Postcard copyright... front and back!

[Go! Cat! Go!]

Hi

I am trying to write a book this year and am thinking about potential covers (yes, way in advance but you've got to get these things right y'know).

Anyway, I have amassed quite a collection of postcards on my subject, several of which would make nice covers. They were published by Raphael Tuck, Photo Precision St Albans and anon. The Tuck photo appears on this website which says that it can be used for whatever as long as it's attributed to them

https://tuckdb.org/faq

So confusing! I would need to crop the card to hide the writing at the bottom. Has anyone used an old (30s/40s/50s) postcard for a cover and actually been able to secure reproduction rights? All these companies appear to have vanished. What about the anon publisher? I have seen some similar vintage cards in a book recently and they are just credited to the person who lent the author the postcards!! I was quite surprised to say the least...

My other question refers to the reproduction of the backs of posted cards. Obviously someone has written them never expecting them to be seen by anyone except the postie and the recipient, and as they contain names and addresses it sounds potentially problematic. The cards are from the 30s, 40s and 50s so all people involved will most likely be deceased. Similarly I also want to use a real photo card of a group photo which was printed straight onto a postcard and not posted. As there are about 30 people in the photo, this again presumably raises some issues??

Anyone had a similar experience?

Thanks

[davidnugget]

Can't answer the general points, but Tuckdb has no connection with the Tuck firm so a credit to Tuckdb only applies if you use their scans, as opposed to scanning a card you own yourself for example. Having said this, Tuckdb is great and if only similar sites existed for other publishers- if they do I have never found them.

[Go! Cat! Go!]

Thanks for the reply. The Tuck site implies that all images are pre-1928 but the one I'm interested in says it's from 1941. Not sure how reliable that is though.

I don't see the difference though between them allowing anyone to use their scanned images and me buying an identical card off the 'bay and scanning it in myself. Am I missing something?

This just confuses me further.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/COPYRIGHT-INF ... 864/g.html

[davidnugget]

The only difference is that (I think for Tuckdb, and certainly for many similar sites including most on Wiki commons) you are supposed to credit
them as the source and in principle to enjoin that condition on anyone who copies it from you, whereas if you scan it yourself you don't. I read
your post to indicate that you had copies of the cards. Also if you scan it yourself you can de-spot it etc while Tuckdb has bare scans, though of course you could edit these too.
On dates, I came across one card in Tuckdb where the date was several years out, and you often find ones days or weeks earlier, but 1941 is a long time after 1928! The Tuckdb dates are based on evidence from posted cards as all Tucks records pre-1940 seem to have been destroyed.

[davidnugget]

I should have said "posted cards and catalogues".

[Go! Cat! Go!]

Sorry yes, I have about 25 cards but the one that I have decided is probably the best quality I don't have but features on the Tuck site is is currently on ebay.

As for my original point concerning people in cards, this is what I mean

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-longsh ... edoptin%3d

I have two of these, though not the exact same, from 1931 and 1951. One being a real photo postcard and one being 'just a photo'. I can't see how alamy can own the rights to this and be able to charge extortionate amounts to reproduce it.

Ah, just found this
http://www.alamy.com/help/what-is-model ... hy-release