Anyone know of any old photographs of bikers at play in Scotland before the war?

[Bosquoy]

I'm new here and am sorry my first contribution is to ask for help! (Although in my defence I do ride a classic bike, a 78 BMW R100RS)

I'm putting together a guide book for motorcyclists visiting Scotland and am looking for a particular type of photograph to illustrate a chapter about Scotland's relationship with motorbikes over the years, manufacturers, great racers etc
I'm trying to track down a picture of a bike (or bikes) in Scotland,but not in a competition. There are a good number of pre-war Trials pictures around but I'd prefer something recreational, rather than competitive. I've found the attached which would be perfect but I can't establish the copyright situation so can't use it. 

I wonder if any of you lot have a photograph in your possession which would suit, and for which you know the copyright implications. i.e. know who took it and how to contact a member of the family, or the copyright holder - and most importantly which you'd allow me to use.
 
A prize to anyone who can help me out (although I don't know what the prize is yet!).  Even if you can't help, it's a chance to share the picture below.

[33d6]

What a picture! Also what a pity it isn't big enough to get a good look at the bikes and hopefully identify them.
Cheers,

[cardan]

... I can't establish the copyright situation so can't use it. 

Here in Australia there is no copyright on photos taken prior to the mid 1950s, whether the photographer is known or unknown, living or dead. This is quite different to other works, such as written word or artwork. Worth checking what the situation is in the UK, but I'd guess it would be similar.

Note that there may be other restrictions on use, such as when you use or buy from a source that licenses use of an image that is not already in the public domain. For example you might be given access to an image "for private use only". But if that image has been published - say in a book or indeed on the internet - you can copy and use it, subject to copyright.

Cheers

Leon

[mini-me]

Here copyright continues for 75 years after the death of the originator of the work, book,art whatever.

what date the work was published or created has no relevance.
 
for instance if an author died yesterday aged 100 something he/her wrote aged 20 will still be in copyright for another 75 yrs. Its also possible to leave ownership of copyright to heirs.

Thanks to the blessed wisdom of the saintly EU the position over works of art is even more complicated.

Of course the web has buggered all that anyway.

Nor am I entirely clear about "creative commons" as applied to these things in an educational or non commercial use.

[cardan]

Here copyright continues for 75 years after the death of the originator of the work, book,art whatever.

As it does in Australia for most things (70 years here), but not photographs. http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs08.aspx

Leon

[Bosquoy]

 Here's a bigger version (I hope). Any info on bikes, dates or brand of fags would be welcome.  A special prize if anyone can tell me the location!

[mini-me]

middle bike Douglas [fore and aft engine]
right hand Triumph.  [that fork spring]
left could be AJS, just a guess

fags, woodbine or Craven A

[Bosquoy]

I'm impressed with the bike identification but you're way out with the fags. They're clearly Capstan. 

Best guess on a date?
 

[mini-me]

date is hard,wish we could see the reg no,s.

most likely post 1918, maybe just pre 1914.

you are wrong about Capstan fags, my mate Baccy  McFaggis told me you could only get Woodbines or Craven A back then, and that was for Sassenachs, real Scots smoked sheep daggings, which of course were free.

edit.
just been for another look, two bikes are carrying tax disc holders, compulsory carrying of those came in in 1921, so post 1921 for sure.
Interesting, no lamps on any bikes

[Bosquoy]

Good spot with the Tax discs.

So .... Lets say the picture was taken in 1924.
Copyright in the UK expires 70 years the death of the photographer (roughly speaking), so if the photographer died on the way home from the photoshoot, the image would be out of copyright
in 1995.

Therefore, as long as he (or she) died within 23 years of the picture being taken, copyright has expired (like the photographer). And WW2 increases the chances of an early demise.
I don't wish the chap any harm, but I'm encouraged.

 

   

[mini-me]

I think you'll be OK with using that photo as long as you have a disclaimer in the book. I take it it is original photo and not from another publication?
Unlikely anyone will come back at you.

If it really worries you why not join the Society of Authors?

The internet has made the field of copyright a muddy mess.

I have a website which uses a lot of photos from various sources including museums, I always give a credit to the source even when I didn't ask first. Not much anyone can do. Mine is an academic site not a commercial so no-one loses anything.

Example, someone owned a painting and I took photos of it. That person is now dead, and his heir complained that I used that photo and claiming copyright. But the copyright  of the photo I took with previous owners permission,some years before his death is mine, so I can lawfully use it and the moaning heir can lump it. However if I now took a photo of same painting in heirs ownership, that's a different set up altogether.

There is an acceptable formula for this, ask the Society of Authors.


The Getty picture archives got fed up with folk using their images so decided that single use was ok as long as Getty archive got credit; commercial use needs a license.

[Bosquoy]

I'll look into that, although "author" seems a rather grand word for what I'm doing! I'd never heard of them so thanks for the pointer.

I wonder how commercial photo archives can claim ownership of photographs which must be out of copyright (under normal circumstances). For instance – John Boyd Dunlop tested his prototype tyre in 1886, so the photograph has to be clear by now ... yet a licence to use it in a book costs hundreds of pounds.

 

[mini-me]

I think it works along the lines of they bought the whole library, and if they photo the photo they sell you the copy, not the original.
Getty have ownership of Hulton library, Illustrated London news, and a host of others.

It amounts to a tax on research.

[cardan]

I wonder how commercial photo archives can claim ownership of photographs which must be out of copyright (under normal circumstances).

Let's say you find a very old photo at a junk shop and buy it for a pound. You now own it. It is out of copyright, so you can do what you like with it. Sell it to someone else, scan it and make copies and sell them, or do what the big photo libraries do: enter into a contract to allow the use of the photo in a book, magazine, website... in exchange for money. In this case you are not buying a the photo, just the right to use it as agreed in the contract.

The slightly bizarre thing - and check it before you believe me - is that if someone has paid a squillion dollars for the rights to very old photos, and published them in a lovely coffee-table book, you can scan the photos from the book (because they are free of copyright) and do with them what you will. What you can't do is copy the author's captions, layout, fonts, ... because these are new and the copyright belongs to the author or publisher.

It's an interesting area, but provided you try to do the right thing - attribute the source of the photo - I doubt you can get into too much trouble.

Cheers

Leon

[cardan]

Re the photo: mini-me has nailed the ID of the bikes. The AJS outfit - with its boxy saddle tank and rim front brake - is a 1920 model http://cybermotorcycle.com/gallery/ajs-1920/AJS-1920-6hp-Combination.htm , while the Triumph and Douglas are likely "war product".

Leon