From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Richard Smith   
    writes:   
   >On 21/03/19 22:28, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >   
   >> Although the OP used the word copyright in the subject, it was clear to   
   >> me that what is of concern to him is whether he can use information from   
   >> a newspaper;   
   >   
   >That's correct, yes.   
      
   I thought that was the case.   
   []   
   >I, the newspaper in question, its editor and I suspect the vast   
   >majority of its contributors are all in England.  The scanning   
   >organisation is actually in Wales, but England and Wales are generally   
   >treated as a single legal jurisdiction.   
      
   Indeed.   
   >   
   >> The OP hasn't told us where he's planning to use the material. (There   
   >> was/is no need to reveal this.)   
   >   
   >Mostly because I'm not yet sure.  The newspaper in question contains   
   >essentially no genealogical content, though may be of interest to local   
   >historians.  My interest in it is because my great great grandfather   
   >was a frequent contributor towards the end of his life.   
      
   Right. If the contributor whose material you are interested in - and   
   possibly republishing - is DEFINITELY your GGGF, then I think you are   
   OK: if the copyright vested in the newspaper, that's expired; if your   
   GGGF retained it, then you presumably know to whom he willed any rights   
   in it - and if it was towards the end of his life, then I presume it's   
   more than 70 years since he died, so has still expired.   
      
   It's only of concern if you want to use material that was contributed by   
   someone else, who died less than 70 years ago. How long ago was   
   publication? I think you've mentioned "over 100 years"; if significantly   
   more, then probably everyone's long enough dead.   
      
   IANAL though!   
   >   
   >Richard   
      
   John   
   ----   
      
      
   LET'S HAVE THOSE "INDICATIVE" VOTES!!! I think they're the only way we can even   
   _draft_ any "new deal" (assuming MV3 fails as expected).   
   --   
   Those who _don't_ favout the "revoke" petition have nowhere to express that.   
   https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 255soft.uk; #fairpetitions   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   I hope you dream a pig.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)