The Fair Use laws really do not imply to copying and/or publishing (online) entire reference works. The basic concept is that you may use a copyrighted image or text only if you're using it to illustrate the concept of that image or text. For example, if you were composing an article about Mickey Mouse or Disney, you could justifiably use a picture of Mickey Mouse to illustrate what you've written, or you could use some dialog from one his cartoons in the same way.
One thing that often causes confusion is that you cannot use copyrighted material under Fair Use to illustrate something else besides the actual material you're using. For example, you cannot write an article about an SA Sports Badge and use an illustration from a reference book under fair use. This is because the article is on the subject of the badge, and not the picture of the badge or the photographer of the badge.
There are some exceptions which may be justified, but Fair Use laws certainly do not apply to entire reference volumes posted online.
10-20-2014 12:30 AM
"There are some exceptions which may be justified, but Fair Use laws certainly do not apply to entire reference volumes posted online."-Eron
Now the next question is how much would be too much?
In my fifteen thousand posts on this site I have mentioned Mollo in surely five thousand of them.
And, some of here should copyright our own work on this site, granted how much it is then used, etc.
I write books for a living, and Mollo deserves to garner something from his labor.
Our Wim Saris and others here also are authors, and deserve the custom and distinction that goes with authorship.
Brave new world it all is, but any serious student of the SS can invest in a decent library, granted the benefit that accrues from same.
I bought up some of the newer SS pictorial works while I was in Berlin.
When I can, I shall make a book report.
For the sake of clarity - the original post was purged before I realized a link to the entire work was posted. That is clearly not legitimate and my comments on fair use were more mundane and genarl with repect to the typical post that quotes small passgaes or uses srelective images.
Now - because I really don't know the answer: although the intellectual and visual works created by the third reich were declared public domain in the aftermath of the war - does this extend to those personal images made by servicemen in the military? Because if not then the life of the author plus 75 years copyright applies yes? And a huge number of images posted here are in violation of copyright. Owning a copy of an image does not mean you own the copyright.
Any image not made by the German government falls under normal German copyright law, whatever that happens to be. I seem to remember that the copyright on those images expires after 70 years if the image is anonymous with no attached name to identify the author. Assuming that most of the images posted on the forum fall into that category, then they are public domain under German law. They should also be public domain under U.S. law, because they were created without copyright notice before 1978.
I am not a lawyer, so this information is only based upon work I've done with images in a non-professional context.
There may be some grey areas, especially life plus 50 for unpublished, but many are probably fine:
"Until recently, copyright assigned ownership for a finite time and barring unusual circumstances, lasted for a maximum of 75 years for items created and published before the 1976 revision of the copyright law. For material originally created and published after 1976, copyright protection is for the life of the creator plus 50 years. Unpublished materials, such as diaries and family snapshots, were protected for the life of the creator plus 50 years. Congress, however, delayed initial implementation of this provision. Under the copyright revision that took effect in 1978, the copyright holder of unpublished material was given control of use until 2003 regardless of the original creation date."
COPYRIGHTS AND OTHER RIGHTS IN PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES
The issue is not just one of copyright holders protection but also one of the book publishers commercial and legal right to recoup their production costs such as editors fees, contract lawyers fees, book designers fees, print production fees, marketing and promotion fees, distribution and warehousing fees, bookseller discounting fees, translation fees etc etc which are also stolen by those who indiscriminently copy and distribute such works online.
Authors royalties are not the most significant part of the commercial book publishing equation, for example most of the books I have been involved with have had minimum print bills of over £15,000 and fees from specialist historian translators for similar amounts! Most of these books were/are illustrated and "we" publishers have paid for professional maps etc to be created and have paid archive photo reproduction/licensing fees to various museum and library collections etc...so why should such material be deemed okay to copy and distribute online therefore taking away the publishers legal and legitimate right to recover its expenses at minimum let alone make a profit? It is theft, pure and simple and trying to hide behind "fair use" does not negate this plain fact.
Even ebooks have all of the above production fees excluding the cost of print, but having said that often the costs of providing ebooks in the various digital formats can equate to printing physical copies.
Larry was right to delete the link.
Last edited by StefanM; 10-20-2014 at 08:13 AM.
I collect, therefore I am.
Nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter.
That's right. In all other cases, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author.
For example, the copyright for Hitler's Mein Kampf, currently held by the state of Bavaria, expires in 2015, after which the work will be in the public domain. This has led to much discussion in recent years, as there is considerable interest in a scientifically annotated edition, whereas other parties abhor the very idea of any republishing of this book. Up until now the current copyright holder could succesfully prevent any such attempt (in Germany, at least) by simply not granting authorization.
Another example for the effects of German copyright laws are Walter Frentz' famous color photographs of notable Third Reich personalities so often found on the internet. Frentz died in 2004, so his photographs will be copyrighted for another six decades from now. As the current copyright holder, his son has filed numerous lawsuits for their unauthorized use.
This matter should not be taken lightly.