• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Copyright Conundrum

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.
There is nothing particularly unusual about that in the realm of copyright - just consider the recording industry, where the recordings are owned by the recording company (or at least they used to be) before they are sold to the consumer.
 
I don't expect to find a definitive answer outside of a courtroom. I just think it's an interesting point.
 
Don't look to the internet/forums regarding copyright - it's too important an issue. Most people don't know a lot about the subject and tend to parrot stuff they've been told and/or read online by people who don't know what the hell they're talking about. One of the biggest piles of bs I've read is that copyright is only important for professionals. Ummm, no, that's a ridiculously stupid statement. Especially in today's world of online piracy.

Never post anything online which hasn't been registered with the copyright office, unless you're ok with it being taken and used by someone or some business. If Apple thinks that awesome photo of yours would be just perfect for their newest iPhone ads, and you haven't registered the photo...well, you've just left tons of money on the table. An extreme example, yes, but you never know.

I'd get a good book on the subject. I recommend The Copyright Zone by Greenberg and Reznicki, though there are probably other good ones.

It might also be a good idea to do some research for good copyright attorneys near you...the small initial investment for the retainer fee is worth it, imo.
 
I'd sure like to see this tested!

No matter the words in the copyright law or other guides or discussion forums, I think the intent is that the image creator is protected... which is the person who released the shutter, no matter who bought the film or subsequently possesses the image (in whatever form - perceivable or unperceivable. In reality, both a lawyer and a theologian/ethicist could be useful in answering the questions of the OP.
 
BobD said:
That's a bit of a stretch, I think.
Click to expand...
Any more of a stretch than a song recorded in the magnetic patterns of a cassette tape?
Or a RAW file on SD media?
You are focusing on the leaves, when it is the trees, and in particular the forest, that matters.
Copyright is there to protect the rights of those who create something. The creation is clearly understood to be a protect-able entity at the time the photograph is taken.
Now if you wanted to argue about whether there should be additional rights created when a talented printer creates a print from a negative, resulting in two sets of copyrights imbued in the same print, then I'd be happy to take your case (although as I don't practise law any more, I can't take your case).
 
BobD said:
Plates aren't invisible. Latent images are.
Click to expand...

This appears to a trivial distinction as both are physical entities. The latent image can be revealed at any time. The image on an engraving plate is reversed and only correctly revealed when a print is made.
 
Last edited:
I'd hate to think that Dwayne's, TheDarkRoom, Walgreens, Wal-Mart, Dale Labs and Seattle FilmWorks own the copyright to all the photos I took between 1970 and 2012, and all the color photos from 2012 onward. For all of the many rolls of film I have had developed over the years, I am not aware of copyright being brought up in any of these transactions.

I would suspect that courts would attribute the copyright to the photographer. Now in the case of "found film", a good argument can be made that the copyright was abandoned. It would also be very hard for the original photographer, if he became aware of the images, to successfully sue for infringement since 1) he has never seen the images in question since they were not developed in his possession, and 2) he would have no hardcopy proof. Remember, however, that any identifiable persons or copyrighted artwork in the image still retain their own rights - found film rarely comes with a model release.
 
Ian Grant said:
Didn't Gary Winogrand leave thousands of un-processed films, they remain the Copyright of his estate
Click to expand...

hi ian

i think it was a filing cabinet filled with ziplock bags filled with cannisters of film, 30,000 rolls worth.
 


What they and others similarly said.
 
OP
as i mentioned, look up orphaned works
it might shed light on your questions...
 

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? To me, the photographer (and therefore rightful owner of any copyright) is the person who showed up somewhere with a camera and film, framed the scene, and pressed the shutter release. That's the photographer.

That person is totally responsible for the image, latent though it may be. Without that person you have nothing. Developing the film makes it reasonably permanent, but that effort and contribution is nil compared to what the person with the camera did.
 
Theo Sulphate said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
BobD said:
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?
Click to expand...

Res Ipsa Loquitor and QED - respecting your proof of why the ownership of the copyright never leaves the photographer.
 
cowanw said:
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?
Click to expand...
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).
Be sure to check the photo carefully for reflections .
 
BobD said:
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?
Click to expand...

regarding the dry cleaners, if you don't pick up the pants in the
time prescribed on the ticket or don't have a ticket, they might own your pants
you could try to sue them for 54million dollars but you might not win it

and the dentist, if you have had implants or false teeth they own them until you pay them
for the installation, and after they are in one's head...

a better question would be, while at work does your boss own your mind and ideas that spring from it
and the answer is yes, he/she does. and if you are a photographer "for hire" and working for a newspaper, for example
the paper even owns your outtakes.
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...
 
BobD said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not at all -- which is exactly why your statement:

"in my mind someone who processes film is just as much a photographer as someone who exposes it."

doesn't make sense to me.

There is an important difference in what I said vs. your analogy. I said 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. I'll grant that the person who handed the film across the counter, or developed it by hand, may be the legal owner of the film - the media itself. But that person doesn't own the image on that media nor the copyright to it. There is a difference.
 
Last edited:
MattKing said:
Res Ipsa Loquitor and QED - respecting your proof of why the ownership of the copyright never leaves the photographer.
Click to expand...

Only if you believe that dropping off shirts at a laundry is the same as selling or giving away property. I don't.
 
Theo Sulphate said:
... the person who held the camera and made the photo was the photographer and rightful owner of the image and copyright.
Click to expand...

Yes, but, once again the question being asked here is WHO really MADE THE PHOTO? Per copyright law the work must be fixed and perceivable to be covered by copyright and the shooter in this scenario didn't fix the image in a perceivable form. Please try to understand that idea before posting further comments as that is what this thread is all about.
.
You said the person processing the film was just as much the photographer.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I said "Just as much a photographer ..." NOT "... just as much the photographer."
 

Copyright law says a work must be in a fixed and perceivable form to be covered by copyright. Once again the question being asked here is: Did the shooter in your scenario satisfy that requirement? Can an invisible unprocessed latent film image be considered to be in a fixed and perceivable form?
 
Is this a real question (meaning about a real situation) or a hypothetical just for discussion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register