Copyright Conundrum

[Sirius Glass]

Matt posted a clear resolution. Now the thread has become one which is chasing its tail.

 

[BobD]

Section 999 of the US Copyright Act of 2018:
§ 999. Ownership of copyright (a) ABANDONED FILM.—
Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the creator or creators of the work unless lost, stolen, or inadvertently sold with an old camera whereby the ownership of the image, perceivable or latent, becomes ambiguous. The authors of a joint work are coowners of all resulting ambiguity. In cases where ambiguity is not contested the following prevails without prejudice to the original creator or creators claim of ownership or copyright: Finders, keepers; Losers, weepers.

You had me there for a moment but it should have been dated April 1st, 2018.

 

[BobD]

Matt posted a clear resolution.

No. Matt's post does not address the main point of this thread and I'd rather not state it yet again as it seems some will simply never understand it no matter how many times it is stated.

 

[BobD]

You seem to want to make an arbitrary distinction between chemical and electronic devices required for perception. If you make a tape recording you can't perceive anything on the tape without the aid of a tape playback machine. If you take a digital image, you can't perceive anything on the SD card without the aid of a computer and software. If you take a film image you can't perceive anything without the aid of a film processing machine. There is no reason all three type of devices should not be treated equally. There is no copyright issue with someone making a tape recording, and then someone else taking possession of the tape recording before it is played back, or someone taking digital images and someone taking possession of the SD card before the images are viewed. Likewise, there should be no issue with someone taking film photographs, and someone taking possession of the unprocessed film. Keep in mind the purpose of the Copyright Act: to protect creators of artistic, literary, etc. works. The person who simply plays back a tape, views digital images on a computer, or processes film should not have rights superior to the actual creator of the sound, or digital or film images.

You make a good argument here but there is still a major difference between the storage formats in your examples and a latent film image. For example, a sound recording on tape is in its final form and need not be changed in any way in order for it to be perceived. It is thus fixed. All that is needed is a device to "view" it. The same with digital image files. However a latent film image is not perceivable in any way with any device until it is changed via chemical processes. THEN it becomes fixed and perceivable. One poster on this thread gave the opinion that those chemical processes ARE the viewing device but, again, I can't buy that because those processes CHANGE the work into another form rather than simply making it perceivable. It is only after that change that the work fulfills the "fixed and perceivable" requirement of copyright law as I see it. And, that change didn't happen until the finder of the film processed it or had it processed.

And, to answer some other posts on this thread. My interest is purely general curiosity. I have not found some abandoned treasure trove of unprocessed film which I intend to exploit in some evil scheme.

 

[MattKing]

My several points do address the main points of the thread. Unfortunately, the OP doesn't wish to accept the fact that a "work" that is still in latent image form has the same copyright protection under the law as a developed and printed photograph.
The language in the various Copyright Acts around the world deal with enforcement of rights and commercial realities.

 

[BobD]

My several points do address the main points of the thread. Unfortunately, the OP doesn't wish to accept the fact that a "work" that is still in latent image form has the same copyright protection under the law as a developed and printed photograph.
The language in the various Copyright Acts around the world deal with enforcement of rights and commercial realities.

Oh,but I DO wish to accept it IF it can be demonstrated that the law applies to latent film images. However the law seems to state that the work must be in fixed and perceivable form for that to be the case and I don't see how a latent film image satisfies that requirement (as I have stated over and over and over ...).

 

[cowanw]

In reality how often doess such a situation occur unless you are taking family snapshots. For any serious photography the camera will not be passed off.

That is exactly the situation I conceived of, that on lots of people's vacations they hand their camera to a fellow traveller or even likely looking strangers and have a portrait of self done.
Conceptually a roll of film could have more than one copyright owners. All of this is just fun discussion and copyright is not just for professionals. Even professional give the camera to models sometimes. Even Karsh lent his medium format camera to have his pic done on a camel!

 

[faberryman]

You make a good argument here but there is still a major difference between the storage formats in your examples and a latent film image. For example, a sound recording on tape is in its final form and need not be changed in any way in order for it to be perceived. It is thus fixed. All that is needed is a device to "view" it. The same with digital image files. However a latent film image is not perceivable in any way with any device until it is changed via chemical processes. THEN it becomes fixed and perceivable. One poster on this thread gave the opinion that those chemical processes ARE the viewing device but, again, I can't buy that because those processes CHANGE the work into another form rather than simply making it perceivable. It is only after that change that the work fulfills the "fixed and perceivable" requirement of copyright law as I see it. And, that change didn't happen until the finder of the film processed it or had it processed.

The recording on a tape has to be changed using an electro-mechanical process to be audible. The images on an SD card have to be changed using an electro-optical process to be visible. So why not a latent image has to be changed using a chemical process to be visible. You are making an arbitrary distinction.

 

[BobD]

The recording on a tape has to be changed using an electro-mechanical process to be audible. The images on an SD card have to be changed using an electro-optical process to be visible. So why not a latent image has to be changed using a chemical process to be visible. You are making an arbitrary distinction.

Come on now! A tape player does not change the recording on the tape. The recording on the tape is the same before, during and after it is played. The same goes for digital image files and their display devices.

Conversely, film processes do change the work on its original medium.

Surely you must know that so I assume you are just trying to pull my leg.

 

[Craig75]

Oh,but I DO wish to accept it IF it can be demonstrated that the law applies to latent film images. However the law seems to state that the work must be in fixed and perceivable form for that to be the case and I don't see how a latent film image satisfies that requirement (as I have stated over and over and over ...).

By your logic the person using the fixer, the cheapest and easiest step in whole process owns the copyright.

If you cant see how ridiculous that is then you sound like a man who wants to claim copyright for anothers work because you used a bottle of rapid fixer.

 

[faberryman]

In the case of film, the image becomes fixed when the photons strike the silver halides changing them and forming the latent image. Chemical development merely renders such latent image visible. The film processing machine is the device which renders the images perceptible.

 

[Wallendo]

That is exactly the situation I conceived of, that on lots of people's vacations they hand their camera to a fellow traveller or even likely looking strangers and have a portrait of self done.
Conceptually a roll of film could have more than one copyright owners. All of this is just fun discussion and copyright is not just for professionals. Even professional give the camera to models sometimes. Even Karsh lent his medium format camera to have his pic done on a camel!

The copyright owner/photography is not necessarily the person who trips the shutter. If I give a person my camera with my film to take a photograph under my direction, then that person is acting as my agent and not an independent creative artist. The resulting photograph is more of a work-for-hire than a creative endeavor.

 

[jim10219]

Here's the thing, would the original owner/photographer have any way of proving it was their work? If there's nothing to prove it was their work, then it could easily be claimed as property of the owner of the physical negatives. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

In any case, this clearly isn't a cut and dry case. How the courts rule on this one will largely depend on what the lawyers say and which judge(s) you get. Proceed at your own risk.

 

[BobD]

By your logic the person using the fixer, the cheapest and easiest step in whole process owns the copyright.

If you cant see how ridiculous that is then you sound like a man who wants to claim copyright for anothers work because you used a bottle of rapid fixer.

So, you believe that using a chemical fixer is easier than pressing a shutter release button?

If you can't see how ridiculous that is ...

 

[removed account4]

Unfortunately, the OP doesn't wish to accept the fact that a "work" that is still in latent image form has the same copyright protection under the law as a developed and printed photograph.

i think now we know why he exhausted 1 forum and now he is at a second one ...

I've raised this question on another forum but only seemed to have created confusion there so I thought I'd try on a larger forum.

its probably because no one agrees with the OP that there needs* to be a negative or print to have copyright protection
but the way the copyright law is written and subsequently interpreted creation / exposure is protected ...

this does't seem to be a hypothetical question, im guessing he or a friend have someone else's work
and are trying to figure out if it is "legal" to sell the images, even though they don't belong to either of them...
i am certain if he consults a copyright attorney or the copyright office at the library of congress they will tell him
exactly what you have stated matt ...

* running on fumes, originally wrote the opposite of what i wanted to write it is corrected now

 

[BobD]

Here's the thing, would the original owner/photographer have any way of proving it was their work? If there's nothing to prove it was their work, then it could easily be claimed as property of the owner of the physical negatives. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

In any case, this clearly isn't a cut and dry case. How the courts rule on this one will largely depend on what the lawyers say and which judge(s) you get. Proceed at your own risk.

I agree.

 

[faberryman]

i think now we know why he exhausted 1 forum and now he is at a second one ...

its probably because no one agrees with the OP that there doesn't need to be a negative or print to have copyright protection
but the way the copyright law is written and subsequently interpreted creation / exposure is protected ...

this does't seem to be a hypothetical question, im guessing he or a friend have someone else's work
and are trying to figure out if it is "legal" to sell the images, even though they don't belong to either of them...
i am certain if he consults a copyright attorney or the copyright office at the library of congress they will tell him
exactly what you have stated matt ...

He's is obviously not taking the issue seriously; he is seeking legal advice on an internet forum. I can just imagine his defense to a copyright infringement lawsuit will be that some random person on the internet told him it was okay.

 

[BobD]

this does't seem to be a hypothetical question, im guessing he or a friend have someone else's work
and are trying to figure out if it is "legal" to sell the images, even though they don't belong to either of them...
i am certain if he consults a copyright attorney or the copyright office at the library of congress they will tell him
exactly what you have stated matt ...

You guessed wrong. If you'd read my earlier posts you'd know I already answered this creepy suspicion that some have expressed here. My question IS hypothetical and I have no scheme to steal anyone's work and I do not advocate such a thing. May we assume that your suspicion is simply due to your knowing that is what YOU would do? That seems to be the case with most finger pointers.

 

[BobD]

... he is seeking legal advice on an internet forum.

Not true. I have not asked anyone for any legal advice and I have no reason to.

 

[BobD]

i think now we know why he exhausted 1 forum and now he is at a second one ...

its probably because no one agrees with the OP that there doesn't need to be a negative or print to have copyright protection...

I have never said "there doesn't need to be a negative or print to have copyright protection" or anything similar.

Please stop posting falsehoods about me or my posts.

 

[BrianShaw]

You guessed wrong. If you'd read my earlier posts you'd know I already answered this creepy suspicion that some have expressed here. My question IS hypothetical and I have no scheme to steal anyone's work and I do not advocate such a thing. May we assume that your suspicion is simply due to your knowing that is what YOU would do? That seems to be the case with most finger pointers.

Bob... that's just not fair. I asked earlier if this was a real or hypothetical question and did not receive a reply (or somehow missed it in the dynamic discussion) but my question was asked so I could assess how much time I was willing to invest in the discussion. I assume others asking if this is a real or hypothetical discussion may have had the same rationale. Until you clearly stated that this is a hypothetical "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" discussion, then you left your self open to assumptions. Turning it around like that is, ummm, a bit childish. Good luck with your quest for discussion and/or answers... whichever it may be.

 

[faberryman]

Not true. I have not asked anyone for any legal advice and I have no reason to.

The question you asked is inherently a legal one.

 

[BobD]

Bob... that's just not fair. I asked earlier if this was a real or hypothetical question and did not receive a reply (or somehow missed it in the dynamic discussion) but my question was asked so I could assess how much time I was willing to invest in the discussion. I assume others asking if this is a real or hypothetical discussion may have had the same rationale. Until you clearly stated that this is a hypothetical "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" discussion, then you left your self open to assumptions. Turning it around like that is, ummm, a bit childish. Good luck with your quest for discussion and/or answers... whichever it may be.

You made a rather nasty assumption regarding my motives and posted your accusations on a public forum. You implied that I was trying to steal or otherwise unethically exploit another's intellectual property. You even invented that I had a partner in this scheme (aka criminal conspiracy). You had no call to do that and I believe that my comments concerning your wrong-headed accusations are quite fair indeed.

I did see a question regarding "is this hypothetical or real" but apparently misunderstood its meaning. I thought of it as real in the sense that it is not uncommon to come across unprocessed film (for me anyway). But, that doesn't mean I had any intention of doing anything unethical with it (I don't). In any case all you had to do was ask. If I missed your question then ask it again, please. I have had to repeat myself numerous times on this thread. And, for some reason that is beyond my understanding I have had to defend myself for simply posing a question that I thought might be of interest to photographers (stupid me).

 

[BobD]

The question you asked is inherently a legal one.

Of course it's a legal question. This whole thread is about the law. That's not the same as asking for "legal advice" which I have not done. Why would I?

 

[BrianShaw]

You made a rather nasty assumption regarding my motives and posted your accusations on a public forum. You implied that I was trying to steal or otherwise unethically exploit another's intellectual property. You even invented that I had a partner in this scheme (aka criminal conspiracy). You had no call to do that and I believe that my comments concerning your wrong-headed accusations are quite fair indeed.

Hi Bob

I did see a question regarding "is this hypothetical or real" but apparently misunderstood its meaning. I thought of it as real in the sense that it is not uncommon to come across unprocessed film (for me anyway). But, that doesn't mean I had any intention of doing anything unethical with it (I don't). In any case all you had to do was ask. If I missed your question then ask it again, please. I have had to repeat myself numerous times on this thread. And, for some reason that is beyond my understanding I have had to defend myself for simply posing a question that I thought might be of interest to photographers (stupid me).

Paragraph 1: That was John, not me. I see your point but maybe you should have stopped by objecting and omitting the retaliatory part of the reply. But that's only my opinion and water under the bridge I suppose.

Paragraph 2: you are reading too much into the question. As I said, I asked because the discussion wasn't clear. If all you want is to have an intellectual discussion, that's fine... but sometimes it helps to be clear on that intent versus a real situation that is being asked in vague terms.

You don't need to defend yourself to me.

And regarding my question, you answered it: this is a hypothetical intellectual discussion simply for the sake of argumentum.