ABPA - Australian Bush Poets Association

I am currently trying to reproduce this Photograph in real life.. or as close to it as I can get.

I already possess the exact type of old-style inkwell and a replica pen ... both bought some years ago.
The table/desk pictured is being made by the local Mens Shed.

The item on the table that at first glance seems like a cup and saucer, may not be though. It could be a lamp base, but unlikely. It could also be a rose bowl. That is, a bowl with a top that has lots of holes in it for poking rose stems for a display. A mystery at present.

The writing on the desk is easily reproduced, there being many examples of Henry's writing available on the net that can be put on to the right paper.

Ideally I would also like to have a realistic life-size model of Henry but have no clues on how to go about doing that. It is a challenge. If anyone has actually been involved in making one... I would appreciate any information!

They do marvellous things with 3d printers these days - not sure if that would be an option though as I have no idea of costs.

I like your idea though Gary

Hey Gary, do you realize you have posted a Copywriten Image?

Neil

OK Neil .. I will happily respond to what you say....

The copyright act is worth taking the time to read. Or at least a summary of it.

Financially profiting from the creative artistic talents, work/efforts, or intellectual property of others without permission is what it is (primarily) about.

One provision of the Act (amended from time to time) states that for photos, the person who created the photo is deemed to be the copyright holder, and that copyright is valid for the lifetime of the holder plus 70 years. After that it is public domain. If you do your homework and specifically identify the photographer, in this case of Lawson in 1910, find his death date, add 70 years to it and if it comes out at greater than 2018, then yep that will entitle you to claim the item is within the copyright period, and you may then, and only then, (if you wish) accuse me of infringement.. i.e. you gotta do your homework first.

However please also consider the following before embarking on that exercise....

Notwithstanding the above, the main provision offering general and reasonable protection is the "fair dealing" provision.

This gives exceptional privileges to students/researchers, of which I am certainly one by virtue of having the specific purpose of identifying period items in this old photo of Henry to use in my project. The student/research project is the re-creation for public benefit (as opposed to my own financial gain) of Henry and his desk. Not to include it in a book, sell millions, make a fortune and retire to Queensland. I already live there.!

To humbly canvas assistance from fellow very learned ABPA members such as yourself in carrying out this noble research task... and to do that I need to post a photo.. obviously... into a niche webitse. A photo publicly available off Google pics too I may say.

That is fair dealing.

You can also reproduce poems or parts of poems for fair "criticism or review" too without infringing copyright... especially on a poetry-specific website.

Booksellers (and eBay) all reproduce the copyrighted contents of hundreds of thousands of books, including copyrighted photos for all to see. I have known of books (very overpriced ones mainly) that stay on bookseller sites for ages. Book-photographs copied for sales purposes, i.e. financial gain!

Look up "Henry Lawson Photo" on eBay. Selling. That guy has been actually selling Lawson photos for ages. Do not type in "Lawson photo" or you end up with Nigella Lawson... mind you I know which I would prefer!!!

I went through the hoops of getting a patent once, through Cullens in Brisbane. So I had to get into all that Patent and Copyright stuff.

I am actually involved in the copyright field at present, because it occasionally overlaps with what I am doing in Bush Poetry full time... yes full time! Thankfully I have a professional and highly qualified lady in that area to work with me. It helps, as you can imagine.

Neil if you are truly worried, try applying "the silliness test" to each case. Or Common Sense Test.

Is it or is it not rather silly to ... shout copyright infringement! for a 110year old photo, taken from Google pics, on low resolution, for the purpose of a research project, and posted on a respected Literary Site, and viewed by a mere handful of poetry buffs... by someone seeking opinions as to what some of the items may be.

If you think that is rather silly, then you just do not do it.

**Note : I recently posted a pic of Lawson's pipe. The pipe was gifted to the Mitchell Library in NSW. There was a note on that on-line photo that if it was used, it would be appreciated if the Library could be acknowledged. Out of courtesy I duly acknowledged them in my post. It was good form, manners etc. It was also in accordance with the Moral Rights provision of the Act where the creator has the Right to be attributed as the creator of the work (photo in this case). No problems. I also want to stay in good with the Mitchell Library folk...

So.. know the rules... before suggesting things that are not so.

Copyright is often a matter of common sense too... fair dealing.. fair to everyone.

Do your homework first, be certain...

I hope that has set the record very straight.

OK.. here is also one for interest.... relating to Neil's interesting comment...

I was at a garage sale a few weeks ago and saw some beautiful, framed, pen and ink, original bird drawings. Five(5) of them.. $35 each. Cost the lady several times that for them, buying from the artist. I thought the frames could be useful, but hey not at that price.

BUT.. what she did not know apparently was that the Copyright remains with the artist. Even if you buy the Original you cannot copy it. You own it, but you don't own it.

She had to sit down later with the lawyers and wrangle over buying the full Copyright entitlement from the artist, and that cost far more for each drawing than the price to buy the original. Ouch!

So... if you buy a cheap painting from an op-shop.. not that I ever frequent those... because it would look good in your next million-selling bush poetry book.. beware! You own it, but you do not own it.

Same if you employ an artist or illustrator, be sure that included in your sales contract is the legal passing over of full copyright entitlements to the artwork!

Ancora Imparo.. I am still learning.

Mate it is watermarked.

Mate, yes of course I saw the watermark.

A watermark simply does not mean it has a valid copyright today. (btw there is free software on-line for watermarking photos so anyone can do it easily).

It means, equally like any other "thing", it may have copyright... or (for example) just be a spoiler placed on it by some poster or site that is unsure.

And like anything on the internet, you do not take it at face value.

A watermark can (but not necessarily) mean that a magnanimous Owner is happy to have their work up on the net provided that it is :

1. Suitably spoiled/watermarked and low-res such that it cannot be commercially copied. (such samples are a good photo-business advertiser).
2. If applicable, not too spoiled such that it cannot be utilised under the Fair Dealing provision, such as for study or research, as in this case. (ref my example of the Lawson pipe pic and acknowledging the Mitchell)
3. If someone wants to get permission to use it commercially and/or pay royalties, there is a lead to locating the owner.

Cultural Collections (like recognised historic bush poetry and other materials Collections) and Museums have certain other exemptions, but I will not bore anyone with that..

BTW.. a quick Google search on the letters DWSPL produce nothing. So I suggest that they are likely random spoiling letters. If you had a valid copyright, would you not openly say who you were if you went to the trouble of watermarking?

However....as I said before.. the above in this case had no interest to me.. it is simply irrelevant... because I was operating precisely under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. Odd watermark or not.

Even if a copyright was valid, I and anybody else doing research and reviews are perfectly entitled to post such a photo in pursuing those ends. Especially of someone like Lawson. And if "DWSPL" was the copyright holder as you suggest, then they have been duly and legally acknowledged ... obviously.

It is important to appreciate that copyright is not a rigid bogey to be feared!

Read about what you can and cannot do.
Operate accordingly, in good faith, and everyone benefits from furthering their knowledge of bush poetry. Do not put restrictions on yourself or others where you do not need to.

Copyright does not mean you cannot reproduce a photo. You can, provided you respect the Fair Dealing rules. You do not have to always "ask permission".

**Recently I wanted to buy on-line for about $40 a quality photo of Leonard Teale from the on-line shop of a well-known newspaper. They took the photo and it was their copyright, no question. The carefully read fine-print (contractual) restrictions on what you could do with it were so onerous for my purposes (I could not even loan it!) that I walked away and kept my $40. I object to paying $40 and then have to be a de facto free advertiser for them too, especially when you are doing your best for Australia at your own very-high personal financial cost, as I am. It detracts from the photo. It was out of the spirit. But that is just me. I would have owned the photo and, like the art-lady, would not have been free to even organise displaying it!! nah...

One attempts to follow the rules. Provided you do not abuse it, the Fair Dealing provision means you can post material that has a valid copyright. Take reasonable steps to acknowledge the copyright owner, but do not be prevented if you cannot find it in an old book, and you want to put it up for discussion/review.. so much in old books for study/sharing/educational purposes for ABPA.

In all the work I do currently in the area of Bush Poetry, and the enormously interesting and relevant material that I take time off to post for the benefit of fellow ABPA members, I follow the rules. Respect.. and common sense. In return it would be nice to get some small appreciation for it Neil. Even a post that says instead "hey mate, thanks.. " will do.
Constructive contributions are good.

Not to say I will not slip up at some time.. being human I likely will... perhaps forget to acknowledge a source? and for that I apologise in advance... but this instance is certainly not one of them.

If uncertain, just acknowledge the Mitchell Library in NSW. They seem to have everything .. unfortunately.

As long as you cop any fine that could eventuate from posting it and don't put it back onto the ABPA.

I posted those extensive comments not for your sake at all Neil, but for the benefit of others here who may not be aware of the facts of copyright.

The Truth, not notions. It took quite a while to draft and explain it... with examples from my experience. Cross-checking websites to confirm my assertions.

While you may not appreciate or grasp it, others I am hoping will because it is important.

It is my own personal understanding of the situation, plus web info, plus what I am told by people who know. It can easily be verified.

There is a worrying and all too common misconception through ignorance that if certain things, even poems, are Copyright you absolutely cannot reproduce them.

As I said, and with reasons .. that is Wrong. Under certain conditions, you Can.

An atmosphere of FEAR. Big brother will come knocking...

"Fair Dealing" is there to support, protect and encourage the very important open study, research and knowledge exchange that we do here in our wonderful APBA interest group. You work within that envelope of intelligent "fair dealing" privilege, use it, and post in the spirit of it too.

The spectre of a monolithic, terrifying, faceless Authority waiting to pounce or worse a battery of lawyers, all waiting to "fine" you.. is all of course nonsense.

Fear mongering. Let us have no more talk about copping fines. It is unhelpful to our free flow of information

I deal with copywriting everyday.

Good luck

Neil