Photo copyrights on websites

Hi all, second post here. Hope I'm in the right place again

I'm doing some research and building a site dedicated to my favorite plane, the JU-87 Stuka. However I'm wondering what are the legalities regarding posting pictures on my website? I see here and on many other personal websites, people seem to post pictures quite freely, sometimes giving credit to the photographer or owner where due, othertimes not.

Before putting pics up on my site, do I need to get permission from anyone? (Most pics are either scanned from old books or found on the internet).

I learned some pictures older than 50 years are considered "public domain" and can be used freely by anyone. Since the majority of the pictures I will use are circa 1940's (ie: oldr than 50 years) is it safe to say the are public domain then?

I'd be glad if anyone can shed some light on this for me.

...and I'll keep you all tuned in when the site is ready 8)

The copyright expires 65 years after the death of the copyright holder. Depending on the photographer, some will allow you to post their photos freely, others are a bit more stringent. For me, and I have thousands of photos on my site, I have no problem with photos reposted provided that it remains unedited and my copyright mark remains intact. When in doubt, it is always best to check with the copyright holder (in most cases, the photographer).

We here tread very lightly around copyright stuff for a reason... It doesnt go anywhere else, and it helps enlighten everyone to the history that is slowly ebbing away from concious memory.... Spead the wealth to all the masses for free.... Screw the cry-baby wanna-be glory hounds... Post all the pics u want to share to the world...

Now that I got that out, please try to source everything u post... U dont have to, I dont, but please try.... Some people take their pictures, that THEY took, with pride... One of our Admins is a photographer and regularly post his pics here.... He includes a watermark... When one of his shots pleases my inners, I crop out the watermark and use it as a wallpaper....

Sometimes, I may post that pic in a later thread without said watermark.... Evangiler will not cry about it, cause I will usually remember its his pic and will say so....

Its very easy... Use ur judgement and screw the copyright pussies...

In the case of educational and informative use, there should not be an issue with re-posting. Where the problem lies with copyright marks removed is when someone sees the image that they want to use for commercial purposes. Now they have no way of sourcing the image. Some photographers are very possessive with their work. That's why it's a good idea to ask first. I do know that almost all of the photographers that I personally know will gladly allow you to repost their pictures if you ask first.

Dan, if you see one of my pics that you want to make as a wallpaper, let me know and I will gladly optimize it for your screen to make it the best possible quality. Resizing the 750x499 for wallpapers looks ok, but when edited for your screen size, it pops! Plus, if you tell me something that you find appealing for a screensaver or background, that means others probably will to, and I can add that to my free desktop wallpaper section on my website.

While I am not ego-bound or anything else about my photos, some others may be. Source if you can. Trust me, taking beautiful pictures and posting them is a joy. Making money with them is very tough.

Where the problem lies with copyright marks removed is when someone sees the image that they want to use for commercial purposes.

Click to expand...

That I agree to 100% absolutely...

Dan, if you see one of my pics that you want to make as a wallpaper, let me know and I will gladly optimize it for your screen to make it the best possible quality.

Click to expand...

U got it... Lemme check and Ill PM ya... I may include 1 or that arent urs, but they sure look like it...

A copyright example:

We had a client in Modesto, CA that was established in 1927. They wanted to celebrate their anniversary by publishing a newspaper ad. The concept was, "what happened in 1927". Among the things that happened was Babe Ruth hitting 60 home runs. We scanned a photo of the Babe and used it on a timeline with several other photos from 1927.

We were sued for $10,000 by the estate of Babe Ruth! We had to pay an out-of court settlement!

Grant it, a historical forum web site is different from a newspaper but how did the copyright Nazi's find out??!!

There are people that are paid to watch for things like that, believe it or not. $10k for one photo though is ridiculous. Unfortunately, this kind of thing does happen.

Image/likeness rights are different then photo rights. the penalty would have been similar even if we sketched our own drawing of the Babe. His estate owns all image and likeness rights.

Even so, it would be one thing if he was portrayed in a negative light. Sometimes it borders on the ridiculous.