Copyright infringement

There a number of threads on Copyright, but a cursory glance tells me they are about protecting your work, what I want is people's views (Beaky? You are a cartoonist - your views would be invaluable, and I know you enjoyed the Punch cartoons) on posting cartoons and the like on the forum

This has now come up with me THREE times viz......

1/. Way back when I was scanning and posting Punch cartoons from a library of Edwardian Punch books I own, "somebody" suggested I may be infringing copyright, BUT as the Punch magazine no longer existed, I thought I would be on safe ground.
HOWEVER, just to be sure, I checked the web and in fact somebody owned the copyright and were selling Punch cartoons, so of course I decided to reappraise the situation and informed Aaron, and so, we decided to delete the entire thread, just to be on the safe side.

2/. Somebody (a different "somebody") else piped up and suggested I might be infringing copyright when I was posting the pages from a comedy writing course ("Written By") I did in the 1990s. As both the professional comedy script writers who put the course together and sold same, were long dead, I thought it would be OK.
Anyway, Aaron didn't seem to be bothered, but the warning was enough for me to stop there and then, which was a pity as quite a number of people were enjoying it and found it informative.

SO, we come to 3/., and this is the posting of "Saucy Seaside Postcards", that I have been doing since the beginning of this year.

I had a PM from "somebody" again, to warn me that I may well be infringing copyright, BUT my argument is I am only "reposting" what a postcard collector was putting up on Facebook. He has been doing it for some time now and hasn't been prosecuted it seems.

IF I had been copying them FROM a book, OR IF I published a book using them, then I could understand it, BUT I'm only posting for other people's enjoyment on here and am making no profit out of it.

Not an expert but I thought on images, if you attribute each one to the creator or copyright owner if different then it's fine because you're effectively giving them free advertising. ???

What you did with the Writing Course may be different because it wasn't already in the public domain, you put it there, which may have required their permission. But I could be totally wrong on all, sorry.

Lazzard or Aaron or similar should know how it works.

You're not doing it for commercial reasons. Maybe you could call it educational purposes.

There are about a million copyright infringements every hour on FaceBook.
I should imagine your crimes are fairly low down on their list.

I do sometimes make people aware that they might be breaking copyright.

Alas Herc your arguement that lots of people do it on Facebook is not valid. Just because someone else commits a civil infringement does not make it valid for you to do so. Though the likely-hood of being sued is small.

Just as with crime; If someone decides to explode a bomb on a bus and kill half the bus passengers, that doesn't give you the right to do the same.

Look to the Facebook, Australia v Newspapers situation to see what might happen.

We probably all do it to some extent; I have today copy/pasted (then edited) and article from the BBC news website into a message in another forum (not BCG), but I know that I have no right to do that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ later ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Albert Kipper, you are wrong, unless they changed the copyright law recently, there's no 'free advertising' let out, merely that the copyright owner is not likely to sue you under such circumstances.

The only let-out in the copyright law, is "Fair Practice" in which you are permitted to copy a small portion or portions of a copyright work for the purpose of review or satire, only.

https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-use-copyright-explained#

With all that said it seems like this thread by it's very existence is bringing undue attention regardless of the fine line when you share images from facebook. If you're going to post copyright material without permission keep it on the downlow and if anyone other than admin contacts you about it ignore them. Not sure how posting about it and sharing it with the world is going to help make the sexist and outdated postcard images thread more secure. A google search shows that copyright is out there with several artists from the genre.

"sexist and outdated postcard images"

Sorry you feel like that Tarbs, but they happened, are part of the British psyche, are a form of comedy, were an enormous part of the holiday scene in the mid 20th century, and are surely no more offensive than say the Viz magazine or many comedians work past and present.

To me they are just a harmless form of ribaldry, which again the Brits have always excelled at over the centuries.

Just for clarity:
Before 1923 - are in public domain and can be used freely by anyone.
Between 1923 and 1978 - without a public copyright notice, are also in public domain.
Between 1923 and 1963 - published with a copyright notice, but the copyright has not been renewed, are available in public domain.
Between 1923 and 1963 - published with a copyright notice, and that notice has been renewed, are only available in public domain 95 years after the publication date.
Between 1964 and 1978 - published with a copyright notice, are available in public domain 70 years after the death of the author. If the postcard was a corporate authorship, it is in public domain 95 years after the publication or 120 years from when it was first created.
Between 1978 and March 1, 1989 - without an initial public copyright notice, but then a copyright notice was filed after publication, are in public domain only 70 years after the death of the author. If the postcard was a corporate authorship, it is in public domain 95 years after the publication or 120 years from when it was first created.
Between 1978 and March 1, 1989 - with a copyright notice, are in public domain only 70 years after the death of the author. If the postcard was a corporate authorship, it is in public domain 95 years after the publication or 120 years from when it was first created.
After March 1, 1989 - without a public copyright notice are in public domain only 70 years after the death of the author. If the postcard was a corporate authorship, it is in public domain 95 years after the publication or 120 years from when it was first created.

Thanks for clarifying that Stephen

Everything is sexist to somebody Tarby.
I'm with neutral gender then nobody is offended - a lovely bland world.

They were postcards, outside every shop on every sea front.
The cheekier the better (see, they were cheeky not sexist) Now though, they are sexist?

I don't know what it is these days with people wanting to eradicate British history because it doesn't fit with their today thinking.

There is nothing sexist about the postcards. They poke fun at males and females equally.

And if, as fans of comedy, we discarded everything that some may consider now to be "outdated", that's Max Miller, Brian Rix, Benny Hill and the Carry On Films deleted from history at a stroke, never to be seen again.

Quote: Billy Bunter @ 24th February 2021, 10:25 AM

There is nothing sexist about the postcards. They poke fun at males and females equally.

And if, as fans of comedy, we discarded everything that some may consider now to be "outdated", that's Max Miller, Brian Rix, Benny Hill and the Carry On Films deleted from history at a stroke, never to be seen again.

View original

They are sexist.
Women are either sex objects or nags.
But on-one's suggested that things should be discarded.
Just accept that they are sexist and, as fans of comedy, make your own choices.

Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 24th February 2021, 10:09 AM

Everything is sexist to somebody Tarby.
I'm with neutral gender then nobody is offended - a lovely bland world.

They were postcards, outside every shop on every sea front.
The cheekier the better (see, they were cheeky not sexist) Now though, they are sexist?

I don't know what it is these days with people wanting to eradicate British history because it doesn't fit with their today thinking.

View original

Amen.......sorry, I mean Awomen to that.

Quote: Lazzard @ 24th February 2021, 11:34 AM

They are sexist.
Women are either sex objects or nags.

View original

Does it really matter when related to this BIG chunk of comedy history in this country? It was never intended, AND the men were also treated with derision. Also, I think you will find most ladies at that time on holiday with their families (I'm old enough to remember this) enjoyed the burlesque.

Quote: Hercules Grytpype Thynne @ 24th February 2021, 12:19 PM

Does it really matter when related to this BIG chunk of comedy history in this country? It was never intended, AND the men were also treated with derision. Also, I think you will find most ladies at that time on holiday with their families (I'm old enough to remember this) enjoyed the burlesque.

View original

That was my point.
You don't need to expunge them from history.
You'll find a similar sort of ribaldry in Chaucer.
But to say they're not sexist is just barmy.
And the fact that we, as blokes, should take it upon ourselves to decide that women quite enjoyed a bit of casual sexism in the past is, dare I say it, part of the problem.