Fotopic Copyright Theft

My attention has been drawn to the undernoted site which purports to show pre-TOPS BR Diesel locomotives with copyright claimed by the site owner - one Grahame Warehams whose site is at :

http://grahame910.fotopic.net

Unfortunately a quick look at his Class 44 page identified 2 of my own images for which I have the original 35mm slides thus I have just sent him the following note :

Sir

I am concerned to note that your website has included two images ( ref D1_Corby_May_65_Slide_490.jpg and D6_Corby_June_65_Slide_491.jpg ) for which you have identified yourself as the copyright holder.

Since I currently possess the original 35mm slides of these images I would be grateful for an explanation of how you can claim to be the the copyright holder.

I await your explanation with interest but be advised that if I do not have a satisfactory answer within 7 days - i.e. by midnight Sunday 7 February 2010 then I will be obliged to take this matter further.

Regards

I would suggest that other photographers might care to examine his files in case their images have also been subject to a similar copyright theft.

Having subsequently taken my own advice and checked his pages I have identified a possible 4 or 5 more images for which he claims copyright despite the fact that I currently have the original 35mm slides in my possession. An interesting point is that all the images are those submitted to Traction Magazine which were published ( and the appropriate fee paid ) then returned to me directly and Traction magazine is also interested in how the images came to be in Mr Wareham's collection.

I have since also been informed that this gentleman calls himself Brush veteran and is currently engaged in posting some of his images on other web sites such as www.rmweb.co.uk under that identity.

If you have contributed to Traction Magazine in the past it may be worth examing this archive to see if your material is being exploited.

 

As promised an update on the copyright situation.

Graham Wareham was able to get in touch with me and discuss the situation; it appears that Graham bought the slides in 1969 and they were mounted in Agfa plastic mounts with no identification asto source on them. I cannot think how this arose but can only assume that I loaned the slides to someone in the 1960s who took the liberty of copying them without my knowledge.

After 40 years it is impossible to trace the person(s) responsible but I acknowledge that Graham bought his slides in all good faith and I have no problem with that. I also understand Graham's desire to put the material on the web as his feedback suggests that many people value the images for their modelling / historic value and I have no wish to affect this situation adversely.

We have therefore come to an amicable understanding that Graham will amend the copyright of the slides to acknowledge my copyright and I will be happy for Graham to continue using them as he has to date.

There is no complaint against Graham and he has my apologies for any criticism that may have resulted from my postings whilst he acknowledges that copyright must be correctly identified and is happy to amend copyright details whenever errors are pointed out to him.

As far as I am concerned the matter is now closed but this experience does indicate that the question of stolen copyright existed before the web and therefore sites still need to be monitored to ensure that no-one takes credit / payment for other people's work.

 

Perhaps it would be best to delete your first post here on wnxx and anywhere else you have posted it.

I think this shows it is often better to adopt a softly softly approach to these things until the facts are established.

 

Grahame clearly didn't purchase the copyright when he purchased the slides (these are two separate tangible assets, and the purchase of one doesn't automatically give a right to the other) but he almost certainly had no intention to deliberately infringe copyright.

Infringement of copyright, intentional or accidental, is against the law. However I support Simon's 'softly, softly' view and suggest that a private letter should be the first step in such cases, with public humiliation considered only if the matter can't be sorted quietly and amicably.

Grahame must have been as surprised and upset to receive FK's letter as FK was to find his photos on the 'net. The outcome was good for both parties, and FK is to be commended for his forgiving attitude, however I agree with Simon that the opening post here should be deleted from the record - preferably by FK.

A lesson, or two, to be learned here by all of us.

 

Whilst I understand the view that I could moderate my initial posting I think it is important to understand my position. IMHO I have a certain reputation as a photographer; whilst not in the premier league of such as Brian Morrison ar Dick Riley I am sufficiently competent to have my work published and therefore I have to make certain that no-one takes advantage of either me or my reputation in such ways as claiming copyright of / income from my material.

My initial posting could be defined in diplomatic terms as "a shot across the bows" which had the desired effect of having the photographer contact me to discuss the situation. It is important for photographers to establish their copyright and their willingness to safeguard it; in this case once satisfied asto the situation and how it arose I was happy for Grahame to continue, subject to crediting my copyright where known. My main concern was not so much to claim any incomes due but to ensure that someone wasn't using my material incorrectly.

It is a difficult situation which is made all the more difficult with unauthorised copying of material from websites and is one that will cause concern for as long as there are photographers willing to post material on websites for others to enjoy and whilst there are parasites willing to copy the same material and use it for their own benefit.

I hope people will understand where I have drawn my "line in the sand" but understand my willingness to listen before taking too drastic a reaction.

 

Well actually I would IMHO expect the whole post to be deleted in the light of the "truth" compared with the accusation levelled. But I must hold rather different views on it being best to establish the facts before going public with accusations

In any event, IMHO cannot see that the shots in question have anything beyond historic interest - they are not exactly top quality material and the owner of the fotopic site is not offering them for sale in any shape or form.