MTFCA Forum

Recently I posted some information and photographs in three threads entitled "When nobody worried about scratching their T", "Possibly one of the first single-make car clubs in the world?", and "Church outing at Peel Forest, Feb 13, 1913.".

The photographs in these posts were taken between 1911 - 1921 or thereabouts and I believe there to be no copyright applicable to them. Those of you who saw the posts will also have noticed that I referenced the source of the photographs, and provided a URL with each photograph where they resided on the local public website of the 'Hocken collection' (https://hocken.recollect.co.nz/) from which said photographs originated.

In seeking to do the "right thing" and in order to contribute back to the local website, and to the general body of knowledge, in return I posted on the local website information regarding the vehicles, information on other items contained within the photographs, and in one case information on the photographer itself. I'd also asked forum members to let me know about any detail they might have on the vehicles so that I could pass that on to the local website as well.

At the same time I informed the Hocken people what I was doing, and requested permission to carry this on with a few further photographs. I felt that this was the courteous thing to do, and I wanted to ensure I wasn't treading on any toes.

The Hocken responded today. The essence of their response was that they wanted $25 for each photograph, and they asked me to fill out a form.

Although they also said they would not ask me to take down what I'd posted I have to say that I am deeply troubled at the implication of the payment and form, so I have chosen to remove the post content from the forum.

I apologise to those of you who were interested in the information (and thank those that responded), but I don't wish to be party to something I feel is morally wrong, and which may be legally questionable. I do intend to pursue this however, and hope to be able to return the information to the site at some stage.

I'm not really asking for comment here, but I felt an explanation as to why I'd deleted the posts should be forthcoming...

Luke,

I understand your position and sympathize with you.

We own a train (think amusement park size) that was homemade from a View Master 3D disc of a Quick Draw McGraw cartoon. Hanna Barbera was the original owner. Today, Warner Brothers owns the rights. Knowing the train was built from that cartoon, we would have liked to display the original View Master disc cells by projecting them on a screen of some sort. We display/run the train in our Christmas display. Thinking of copyrights, we researched the current owner and contacted them with our story. Our display is NOT commercial, it's at our home like about a million other people do. Warner Brothers replied with an agreement for $450 per photo/cell PER Year. That works out to $4500 per year. Needless to say, we don't display ANY photos but we do still tell the story of the train to visitors.

Seems like when someone owns the rights to something, they believe they are sitting on a gold mine. Greed usually gets them less than if they were more civil.

Good Luck,
Terry

We all to often post images that belong to other people here. I am as guilty as anyone else. I worried about this in the beginning and asked some questions about copywrites with mixed answers. I asked the manager of a very different forum if I could use a photo from his site and he said "heck yes, I just steal them off the internet".
When I paint a picture I have often tried to contact the owner of the image to see if they care. They seldom object and even sometimes seem annoyed that I asked. I post the paintings knowing they are out there and I have no control over how they are used.
I'm sure there are rules on this that are impossible to enforce. My take is that if we use something for reference to Model T information and aren't making a profit on it it may have some merit and justification. That may be wrong.
Some photos fall under public domain. We have been treated to so may photos like the one you posted. I hate to think we would no longer be able to see these. I also know we can't tax anyone with the responsibility of filtering these out before showing them.
I will try to consider posting more carefully in the future. I'm sorry for the results in your inquiry.
Rich

Seems like when someone owns the rights to something, they believe they are sitting on a gold mine.

Some do, and some don't. When I was manufacturing reproduction signs, licensing for some brands was so expensive that I passed. I never made Ford signs because of that. Others (Phillips 66, Texaco, Sinclair) charged a small fee I could live with. Many of the brands I made were public domain, but there were also several trademark owners who gave permission for free.

I think the owners of those photographs should be required to pay me a few thousand dollars for pointing out some details and clarifying what some of the facts about the cars are. The information I offered clearly made their photographs more valuable than they were before.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of dealing with greedy corporations, small businesses, and individuals with delusions of grandeur. Why is it that these idiots think they have an absolute right to assault my phone with a dozen spam calls in a day (I don't even answer my phone anymore unless I recognize the caller's number (if you want to contact me, send a PM or email). But I/we cannot look at a photograph taken by someone they never knew decades before they were born unless we PAY them? They think they have a right to just anything just because they think so?
I know and totally agree that some degree of ownership of "intellectual property rights" MUST exist. People that create some assemblage of words or information need to be able to control and/or profit from that. But when there is no profit to be had? And when they in fact DID NOT create the thing of questionable value? Get real.

How many people are aware that silence has been copyrighted? Really? (Yes, it is true!) Who invented or created silence? Yet there is a history of lawsuits for infringement by several owners of such copyrights.

You're in New Zealand so rules may be different than the US. The Hocken didn't create the images so it is doubtful they could force you to pay for their use. Also, in the US we have the "Fair Use"doctrine that allows for the publishing of even copyrighted images for non-commercial educational use. Typically the folks who want you to buy their online images either publish low-res versions or overprint them with a watermark. That said, it doesn't hurt to ask when you're unsure, in particular when it is an original work.

Greed,plain and simple greed.
Same reason I would never pay the extra money for "Ford" to be on a brass radiator or something similar.If they want to own the "rights' to something,they can pay ME for the advertising.

Tis better to beg forgiveness than to AX permission. No good deed goes unpunished!