Norway during ww2 forum

Hello everybody!

I have got a question about the german Vp-boat V-6107 Franke ex Larwood (Trawler). I have the information that the ship sank in Dezember 1945 during his work for the 61. Vp-Flotilla in the GM/SA. A former member of the flotilla wrote that Franke ran ashore. But Gröner says the trawler hit a mine.

What is true and which date was it exactly? Has someone a detailed report?

Best greetings, Armin

I do belive I have a color picture of Franke in my collection, if you want I can send you a scan in low resolution.
Kurt

Hello Kurt,

For sure I would like to have a color picture of Franke. I am also interested in other fotos of ships of the 61st Vp-flotilla. Every help is welcome...

Greetings, Armin

I have some photos on my pages. Use the URL further down.

This photo is taken in Tromsø

[img]http://d2134644.u48.surftown.nu/coppermine/albums/6105/S26a_61_V-Fl_p%E5_Troms%[/img]H E R E

Hi,

many nice photos you have collected on your HP!
But I have a question regarding the copyrights. These are all photos taken from 1940-1945 but you have a coyright signed in that says 2003.... how does that work?

As far as I know the photographer has 70 years copyright on his/her photos, or the person who bought/got the rights in the photo from the owner. So if you got the copyright on the photos why 2003? If you scan a photo there is no new copyright on from this time, I think.

If you are not the owner you shouldnt put you name on - can be very expensive!

Kind regards Sven

Tore has bought the photoalbum that these pictures came from, the photographer is either dead or has chosen to sell it. Since Tore paid for /or was donated the album, the pictures is his private property and he also owns all copyrights.
Kurt

yep, but for no longer than 70 years from the day the photo was taken, as far as I know

mvh sven

This is long debated theme. There is no question on who owns the photoalbum, hence the owner of the photos is Tore Eggan. He is free to sell or rent out his pictures, it is his property. Regarding the copyright, he is of corse entitled to put this on his own photos, without anyone asking why. This is also to prevent people from stealing them and claim that noone owns the rights to it. Would you go in a museum and steal their photographic pictures just because it was more than 60 years old and afterwards claim that noone owned it? (Btw, the debate is 60 years, not 70 years)
The alternative would be that owners of photographic material would keep the photos hidden in a drawer.
I think it is strange that it is even raised questions regarding this, the internet is filled with photos because people share their images for free. But stealing the same pictures and present them as shareware is stealing nomatter how you put it.
My question is; What is your intention with this posting, Sven?

Simmer down, Gentlemen!

I am sure that Sven had no hidden agenda in asking this question.
As far as I know, Tore has been kind enough to share his photos with those who are interested, and had no problems with that? Otherwise he would have stated so.

Surely there is a copyright law, as Admin says, and that is correct indeed. Then again, Sven is right that that formally lasts for 70 years. At least the last time I saw the rules.

Questions surely can be asked, and of course answered.

B.

I have tried to understand what the agenda to Sven is with his posting, telling Tore that it could be expensive for him to post his own pictures on the net.
As soon as the photographer or if he/she is deseased, his family sells away photographic material, they also sells the copyrights to it. As long as the seller do not inform that he/she will keep the copyright, it is lost to the new owner.
The copyright lasts for 60 years, but as said before, this is debated also by the big photo archives companies renting out pictures older than 60 years, try to use pictures from them or the big ww2 archive Koblenz without permission and see what happens....I think the 60 years rule was made with official pictures in mind, like pictures in official archives, newspapers, etc. Still, all norwegian official archives charge big bucks for rental of ww2 (Including repeated use) pictures, how is this possible, when there should be no copyrights at all?)
I am deeply engaged in this matter because I own quite many ww2 photos myself and I tend to see them as private property nomatter if they are 60 years or not. This would have to be tried in a court to convince me otherwise.
Also, when people are kind enough to share their images on the net, they should not be met with comments like "These pictures is not yours, because you do not own the copyrights to them, they belong to everybody". This would be the fastest way to get a picture-free internet.
Kurt

Hello!

I do clearly see that point, and knew you meant that.

Many pictures, as a wise man told me once :-) are indeed KB-pictures, without that the second or third owner knows about that. Me including, ref. my grandfathers albums.

How then about doccuments?

I am not a participating part of the discussion .- just trying to balance it yin-yangwise.

Maybe this could be a new topic?

B.

Hi everyone!

See Kurt, I worte first: great web-site/nice photos. Then I asked why there is a 2003 copyright on the photo because I was interested (I work with photos commercially). Does that sound so agressive that you are so touched by my posting?

And I know that there are many people who have no idea about the consequences it can have to show photos without owning the copyright. This was the reason why I wrote that it can be very expensive. I think there is nothing wrong in it. I know that there are many people who dont care about copyrights of old photos...... thats just a fact.
So I am a bit surprised by your reaction your long answers and the question to me why I ask that!

If there was a problem with that, maybe such a question can prevent one from problems and save a lot of money - so where is the problem with my question and my posting? I am not the one with an intention to give problems and I dont think I wrote something like that in my posting!

Anyway I see that you are very sensible regarding this, so I wont ask such question anymore . I see in your last posting your point of view but as a photographer I cant share it, of course. It does not matter where a photo is published, it IS protected by copyright and thats good. I have an about 100.000 NOK equipment to take underwaterphotos and I have to earn money with my photos, but I can accept other opinions as long as they dont legalise it to steal my photos

I am out of this topic because I got an answer on my question some postings earlier and I did not want lead away from the origin question regarding the Vorpostenboot!

....so back to WW II folks!
Regards Sven

Sven, you just hit my achilles heal, as an amateur photo collector and a amateur photographer I am concerned about all aspects of photograpy, also the copyright laws, which I think was written long time ago to cover professional photographers rights when it comes to pictures used in books, etc. After the law was written, many new aspects of this issue has opened, such as ownership of photos published on internet. (When it is so easy to steal them!)
I try to collect and secure Norway related photos and pay very much money to do so. All the photos I buy is over 60 years old, hence not covered by the regular copyright laws, however, I think they apply under another law; Ownership. This means that even though the copyright has expired, the ownership has not.
Having said that, I understand what you mean with the use of other people copyrighted pictures, I remember a story about a student who wanted to make a website about his hometown, Lillehammer, since it was chosen to be a OL city. He scanned a postcard and posted the picture on his site. The photographer discovered this and sued the poor student. The court found that the student had to pay the photographer lost revenues, about USD 120 000, or 700 000 norwegian kroners.
`nuff said,
Kurt

Hello!

Surely I see that this is a sore point.

I will not judge here at all. I repeat that all questions are allowed, and all answers too if they follow common rules of behaviour.

I do see Svens point; but surely admins too. That makes two points seen.
I am sure admin is referring to the vast amount of stolen pictures that float around the net, as he actually states too. Indeed is "knowledge not shared lost", but again, the owner of an original photo today is - maybe not by international terms, but emotionally the owner.

Interesting, Sven, that you are working with photos! In what connection?

Blessings,
Bjørn

I work at a museum and I also write for an on-line history site. The first is a county museum where we have numerous historical pictures, many over a hundred and twenty years old. When a photo is donated to us, it becomes a part of the collection. If someone wants to make a copy from our print they pay a fee depending on its use and must cite where it came from. If a family donates a copy, keeping the original, we follow rules in our agreement with them. If we put a photo on-line, it is cited and sometimes tweaked to a certain size. Often we are careful in which photos we choose due to their value. There is a great deal of posting without any forethought to who owns the photograph.

The history site I write for is very meticulous in stating where the photographs come from. We do not publish without permission and always cite.

A photo of my uncles taken around 1900 was given to a certain site and I have now seen it in other places. Even though it comes from a family album in my possession, it would be nice to have it at least identified. Some eras like WW II and the American Civil War are very valuable.

I greatly appreciate Tore Eggan's photographs. I find them quite remarkable. I think having paid for the albums (many times families just give away and some times throw things away), ownership is with him.

Hello Janet!

I thank you for a very good and valuable reply on this topic!
Do you mean the actual pictures, or the negatives?

One example: when my grandfather died, I got all of his photoalbums! Very good ones too. Suddenly, to my surprise, I see a few of them in a book dealing with his division.

I learned from Kurt that it was common for soldiers to buy pictures, often made by war photographers. I did not know that at all..
Could I regard them as my property, since I am the owner of some copies?

Best wishes,
Bjørn

I mean that you own the right to your pictures, even though it exsist copies. As long as noone else can document ownership or provide the original negatives, you own the pictures as much as anyone else.
This means that in some cases you might find your picture published in a book with someone elses name as credit. (But in some cases, the picture might also have been stolen.)
Kurt

Here are the color picture as promised, it was a bit dark, taken outside Hammerfest in wintertime, so I am surprised to see the boat at all. I also included a picture of the complete crew on "Franke". Note that they have a visit onboard from the then famous actress Ursula Deinert (Woman in centre), who played a main role in the film "Jew Suss"
Enjoy!
Kurt

Very nice!!! Thanks for sharing!

B.

Very nice picture.

Really good material!!! What was the date of the pictures?
Greetings, Armin

Early war years, late 1940, early 1941. Sorry, no exact date.
Kurt