Is this a Delamotte?

mcleanmuir · Post by **mcleanmuir** » 22 Mar 2009 13:13

I have this glass lantern slide and I think it is a Delamotte, I do not know much about Delamotte so I would be grateful for any assistance in identifying it. Also is there any complex copyright on these images?

http://www.beckenhamhistory.co.uk/delamotte.jpg

Konqi · Post by **Konqi** » 22 Mar 2009 15:16

Delamotte died in 1889 and in that time copyright lasted life of the author + 50 years, now its 70 (for the UK and there are shorter terms and longer such as crown copyright that is 125 years from publication , but this is when copyright only starts to get complicated. E.g who owns it, how many people own it, which country it was made, when it was made, what format is it, etc).

However anything made before 1911 still has the 50 year rule applied but if we assume 70 years anyway just to be safe all his work became public domain in 1960.

So there are no issues of copyright with any of his work as the copyright has expired.

tulse hill terry · Post by **tulse hill terry** » 22 Mar 2009 21:27

The South Wing of the Crystal Palace Sydenham, under construction, image taken by Philip Henry Delamotte.

The Interior of the South Wing, Crystal Palace Sydenham, and also by Philip Henry Delamotte.

As to copyright. The idea of copyright, is that the creator or their estate should profit by their creations. [There was a recent proposal from the E.U. that the creator of a work, or their estate, should recieve a percentage of any resales up to a certain time limit.]

I do think there is some confusion as to what is in the public domain, especially as this is spelt out much more clearly in U.S. legislation, rather than British.

The fact is that we are not looking at a 150+ year old photographic print, but a scan made in the last decade. The copyright of any such 'copy' remains with the creator. Museums and galleries often try to restrict photography of public visitors, hoping to raise revenue through the licensing of images of their exhibits for legitimate publication, difficult to understand perhaps, when the object was originally mass-produced, whether it be flint tool or photographs.

Normally if I take a picture of a tree, the image is in my copyright, if I take one of the Mona Lisa, the copyright remains with the Louvre, though they are unlikely to get excited about a fuzzy tourist snap. If I make an image based on the work of another the copyright remains with the creator of the original image.

The issue is further complicated by the attempt trademark the appearance of movie stars by representatives of their estates, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean etc, where the heirs of photographers who made memorable images find their work needs the permission and payment to these agencies, CMG etc to sell prints.

This dilemma is usually solved by collectors refusing to open their collections to visitors, dealers that sell furtively, and enthusiasts posting stuff on the internet without attribution.

All of which does nothing to further the understanding of any given subject!

BTW, the images above, came from the British Library website before they re-posted them with watermarks.

Konqi · Post by **Konqi** » 22 Mar 2009 21:59

I know copyright law is INCREDIBLY confusing, so many exceptions, different terms for different circumstances and even to the point that a songs tune can be out of copyright before the lyrics or you might have a film which goes out of copyright but some of the things in it are not out of copyright.

However unless there is some strange law the Mona Lisa is not copyrighted to the Louvre. The Mona Lisa was painted about 300 years before any copyright law even existed. However they can take it change it a little on some print and then copyright that but has to be creative enough to qualify for new protection.

In the UK copyright law there is only one book that copyright wont expire on and that is Peter Pan because all profits go to a Hospice.

tulse hill terry · Post by **tulse hill terry** » 22 Mar 2009 22:24

However unless them is some strange law the Mona Lisa is not copyrighted to the Louvre. The Mona Lisa was painted about 300 years before any copyright law even existed. However they can take it change it a little on some print and then copyright that but has to be creative enough to qualify for new protection.

The issue is reproduction, and distribution of reproductions.

Before photography, any hand-drawn or painted copy would by it's nature be an interpretation, and would come under 'fair-use.'

If I paint a pictue of a trademark, Mickey Mouse, Coca Cola, it is questionable who holds copyright of the subsequent image. Remember the Italian artist who 'painted' bank notes identical to the real thing, and why our note now have "(C) The Governer and Company of the Bank Of England" on them.

Even if the Louvre hadn't registered the Mona Lisa as a trademark, they restrict photography, as many Museums and Galleries do, to control the creation of images derived from the work they exhibit.

In this digital age, one has to recieve [download] a copy to be able to see, or hear the information, which is why the internet has enabled so much copyright material to be distributed illegally.

It is different from visiting, seeing or hearing something in person.

Konqi · Post by **Konqi** » 22 Mar 2009 22:48

yes trademark does cause more of an issue that copyright. As Trademarks don't expire unless the trademark gets abandoned for a number of years. That case Disney threatened some Hospital for painting Mickey Mouse on their walls and were not paying for it.

But ignoring any trademark laws. If I someone made a perfect digital copy of some old film that has entered public domain, I don't believe they can copyright that because theres not enough difference to merit it.

Otherwise you could get legal headaches such as sending someone to court for making a copy of a copyrighted copy of a public domain film. Especially If theres is no way of telling the difference between the two.

If it had been colourised or new soundtrack then It is slightly different

but anyway its all one headache

mcleanmuir · Post by **mcleanmuir** » 23 Mar 2009 15:27

Many thanks for all your input and conformation that the image is indeed a Delamotte. I was a bit unsure about the copyright on Delamotte images.

The image itself shows St Johns Church and the fields that circled Penge at that time. The population was obviously boosted by the navies who worked at The Crystal Palace.

Thanks again.

Paxton · Post by **Paxton** » 23 Mar 2009 19:51

That Delamotte is fascinating.

The view down to the right of the picture highlights the rurality of the scene in 185?, doesn't it.

Can I ask a silly question - it looks to me as though the Low-Level station is not yet built - is that the case?

Also, if photos like this were taken, how come Mr Delamotte never walked round the front to take a shot of the parade/front entrance/high level station land???

I'd love to see that land before the station was built.

P.S. Konqi, can you do a series on Beulah Hill? Pre the council and Nazi Germnay getting their hands on it...

Konqi · Post by **Konqi** » 23 Mar 2009 21:53

The LL Station was opened in 1854.

Like many things of the palace and anything the mundane things are not often photoed. One reason there are virtually no pictures of the engine houses.

Before the age of Digital photography most people would not want to waste a film taking pictures of some electric sub station owhen they could take of some huge grand building or a nice old cottage.

Sadly I don't know anything about Beulah Hill.

Paxton · Post by **Paxton** » 24 Mar 2009 18:38

Well, this is a start - I've read loads more about Beulah Hill.

http://www.theirvingsociety.org.uk/phono.htm

There's a drawing of the place as well.

I meant that there were many large villas on that road, Little Menlo being a particuarly interesting example. However, the road suffered badly in WW2 and the council put up blocks of flats in their place. As you drive down the road now, the few remaining Victorian houses feel slightly out of place.

I'm quite sure Steve has much more to offer on the subject...

Steve Grindlay · Post by **Steve Grindlay** » 24 Mar 2009 19:11

I'm sorry, Paxton, I know vey little about Beaulah Hill, and even that has been gleaned mainly from a couple of local history books.

I tend to concentrate on my own territory (Sydenham and Forest Hill) with occasional forays into the Crystal Palace, mainly because Sydenham people were so closely involved with it and, in turn, it had such a profound effect upon their lives, and on the devlopment of Sydenham.

Incidentally, I found the link fascinating; it allowed me to find a recording of Sir Arthur Sullivan (who had strong Sydenham links) while he was a guest at Little Menlo.

Paxton · Post by **Paxton** » 24 Mar 2009 19:34

Hi Steve,

Well, try this - I think it's a better, more in-depth look at the recordings.

http://www.webrarian.co.uk/crystalpalace/index.html

Paxton · Post by **Paxton** » 24 Mar 2009 19:34

Hi Steve,

Well, try this - I think it's a better, more in-depth look at the recordings.

http://www.webrarian.co.uk/crystalpalace/index.html

tulse hill terry · Post by **tulse hill terry** » 24 Mar 2009 19:56

Perhaps Paxton, your future area of expertise is beckoning you.

I know when I first started to research the Crystal Palace it was merely to satisfy my own curiosity. . . . . and now of course, I am a world authority. [Joke!]

Paxton · Post by **Paxton** » 24 Mar 2009 22:44

I find that there is a frustrating lack of information on the Crystal Palace, actually.

You have to search so hard for any information online. The story of Little Menolo is so intriguing and impressive.

I sometimes think that the Crystal Palace was the Victorian equivalent of BBC1 - discuss...

But now the boundaries are clearly drawn - Steve extends as far south as Rockhills, whereupon Terry takes over.

Terry, we all bow to your greater knowledge - and moreover, we find it fascinating when you speak, so start another thread!

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004

Is this a Delamotte?

Is this a Delamotte?