Third Party Press

Field Armorer Gew-98 PE Build

I would probably get upset if I posted some of my grandpa's WW2 pictures and some guy decided to download them and reproduce them for sale on eBay. Legally, there's not much I can do besides wasting my lifetime savings on a lawyer -with uncertain outcome.

Do like the eBay sellers do, watermark your pictures or put Las Vegas style nipple stars across certain spots. Life ain't fair; deal with it.
 
Hello,

well I am the gunsmith who had this photo, according to the date I got this photo from November 2005 from the records I have. I downloaded them OFF THE INTERNET some where's and don't remember with about 20 other Russian and German Photo's of PU, PEM and SVT40 Sniper photo's. Hate to be called a liar but that's were I got them WELL before Roberts Book was printed. I am trying to figure out were as each one is serialed for some reason. the serial I have for the photo posted is 2005118104038.

later
vaughn
 
vaughn99 said:
Hello,
well I am the gunsmith who had this photo, according to the date I got this photo from November 2005 from the records I have. I downloaded them OFF THE INTERNET some where's and don't remember with about 20 other Russian and German Photo's of PU, PEM and SVT40 Sniper photo's. Hate to be called a liar but that's were I got them WELL before Roberts Book was printed. I am trying to figure out were as each one is serialed for some reason. the serial I have for the photo posted is 2005118104038.
later
vaughn
Click to expand...

Hello vaughn,
you first say you had this photo, then you say you downloaded it from somewhere off the internet.
Did you ever have an original (or repro) copy?
I'm not familiar with the US copyright laws, and I do not care if it is crime or not. To me it is just disrespectful.

Same thing with the attached photo from my collection. It was posted here in this forum earlier without my permission. The only one allowed to publish this photo was Bob Ball for his MMROTW.
How can I tell that it is my photo?
Please note the little "+" over the head of the soldier in the back. It is green on the original photo.

Thanks
 

Attachments

  • Bild25.jpg
    Bild25.jpg
    83.9 KB · Views: 79
Amberg said:
Hello vaughn,
you first say you had this photo, then you say you downloaded it from somewhere off the internet.
Did you ever have an original (or repro) copy?
I'm not familiar with the US copyright laws, and I do not care if it is crime or not. To me it is just disrespectful.

Same thing with the attached photo from my collection. It was posted here in this forum earlier without my permission. The only one allowed to publish this photo was Bob Ball for his MMROTW.
How can I tell that it is my photo?
Please note the little "+" over the head of the soldier in the back. It is green on the original photo.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you don't seem to be too familiar with European/German copyright laws either.
Hier steht klipp und klar wie das Urheberrecht in Deutschland und der EU angewandt wird:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildrechte

Insbesondere der Abschnitt "Benutzung anonymer Werke" sollte Dich nachdenklich stimmen. Ist der Photograph bekannt oder kannst Du beweisen, dass das Bild bereits vor 1945 veröffentlich worden ist? Falls nicht, könnte die Benutzung des von Dir gekauftens Photos in einem Buch eine Urheberrechtsverletzung darstellen. Und Du weisst ja selbst, wie gerne in Deutschland abgemahnt wird...
 
Hello Amberg,

I think you misunderstood, let me explain. I HAD meaning In my folders, upon folders, upon folder, of pictures and information I have stored on my computer hard drive since about 1999 I downloaded/saved this picture among my travels on the internet. the only info I keep is the date saved to my computer. I have never owned or claimed to of owned this picture in any original photograph form. I HAVE and HAD (depending on how you word the question) 1000's of photo's save to my computer that are downloads from the internet. NO WHERE does the word HAD ONLY represents a physical in hand HAVE or HAD. Since my cpu HAS the pictures stored I HAD the photo in terms of definition. I am not trying to be the bad guy here the OP asked if I have a wartime picture of a PE K98 and said no but had a GEW98 I found all those years ago in a Sniper folder and passed it along is all. I did know that there was a way clearer picture in Roberts book as the one I have is blurry and hard to see some details. I looked up Roberts first printing of his sniper book and it has the photo and the book was dated 2007 and is a first printing so I don't know if he had a previous books printed on sniper material and this pics was used to my knowledge.

later
vaughn
 
Last edited:
GunKraut said:
I'm sorry if this come across kind of harsh, but you don't understand copyright.

You only have copyright to something you created or to something where you bought the copyright from the original creator.
If you take a picture of your rifle -or even my rifle- you own the copyrights to that particular picture. If you pay me a lot of money for a photo I took of your rifle, the copyright still belongs to me. All you own is a piece of photographic paper with an image on it, that's all. I, to the contrary, can sell the photo of your rifle to anybody and can post it anywhere I please.

Unless you bought the copyright to the picture you're upset about from the old man who took the picture back in the day, you don't possess the copyrights. Just because you post someone else work here in this forum does not make it your copyrighted photo. You are NOT the creator of the photo. If you're posting on ww2weaponsforum a photo you personally took of your scoped rifle and I copy it and post it here on k98kforum, would you still insist the quoted sentence above is applicable?

https://www.ppa.com/about/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1720
http://info.legalzoom.com/owns-copyright-wedding-pictures-20832.html
http://www.photoattorney.com/qa-who-owns-the-copyright/

Actually, I see a problem with you providing a photographic image that you didn't create and you don't own the copyrights to, for the purpose of being published in a book that the publisher makes money off without paying the creator/copyright owner of the photographic image or his estate any royalties for using the image.

It is not my intention to make you mad at me. I didn't make those laws, I'm just trying to explain them in layman's terms.
Click to expand...


This poster provided sound and correct advise.
 
ok,
was anybody concerned about copyright law when he reproduced/published my photos? I dare to doubt it.

On the SS-Police photo you can see the camera pouch around the neck of the soldier in the front. The photo was taken with his camera and I got the photo personally from him.
The other photo, showing the G98M with Russian scope, was taken by my father serving with IR55.

We all know that both statements are infamous lies. Try to prove it! ;-)

@ vaughn: I'm very sorry that I called you a liar, since I know you as a very knowledgeable collector. Please accept my apologies.
The only thing I accuse you (and some others) is that you did not care about copyrights.

In another thread we had a discussion why some collectors do not show their goodies. Hope some of you now understand their motives.

Attached a close up showing the G98M with Russian scope.

thanks
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0299.jpg
    IMG_0299.jpg
    219.2 KB · Views: 73
Gentlemen,

I am filled with nothing but regret seeing the direction that this post has taken. By no means did I ever mean to upset anyone, or even take the time to think that sharing a photograph I received (and have also seen online might I add) would lead to name calling and anger.

Amberg, I am not sure what angers you more. That fact that others have had access to the photo or that you were never mentioned as the owner (which was unknown to me at the time, but I believe you have now more than established). I understand that it can be unsettling from your perspective to see something from your collection posted and that may be the reason some collectors don't share their goodies. Hopefully, for history's sake, safe guards are taken so that these goodies aren't gone forever should their owner pass. We are far more subject to time than these articles of history.

Regards,
Brian
 
Amberg said:
On the SS-Police photo you can see the camera pouch around the neck of the soldier in the front. The photo was taken with his camera and I got the photo personally from him.
Click to expand...

So he owns the copyright? What is the duration of copyright for photos, before they go in to public domain? The photo has to be at least 70 years old.
 
emcon5 said:
So he owns the copyright? What is the duration of copyright for photos, before they go in to public domain? The photo has to be at least 70 years old.
Click to expand...

My memory is that for an unpublished photo, that its based on the life/death of the photographer, not the date it was taken. This is comical, because when did the anonymous photographer die? But yea, I think its his life plus seventy years.
 
Amberg, did the gentleman you got the picture from tell you much about the rifle in the picture? I have never seen the PE mounts except for some repros. Enlarging the picture it looks like the mount is for a 91/30 hex reciever and it seems to have a gap beteen the mount and the top of the reciever and sits really high. Thank you for sharing a very interesting picture.
 
To me it looks like the rounded base, looking at the rear. But it also appears that they only used the two rear screws for attaching it to the rifle. Also note the "wrongly" mounted PE scope in the rings, not using the recoil ring!
 
Absolut said:
To me it looks like the rounded base, looking at the rear. But it also appears that they only used the two rear screws for attaching it to the rifle. Also note the "wrongly" mounted PE scope in the rings, not using the recoil ring!
Click to expand...

It could be that they could not use the recoil ring because they have the scope rings mounted the wrong way around. All the pictures I've seen of Russian PE scopes have the set screws that hold the scope mount to the base on the reciever show the set screws on the rifles left side. You can clearly see the set screws on this rifles right side. So now the ring that would normally be toward the shooter it toward the muzzle end. The Russians probably didn't make these reversable so that would throw everything off. Now you would be using the housing for the adjustment knobs as the recoil ring which I think would effect your reticle over time.

I've never seen the real bases for the PE set up just the reproduction ones. The round reciever base is more curved and I would think would fit closer to the reciever. The base on the rifle in the picture almost looks like it is not even contacting the reciever on the rifle. You see the lighter grey of the reciever a gap and the the blacker color that is the base it's self. It's almost like the armorer created some kind of "L" bracket that matched the reciever curve then fastened that to the reciever then fastened the base to that bracket. If the base was a rounded base I would think the two screws would be more on the plain of the rounded reciever but they seem to be more on a vertical plain. That would put them screwing into the reciever at an angle. That would only make sense to me if the base was for a hex reciever.

To me that seems like a lot of work since the armorer could have just taken the base and reworked it to match the reciever. Maybe the bases didn't take to well to being hammered into a different shape. Either way it just seems odd how the base appears to be so high in the image.
 
It's for a hex receiver. The mount has "flats" on the sides where the screws go in. Hex only. Round ones fit a round receiver, so there were no flats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top