Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyright of pictures from 1870

I am recently engaged in a conversation with [[User:Kimberlyblaker]], who uploaded a fair amount of old, 19th century pictures onto Commons, including the album of places in Cambridge (see below) which is of particular interest to me. What stumbled me was the copyright status of these images - are they in the public domain? If they aren't, is it due to publication right, and is Kimberly Blaker (& co.) the rightful copyright holder of them? Deryck ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: New Boston Fine and Rare Books <books4u29(a)hotmail.com> Date: 8 February 2012 17:06 Subject: Re: Unidentified locations To: Deryck Chan <deryckchan(a)wikimedia.hk> Dear Deryck, Thanks again, for the additional identification and for inviting assistance through twitter. As to the copyright, I truly appreciate your help with this. Here is what I can tell you, so that you can better assess the copyright. I have an original 19th century album with original 19th albumen prints of these images. The album does not appear to have ever been published. There is no title (except for a paper label that errantly labeled it as “Oxford”. There is no title page, copyright page, author, publisher, photographer, anything whatsoever inside. The only identification is a late 20th century bookplate on which it was handwritten “Oxford University, pictures taken for William Winfield, circa middle 19th century, given to Robert Winfield early 1970s. This album formerly owned by William Winfield.” Obviously the “Oxford” note is incorrect. I assume the other details are probably correct. It is probably a family heirloom that had been handed down. I have searched extensively, and cannot locate any of these identical images online. So I have to assume they may have never been reproduced and was likely a collection an early photographer did for himself or as a gift for a friend. With this in mind, aside from the photographs being compiled in a photo album, it seems that it would still fall under a previously unpublished work. I own the original work, have photographed the work, and have now published the work online via my own website. So I think, I am now the official copyright holder? I’m not an expert in copyright law but have some general understanding of it. You are probably better versed in this? Sincerely, Kimberly Blaker, President New Boston Fine and Rare Books 520-395-1363 Like us on Facebook and find a valuable coupon offer on our Welcome tab! We're also on Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, and Tumblr. Enter our FREE drawing for a chance to win a new leather bound Easton Press book. Take 19th century photographic tour of Cambridge University. And be sure to subscribe to our newsletter for future updates. From: Deryck Chan Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:11 AM To: New Boston Fine and Rare Books Subject: Re: Unidentified locations Dear Ms Blaker, Also identified: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pepys_Library_c1870.jpg This one is Pepys Library in Magdalene College. I've also posted links to the Wikimedia Commons pictures from Twitter asking others in Cambridge University to help identify the remaining unidentified locations. As for the copyright notice, I think I previously made the mistake of thinking the photos came from a collection published in the 1870s, which would be automatically out of copyright. However, I have now realised that the pictures are actually from a previously unpublished private collection, which means as copy-holder and publisher your company should enjoy 25 years of publication right... wait it's a previously unpublished British work uncovered in the United States... argh! (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Hirtle_chart) Deryck On 8 February 2012 14:42, New Boston Fine and Rare Books <books4u29(a)hotmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org