. However, I think such things must be sailing close to the wind from a copyright standpoint. One sees that all over the place on the Internet - particularly YouTube where films scraped and acquired from any source seem to be fair game. And don't get me started on the Australian Ebay provider of motoring photos that seems to churn out any old image he can find without a care in the world. Although I see nice pictures from him from time to time, I refuse to purchase them and support the rather 'dodgy' business practices...

Back to the original lot. I fear that if someone was prepared to pay such an inflated amount for *that* set of images, they will be squirreled away, never to see the light of day until the Executors and the Auctioneers have another field day...

[Mick Hobday]

Regarding auction sales of books, auctioneers seem to have very differing interpretations of the VAT liability.
As Mike says, VAT is levied on commission, not the items.
Books are of course VAT exempt (but for how long?) However, I have come across specialist book auctions where VAT is NOT added to the commission, sometimes even on lots of general paperwork such as posters, timetables etc, which are most definitely not VAT exempt. There are other specialist book auctioneers who are adamant that VAT must be added to the commission, and a third category who add VAT to the commission as a matter of course but will instantly remove it if the "error" is pointed out!
Caveat emptor!

[Chris KC]

Hugh I was just going to say I thought I understood the copyright issues but then I looked it up.

Prevailing advice seems to be 'consult a copyright lawyer'.

[Tony Betts]

well i attended the auction tuesday.

didnt want to do the overnight for wednesday, with covid being ripe.

you could have attended, they were allowed up to 40 in the auction room.

ill have to check my bill, as i was also there for something stoopidly over priced. but i think the commision was 30% inc vat.

its correct you are in effect paying 2 lots of fees. but at 33% you may be paying 3 lots.

laurence auctions, TCA, and either easybid, or salesroom. but you can avoid the last two by going dirrect.

i noticed on tuesday, all the books were being scooped up by the trade. same with the cycle lamps. and at what i felt silly prices? but how would i know, ive never read a book. and gave my cycle up 30 years ago

i take it the main part of the pictures were bought by the same traders. SO KEEP AN EYE ON EBAY. then copy them for free for the archive.

since the lockdown auction prices have gone mad, in all areas. at all auctions.

alot of simular things i bought in the TCA last year, were 3 times the price this year.

most of it going to traders, i hope they are not hoping to cash in when the stalls come back. they may get a big serprise.

tony.

[Tony Betts]

Just double checked the catalogue.

Auction fees were 25% plus vat. That's 30%

Still high.

But, I think the main reason for that. Is over the years we have seen the likes of ebay go from 3% to 10%. I think bonhams and the rest of the top end, have moved from 25% to 35%

Go through the auction companies listed on salesroom.com more and more are moving there prices to 30%. They are just taking advantage of the situation.

As suggested on this thread, always allow for the commission in your bidding. But also if you are going to bid in any auction, be up to date with the prices of what you are bidding on.

Unless it's something you must have, and you know you are unlikely to get another chance. For those rear items. All you can do is accept that you are going to have to stump up alot more....... or when the next one comes up in 3 years time. You may find yourself paying DOUBLE, and looking back at things thinking I should have bought that stupidly expensive one 3 years ago.

Hope that makes sense tony.

[Archivist]

It makes perfect sense, Tony.. As I said, I had done everything I could except be in the auction in person, so I had to bid on-line which, as you say, adds a little on top to the costs. Prior to the auction, I had worked out a few of the possible bids I might make, adding in the commission, so I knew what I was committing the Association to spending. I never even got a chance to make a bid as my top bid has already been exceeded before I had a chance to press the button. I was in no hurry anyway, there is only one bid that counts at an auction and that's the last one!

I have to make a judgement call on things I wish to buy for the Archive and as to whether they will really benefit the collection and the wider community by being able to share them on the web site (acknowledging the earlier comments about copyright of photos) In this instance, it was a fairly easy thing to come to terms with that £500 spent on these photos would be good value, £1600 was certainly not. If they are twice the price in a few years. I still won't be able to justify buying them. However, when we had the chance to buy the Austin posters a couple of years back, we happily spent that sort of money, knowing that opportunity would never come again..

I am hopeful that, as the years roll by and the Archive becomes better known, donations become a more frequent event, something that I have begun to notice over the past couple of years as our efforts have spread to a wider audience...

[Tony Betts]

hi hugh,

i totally understand it cant be easy when buying with someone elses money.

i often bid for others in auctions, you have to totally stick to bid limits.

instead of paying the salesroom or easy bid extra fees.

never be afraid to take a phone line.

ive done thousands of auctions over the years, and seen the phone bids come in. and usually the phone line takes the item, bidding to much.

so the feeling was very much that you had to buy, or at least over bid. if you are going to bid on the phone.

covid lockdowns have tought me this is far far from the truth.

anyone can phone bid, they dont charge. and dont judge if you dont get the item.

the TCA auction tuesday, had plenty of phone lines pull out of bidding early. i even heard one phone behind me was keeping the seller up to date with his item as it was selling.

look at it as saving 3% or being able to bid 3% more.

thanks tony

[Simon Scott]

Owning a copy of a photo does not allow anything more than you possessing that image. Copyright will still reside with the creator unless made as part of their employment in which case it will rest with employer unless specifically stated otherwise. The copyright will last for the lifetime of the creator plus x years and then expire unless passed to or acquired by an other party. There are various exemptions for review, teaching and research. The copyright may well have been sold if it was commercial work. It is unlikely that anyone would complain in the case of non-commercial use like the archive but you never know. Just to clear up a popular mis-understanding it does not have to be marked ‘copyright’ as that is applied automatically at production.

[Adam Brown]

Copyright also needs to be proved which is nearly impossible with 90% of Pre-War photos so it is also relative. In the event of a breach of copyright damages will be not be punitive but equal to any harm caused. Its a small risk, but there are certain archives that get quite aggressive about it (many without any actual power to do anything other than write a threatening letter).

As for the auction. I couldn't go in person but I did have a lot viewed for me by a friend. I paid my £3 to easylivebid which was entirely fair. I bid high on the lot in question but no higher than my upper limit for it. It was bloody expensive all the same. It has now arrived (excellent service from Lawrences) and it consists nearly entirely of original factory images of the marque or period photographic postcards, most of which have values between £10 & £20 on the back from when they've been through postcard dealers hands. I've worked out I paid an average of £16.52 per photo. For such a rare marque to find so many photos in one go probably won't happen again, and I'll do well to find as many in the wider world in my liftetime.

Some of the lots contained much more than mine and viewed from a postcard / photograph collectors standpoint may actually have been quite cheap despite the large figures achieved. I don't doubt that many will end up broken down piece meal on ebay. I'll be watching closely!

So its all relative. Nothing went cheap, but I'm not sure it was a daft as some think

[jansens]

I think for pre-war photos you are fairly safe. Back then it was copyrighted for 50 years as explained below so those pre-war ones should now be in the public domain. This explains the rules in the UK: https://www.dacs.org.uk/knowledge-base/f...hotographs

Photographs made before 1st June 1957
These photographs were originally protected for a period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which they were taken (regardless of whether they were published or not).

If the photograph was still in copyright as of 1 July 1995 however, the period of copyright was extended to the life of the photographer plus 70 years. If copyright protection had expired before 1 July 1995, there was still the chance to "revive" the photograph. An eligible photograph would then  be protected by the new term, ie the photographer's life plus 70 years.

For it to still be in copyright in 1995 it would have to have been taken after 1945. It goes on to mention how things can be revived. It also says that isn't legal advice of course. And I might be reading that wrong! Maybe you can contact those DACS people and talk to someone there?

The rules in the US are of course totally different (and complicated) but this explains when things changed and when things now go into the public domain: https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain

How it all works when someone lives in the UK and posts photos taken there on a server hosted in the US well, that all gets tricky! As an American friend of mine once told me in the US you can sue anyone for anything - but it doesn't mean you're going to win.

Simon