Copyright Conundrum

[MattKing]

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

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.

 

[BobD]

And by the way, the latent image is fixed in a form that can be perceived with the aid of a "device" (chemical development).

That's a bit of a stretch, I think.

 

[BobD]

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.

Plates aren't invisible. Latent images are.

 

[Kino]

Copyright in the USA is a huge rabbit hole; interpretation of the law is based on case law which is ongoing.

Good luck on establishing a definitive answer in this forum...

http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/copyright-ip/2486-copyright-timeline

 

[BobD]

I don't expect to find a definitive answer outside of a courtroom. I just think it's an interesting point.

 

[rrusso]

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.

 

[BrianShaw]

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).

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.

 

[MattKing]

That's a bit of a stretch, I think.

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).

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Plates aren't invisible. Latent images are.

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.

 

[Wallendo]

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.

 

[removed account4]

Didn't Gary Winogrand leave thousands of un-processed films, they remain the Copyright of his estate

hi ian

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

What they and others similarly said.

 

[removed account4]

OP
as i mentioned, look up orphaned works
it might shed light on your questions...

 

[BobD]

Yes, I can see that that can apply here. Thanks.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
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? 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.

 

[BobD]

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 now own your vehicle? Does your dentist own your teeth?

 

[MattKing]

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?

Res Ipsa Loquitor and QED - respecting your proof of why the ownership of the copyright never leaves the photographer.

 

[cowanw]

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?

 

[MattKing]

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?

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 .

 

[removed account4]

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?

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...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

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?

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.

 

[BobD]

Res Ipsa Loquitor and QED - respecting your proof of why the ownership of the copyright never leaves the photographer.

Only if you believe that dropping off shirts at a laundry is the same as selling or giving away property. I don't.

 

[BobD]

... the person who held the camera and made the photo was the photographer and rightful owner of the image and copyright.

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.

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

 

[BobD]

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...

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?

 

[BrianShaw]

Is this a real question (meaning about a real situation) or a hypothetical just for discussion?