So the result is, that if there is going to be any realization of that value, the legal owners of the copyright need to cooperate with the legal owners of the negatives.Not true:
"The probate case that has played out in Chicago has added another layer of intrigue to Maier's story. At the center of the case is an unusual situation: A woman who died virtually penniless and without any clear heirs now has an estate potentially worth millions of dollars. But while the estate has the copyrights to Maier's work, others legally own the film itself."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...an-maier-estate-fight-met-20160526-story.html
And by the way, the latent image is fixed in a form that can be perceived with the aid of a "device" (chemical development).
To ne this is similar to making an ingraving. The plate is certainly covered by copyright even though no print has been pulled from the plate.
I'd sure like to see this tested!Copyright law is clear - the copyright belongs to the photographer.
That interpretation you referred to isn't the law itself, it is an interpretation, and it was most likely worded to deal with all sorts of copyrights, including copyrights for music and movies.
And by the way, the latent image is fixed in a form that can be perceived with the aid of a "device" (chemical development).
Any more of a stretch than a song recorded in the magnetic patterns of a cassette tape?That's a bit of a stretch, I think.
Plates aren't invisible. Latent images are.
Didn't Gary Winogrand leave thousands of un-processed films, they remain the Copyright of his estate
The person who bought the film and shot the images would own the copyright. The latent image is a permanent change in the physical state of an unexposed film.
However as long as the second person wasn't claiming the images as their own and states that there's not an issue unless the image is being sold/used for commercial use. Should the original shooter or relative see and claim the images (and have sufficient proof) then that's another matter.
Ian
the person who exposed the film owns the copyright of the images,
the latent image is fixed on the film.
if the B person wants to claim ownership/authorship of the images
he/she should consult a copyright attorney ..
the attorney will explain copyright and orphaned works &c
...
First of all, in my mind someone who processes film is just as much a photographer as someone who exposes it. Secondly, the shooter is only partially responsible for the images because they weren't even perceivable when he relinquished them. ...
So the operator of the Fuji Frontier processing machine has become the photographer? Or the person who handed the unprocessed rolls of film over the counter to the operator is the photographer?
Of course not. When you drop off your shirts at the dry cleaners do they now own them? When you hand your car keys to the parking valet does he know own your vehicle? Does your dentist own your teeth?
The same way one proves anything - with whatever evidence might be available, including sworn testimony from whomever might have been there at the time ( including the photographer).How would one prove who took the picture without a documented trail of who used the camera, or who may have taken shot 3 and handed it to a stranger to take shot 12?
Of course not. When you drop off your shirts at the dry cleaners do they now own them? When you hand your car keys to the parking valet does he know own your vehicle? Does your dentist own your teeth?
Of course not. When you drop off your shirts at the dry cleaners do they now own them? When you hand your car keys to the parking valet does he now own your vehicle? Does your dentist own your teeth?
Res Ipsa Loquitor and QED - respecting your proof of why the ownership of the copyright never leaves the photographer.
... the person who held the camera and made the photo was the photographer and rightful owner of the image and copyright.
You said the person processing the film was just as much the photographer.
if you buy a camera from someone on eBay, last night, and it turns out the camera belonged
to some little old lady's whose husband took the camera as pillaged treasure when fighting in ww2,
and never used it because it had nazi insignias on it and she couldn't stand the sight of it ... and you, and avid collector
bought it for cheeps and realized there was film in it, and had it processed and it was adolph himself yucking it up
with goebbels .. and the exposures were made by noted photographer heinrich hoffmann ... you might own the camera
but you wouldn't own the copyright...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?