Date   

Re: RESURECTED CAR

Jack Burgess <jack@...>
 

No, it was because Paul chose (intentionally or as the default option) HTML for his text which allows photos to be inserted in the text and apparently at the end…



Jack Burgess



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 6:50 PM
To: Steam Era Freight Cars
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: RESURECTED CAR








I think it has to do with whom you use for your email service. I use Xfinity (Comcast) for one of my email addresses, and in the text editing bar, there is an icon for inserting/editing images. I also have a Yahoo address that doesn't include this option.



Scott Haycock



_____



I also received the photo as part of the body of the text. Interesting indeed considering the group does not allow attachments. If we can imbed photos that will change the game for many of us.



Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org


Re: Photos, copyright etc. -- STUPID QUESTION

Tony Thompson
 

Al Kresse wrote:

 
HOW DOES ONE COPYRIGHT INDIVIDUAL PHOTOGRAPHS?
 
Person A sends me scan of his photo that he took years ago and then sells the original negative on eBay.  Can I use it in a magazine with A's credit?  Neither has been copyrighted . . . just marked my the photographer.

     There is a form on the Library of Congress website. If you use an image without permission, you can be sued, even without copyright, though it is most unlikely anyone would do so about a single photo. But it HAS happened in the railroad photo field, so don't assume. I would suggest you call or email A for permission; the negative owner might also now have rights. Giving credit has NOTHING to do with copyright violations, though some permissions include a requirement to do so.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Re: Photos, copyright etc. -- STUPID QUESTION

water.kresse@...
 

HOW DOES ONE COPYRIGHT INDIVIDUAL PHOTOGRAPHS?
 
Person A sends me scan of his photo that he took years ago and then sells the original negative on eBay.  Can I use it in a magazine with A's credit?  Neither has been copyrighted . . . just marked my the photographer.
 
Al


Re: Photos, copyright etc.

Tony Thompson
 

Michael Gross wrote:

 

So I gather you may not post another's photo even for educational purposes with no intention of financial gain?


        Correct. Financial gain has never been part of the issue. If I republish a Harry Potter book, it's theft, whether or not I resell it for "financial gain." This point is often misunderstood in the copyright realm, where the commonest defense of offenders is to say, "but I didn't charge for the copies."
         At the same time, the "fair use" part of the law does specify situations where copyrighted material can be used without permission, but education per se is not one of them.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Re: Photos, copyright etc.

Tony Thompson
 

Mike Bauers wrote:

 

This post shows that the topic has fallen to the level of guessing what might have happened in a case, and if so what that might mean……

Its simply speculative and not a set-in concrete event with certainty on the related copyright rules.

   Complicated? yes. Uncertainties? yes "guessing?" Nope.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Re: copying photos

John C. La Rue, Jr. <MOFWCABOOSE@...>
 

Before Mike shuts this discussion  down, allow a few comments from someone on the other side of the table:
 
I own a pretty large collection of negatives, from which I make prints for sale. The negatives were from all sources. Many I took myself. Many were acquired by purchase. Many were acquired by trade. And some were just given to me. Most are original negatives. Some are copy negatives.
 
There is no trouble with the ones I took myself.
 
The ones I acquired by purchase and trade can pose problems. There is no guarantee that they are the only negatives of that particular subject, at that time and place. Until the early 1970s there was a lively business of swapping negatives between photographers, thus obviating the need to travel long distances. Thus, there could be as many as six or eight identical negatives out there. It does not follow that they are available as prints. Most of the photographers I traded with are deceased, and their negative collections have been either thrown away, sold, or are inactive. The same caveats apply to negatives that were purchased.
 
Copy negatives are a peculiar problem. They are common for rare, old, or narrow-gauge subjects. They used to be made by the old-fashioned silver halide process, and those were usually easy to spot. But the rise of the electronic age has led to a proliferation of copy negatives, mostly made by scanning original prints. I know for a fact that at least one of mine was copied. They electronically altered the car number, but left my negative number still plainly visible in the corner!
 
The big loss is data. The resulting negatives are sold on e-bay with date or locations (in addition to the aforementioned alteration) either missing or incorrect, thus rendering them useless, or at best, misleading, as a source of information for historians or model builders. Prints made from them are thus immediately suspect.
 
Also suspect are negatives from people who deliberately altered the data on them, either because they didn't know, or because they could charge a higher price if the negatives were perceived to be older. In extreme cases the results were absurd.
 
I devote a good deal of attention to getting the proper data on the back of the prints I sell. But the difficulties mentioned above simply make the task more difficult, as well as making the question of who owns the copyright even more amorphous. The only thing I can do is take the attitude that if I own the negative, I can print it and sell the print. As an old friend once put it: "Negatives do no good sitting in envelopes."
 
I might add: this question of copyright ownership did not use to be a problem.
 
John C. La Rue, Jr.
Bonita Springs, FL
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: ed_mines@... [STMFC]
To: STMFC
Sent: Tue, Jun 9, 2015 1:57 pm
Subject: [STMFC] copying photos

 
I'm a little uncomfortable about making photocopies of photos when the seller is still active but it's hard to know who's still active and some prints don't have any information on the back.

Ed Mines


Re: Photos, copyright etc.

Michael Gross <michaelEGross@...>
 

So I gather you may not post another's photo even for educational purposes with no intention of financial gain?

Michael Gross
La Canada, CA


Re: Photos, copyright etc.

Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Tony,

A small point on your explanation. When I purchased Will Whittaker's SN negatives, I specifically asked for an assignment of copyright for those negatives I was buying, which he generously did. His letter is somewhere in my files.

I frequently see prints of the same negatives, possibly dupicates, or likely prints Will, sold being swapped around. I don't know if I own the reproduction rights to those particular prints, but it probably isn't worth challenging. Such things are usually settled by lawyers, and when parts of one of my books were ripped off by another author, I learned I would have to prove specific damages in a suit in Federal court.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff

On 6/9/15 1:47 PM, Tony Thompson tony@... [STMFC] wrote:
 
Dave Nelson wrote:

 
AFAIK the most conservative answer is 70 years before the current date for anything created by an individual for himself and 90 for works for hire and/or corporate creations.  If you assume books are works for hire you get June, 1925.  If you assume photos are personal works you get June 1945.  General speaking the owner of a print does not hold the copyright… the guy with the negative does (it’s just like owning a book… you own the printed paper but the author owns the story).

    I will illustrate one of my prior points, and touch on Dave's comment, with the story of Will Whittaker's freight car photos, of which he took a really large number. Late in his life he began selling off negatives, but no one purchasing them had asked for, nor had Will offered, transfer of copyright. Arnold Menke, who had not found out about the sales quickly enough to buy the entire collection, bought everything still remaining, AND also bought Will's 3-ring binders of prints, which included ALL of the collection, including prints of the negatives which had been sold. Arnold requested, and Will complied, with a letter transferring copyright to ALL the images, as part of the sale to Menke. That means that those who purchased some of the negatives cannot publish the photos (or post them on line) without Menke's permission. Arnold in fact is not restrictive at all and would readily grant permission; but you still need to ask. You cannot assume permission, from Menke or from anyone.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history






Re: Communications Between RR shops

caboose9792@...
 

 
 
In a message dated 6/7/2015 9:15:29 A.M. Central Daylight Time, STMFC@... writes:

When a freight was being repaired in a Non-owners Repair Shops, i.e. sheathing being replaced: trucks being swapped out for whatever reason; etc., was there communications with the owner RR or were the repairs simply made and the owner RR invoiced. Was there a formalized agreement of some kind or was there simply "gentleman's" agreement. Was there a difference in wartime—WWI, WWII, Korea—vs peacetime?


Bill Welch

Bill and group,
    If your interested in the subject and want know more the book(s) to look at are the ARA or AAR code of rules for Interchange. It covers the methods of repair, acceptable repairs, prohibitions standard billing rates and methods. Not sure if this falls outside of the groups interest/acceptable topics as the question dives into accounting and regulatory issues so I'll end my comments.
 
Mark Rickert
 


Re: Photos, copyright etc.

mwbauers
 

I think at this point the matter should be dropped.

This post shows that the topic has fallen to the level of guessing what might have happened in a case, and if so what that might mean……

Its simply speculative and not a set-in concrete event with certainty on the related copyright rules.

I’m going with the Law School page of conditions and related restrictions as -the- reference to use.

Best to ya,
Mike Bauers
Milwaukee, Wi

On Jun 9, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:


jim betz wrote:

 

1) If a photo is in a book - that is copyrighted - does that copyright
only apply to the book or does it also apply to the photo? Isn't
it the publisher of the book's responsibility to clear the right to
put a photo in a book?


       Only the book is copyrighted. All authors get permission for use of any images they use, if their publishers are paying attention. The permission to publish in a book is often "single use only," meaning that no permission for OTHER publication was granted. Sure, the publisher has made sure the author got permission for THAT use; but that has NOTHING to do with YOUR right to use said photo.


 Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA


Re: Photos, copyright etc.

Tony Thompson
 

jim betz wrote:

 

1) If a photo is in a book - that is copyrighted - does that copyright
only apply to the book or does it also apply to the photo? Isn't
it the publisher of the book's responsibility to clear the right to
put a photo in a book?


       Only the book is copyrighted. All authors get permission for use of any images they use, if their publishers are paying attention. The permission to publish in a book is often "single use only," meaning that no permission for OTHER publication was granted. Sure, the publisher has made sure the author got permission for THAT use; but that has NOTHING to do with YOUR right to use said photo.


Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Re: Photos, copyright etc.

Bradley Bower <bradley.bower@...>
 

Gentlemen 

The following data link is from the Cornell University Law School on Copyright. This should help clarify this issue on Copyright in the public domain and get use back to the discussion of freight cars.




Best Regards

Bradley C. Bower
484.269.4877

Bradley C. Bower
484.269.4877


On Jun 9, 2015, at 13:57, "Tony Thompson tony@... [STMFC]" <STMFC@...> wrote:

 

Mike Bauers wrote:

If I own the negative, I may not own the copyright and thus it can not be posted in this group? [I have some of those]

       Right. If you know the photographer (or relatives thereof) you may be able to find out if copyright was transferred to anyone else. But if you have no knowledge of that status, I would say you are not out of the woods. If I were wishing to include such a photo in a book, I would make extensive efforts to find out the copyright status, but for an on-line posting, you may not care enough.
        But Mike is JUST about to bring down the hammer on this discussion, as it is not about freight cars per se.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Re: Hoppers from early 20th century

Ray Breyer
 

Hi everyone,
 
It seems as though this thread has gone "off the rails" discussing what those extra tracks on the left side of the image are, rather than focusing on the FAR more interesting and important (and in-scope) freight cars to the right. Considering that it's far more likely that there are more general pre-WWI modelers here than there are DL&W Scranton Division modelers, we really should be focusing on  that FASCINATING string of coal-carrying cars instead of a small stretch of very specific right-of-way.

Here are a few notes about what I "think" I'm seeing in photo C1106 (which was taken just west of Scranton on 5/2/1912):

1) There are three types of cars in view: hoppers, solid-bottom gondolas, and hopper-bottom gondolas. Each car is a specific car type, built to do different things for different reasons.
     a) Hopper cars have slope sheets and rapid discharge doors on the bottom.
     b) Solid bottom gondolas are just open-topped boxes with a flat bottom and NO doors, and come with several different side heights, especially         when dealing with wood construction freight cars.    
     c) Hopper-bottom gondolas are a hybrid, and are a good example of the frugality of early period railroading. They're more similar to solid-bottom         gondolas in that they "mostly" have a flat bottom, with between two and four "hopper-like doors" cut into the floor. Hopper bottom gondolas         specifically lack slope sheets for true rapid discharging, and require a lot of man-muscle to empty (manpower is cheap in 1912. Steel and         specialty car are expensive, and automatic unloaders are basically H.G. Wells-inspired fiction). 
 
2) All of the cars in this photo APPEAR to be DL&W equipment, which is no surprise: before the 1920s it was far more common to see nothing but home road cars in large groups like this. And while this is  a "staged" photograph, it's not very staged: chances are extremely good that all the photographer did was to tell the security agents to "stand over there", and that the car selection was 100%  random and "natural".
 
3) The steel hoppers seem to be mostly DL&W 72000-75999 series cars (built in 1905) with one or two 69900-69999 series cars (built 1900).
 
4) the DL&W 5/1915 ORER capitulation lists 2,528 gondolas and 10,368 "coal cars". A more precise breakdown of the cars is as follows:
     Gondola, all-wood, 31'5" OL, low-side: 196 cars
     Gondola, all-wood, 31'5', high side: 1 car
     Gondola, all-wood, 31'5", "conventional duty": 838 cars
     Gondola, "steel" (with all-wood sides). 36'5": 495 cars
     Gondola, "steel", 40'5", four drop doors: 1,000 cars
     Gondola, hopper bottom, all-wood, 30'6" to 36'4", 4,245 cars
     Gondola, hopper bottom, all-steel, 30'6", 10 cars
     Hopper, all-steel, 30'6" or 34'6", 6,113 cars
 or:
     31' all-wood gondolas:  1,035  (8%)
     40' composite gondolas:  1,495 (12%)
     All-wood hopper bottom gons: 4,245 (33%)
     all-steel hopper bottom gons:    10  (0%)
     All-steel hoppers:  6,113 (47%)
 
5) I count 21 cars in this photo: 13 steel hoppers, six hopper-bottom gondolas, and two plain gondolas. Statistically, if these really are all DL&W cars there should be far more of the all-wood,  hopper bottom cars; steel coal-carrying cars are over-represented. (that said, "statistics" really don't mean a thing in the real world, and this mix is most likely "normal")
 
6) ALL of these cars have archbar trucks. The Archbar truck ban is nearly 30 years in the future and T-section Bettendorf cast trucks were only introduced in 1904; MOST freight cars will be  delivered with archbar trucks for another decade.
 
7) Archbar trucks under all-steel, "modern" cars like these hoppers is nothing new. Early PRR and B&O all-steel freight cars had them (including X29 and derivitave boxcars), and archbars pop up in  AC&F builder's photos through the late 1920s. The NYC was an early and widespread adopter of cast sideframe trucks under everything, but few other railroads were until much later.
 
(PS: notice that it's May, and there's basically nothing green growing at all. Welcome to the world of no EPA and lots of raw pollution)
Regards,
Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL

 


Re: Photos, copyright etc.

Jim Betz
 

Hi,

I have just(?) a couple of questions:

1) If a photo is in a book - that is copyrighted - does that copyright
only apply to the book or does it also apply to the photo? Isn't
it the publisher of the book's responsibility to clear the right to
put a photo in a book?

2) I have always thought that including a -link- to a photo that is
somewhere on the web does not violate copyright laws - that
it is the responsibility of the person who posted it to the web
to adhere to the law. Correct? If yes, then it is OK to post here
on Yahoo groups - a link to a photo somewhere else on the web
- also correct?
- Jim

P.S. Moderator/owner - I realize that you didn't want this to evolve
into a lengthy discussion on copyrights - which is clearly not
within the scope of STMFC ... but it affects us all and I don't
see any way for me to avoid asking a question right here on
this group. *Sigh* If this means I get put in moderate jail I
hope the bread and water can be made to taste like caviar
and champagne since I have that every day (or is that "I eat
crow every day"?) ... hey, it's a virtual jail so "anything goes".


copying photos

ed_mines
 

I'm a little uncomfortable about making photocopies of photos when the seller is still active but it's hard to know who's still active and some prints don't have any information on the back.


Ed Mines


Re: Photos, copyright etc.

Tony Thompson
 

Mike Bauers wrote:

If I own the negative, I may not own the copyright and thus it can not be posted in this group? [I have some of those]

       Right. If you know the photographer (or relatives thereof) you may be able to find out if copyright was transferred to anyone else. But if you have no knowledge of that status, I would say you are not out of the woods. If I were wishing to include such a photo in a book, I would make extensive efforts to find out the copyright status, but for an on-line posting, you may not care enough.
        But Mike is JUST about to bring down the hammer on this discussion, as it is not about freight cars per se.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Re: Hoppers from early 20th century

Ray Breyer
 

Hi Schuyler,


1. Viewing these images pretty much daily as I am on the erielack email list, where five images
are posted daily, the use of tie plates (which I presume you meant to say) is the rare instance,
not the norm, not at all.
Oops! Yes, I did mean tie, not fish! That's what I get for posting late at night...

But: I'm not disagreeing that the use of TIE plates was a rarity on the DL&W at this time. I was just pointing it out for everyone else on the list, who are too used to post-WWII railroading.


2. In later years, the DL&W may have been a high speed main line, though it never would have
rivaled the Nickel Plate. But in 1912, or thereabouts, speed was not the issue. We’re moving
coal here, not perishables.
I was referring to the mainline in general, not these specific cars and how they'd be handled. If this is "just west of Scranton" then it's right around Factoryville or Dalton. The schedule for First Class trains between Scranton and Binghamton states 58.55 miles in 1.25 hours, for an average speed of 46 MPH. That's pretty darned fast for ANY mainline.


But......I suppose we've spent far too much time talking about track, and not cars! More on those soon.

Regards,
Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL


Re: Photos, copyright etc.

mwbauers
 

Please clarify this for me……..

If I own the negative, I may not own the copyright and thus it can not be posted in this group? [I have some of those]

Best to ya,
Mike Bauers
Milwaukee, Wi

On Jun 9, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Tony Thompson tony@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

 If they were not copyrighted earlier, and you purchased the negative or original slide, AND you are sure no one else holds written transfer of copyright, it's yours, and in fact if the legitimate owner, YOU can copyright it now.


Re: Photos, copyright etc.

Dave Parker
 

I found this site to be helpful and relatively brief:



 It is oriented towards academic/educational use, but seems to contain the needed basics.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA


Re: Photos, copyright etc.

mwbauers
 

Interesting……..

But you don’t tell us what is currently public domain for images.
Is this link what we need to refer to?

https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Perhaps down to this as a general rule ….… ??

Never Published, Never Registered Works
“ What was in the public domain in the U.S. as of 1 January 2015

Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known
120 years from date of creation
Works created before 1895 “

And….
Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.

needs to be read for years published and related restrictions of works

Is this the right site to use as reference????

Best to ya,
Mike Bauers
Milwaukee, Wi

On Jun 9, 2015, at 12:21 PM, pullmanboss wrote:


Mike Bauers pleaded:
Please post at what point an image is out of copyright and
available for general use? You post we must own the copyright
and there are those outside of copyright that have no such
ownership. We need to be certain of those for posting.

If Mike Brock will permit, here's what I do on the Passenger Car List. (The PCL and STMFC lists are, if not conjoined twins, at least closely related. There is a huge membership overlap, and Mike is one of my PCL moderators.)

The issue is, photos posted to a group's Photos area can be downloaded and shared. Yahoo has made it very clear that there will be no Napster-like unauthorized sharing of copyrighted material going on in Yahoo Groups. This applies to both the Photos and Files areas, but is much more of a potential problem with photos.

It is up to the person submitting the photo to determine whether he has the right to post that photo. If you submit a photo to the PCL and it isn't obvious (to me) that it's one you took, I will email you and ask if the photo is:
A. one you took or
B. in the public domain or
C. you have documentable permission from the person holding the copyright to post the photo.

If you respond that you do have the right, I will approve the photo, no questions asked. I will also save your email asserting your right to post the photo. If the vaunted and feared Copyright Police were to come calling, they will be given a copy of your email.

Again, it is not up to the list owner or moderators to decide whether you have the right to post a particular photo - you have to do your own due diligence.

Tom Madden

61061 - 61080 of 195395