Copyright Conundrum

[removed account4]

apology..
OP/BobD
i am sorry for taking the leap and suggesting
or "guessing" that your motives were more than
just wondering and arguing for the sake of arguing ..
from where i sit it seems you have more invested in
this question than just wondering because there
are a lot of junk cameras with found film i will refrain
from making such leaps in the future ...
i will do my best not to do that again ..

 

[Prof_Pixel]

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?

... and, unfortunately, copyright laws vary greatly between countries.

 

[Craig75]

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 ...

No photographer would reduce the capture of an image to the press of a button.

You're not being straight with anyone on this thread Bob.

I'm calling Bull on this dude

 

[BobD]

You're not being straight with anyone on this thread Bob.
I'm calling Bull on this dude

Uh oh. They called Bull on this dude! I'm done for now! I'll have to report failure back to my terrorist command post leader. Darn!

Serves me right for trying to covertly undermine the Western World by asking tricky legal questions on a photo forum. They saw right through me! I'll have to go to Plan B and start pouring stop bath in their water supply.

 

[BobD]

apology..
OP/BobD
i am sorry for taking the leap and suggesting
or "guessing" that your motives were more than
just wondering and arguing for the sake of arguing ..
from where i sit it seems you have more invested in
this question than just wondering because there
are a lot of junk cameras with found film i will refrain
from making such leaps in the future ...
i will do my best not to do that again ..

Thank you.

 

[BobD]

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

Bingo

 

[MattKing]

I think part of the confusion that arises in this issue comes from the fact that the US statute refers to something becoming fixed. That has nothing to do with photographic fixer or any stage of development. Instead, it addresses the issue of determining whether a work that may have copyright attached to it is in sufficiently complete form for it to make sense that copyright be enforced with respect to it.
The language is there to make clear that each stage of a work that leads up to an appropriate level of completion doesn't get attached to it all the trappings of copyright protection - authors are permitted to make and discard their drafts.
In essence, the development of film stops the clock on any further changes. Until then, the photographer is free to add to their work by exposing the film to additional light. Developing film has absolutely no practical or legal effect on the legal and moral interests created when the film is exposed, save and except for the fact that once the film is developed, the photographer cannot change that which he or she is entitled to control the copying of.
An undeveloped image is not yet capable of being copied, so all the enforcement tools in the Copyright legislation are not yet capable of being applied. But that has nothing to do with the rights to the image itself.
If you look for case law on this question, you will encounter several diffulties. The primary difficulty arises from the fact that you don't need to have the negative in order to own the copyright in an image, and because it is such well settled law that copyright arises at the instant of exposure, and any future handling of the film or prints is irrelevant to those earlier created rights.
The secondary difficulties arise from how popular the Vivian Maire case is - the search tools are flooded with it. The probate court there quite properly (IMHO) dealt with the issues of copyright in exactly the same way for the images on the developed film and the images on the undeveloped film.
The tertiary difficulty is that much of the case law on undeveloped film arises out of child pornography cases, and the question of whether possession of undeveloped film bearing child pornography in latent image form constitutes possession of child pornography - it does, but that likely turns on specific wording in the charging statues.
In the US, photographic images have specifically been accorded copyright protection since 1805 as I understand it, and probably had that protection more generally under earlier versions of the legislation. The US inherited copyright protection as part of the English law that applied before 1776 and was adopted by reference at the time of Independence. There are 240 years of copyright experience in the US and during a lot of that time people were taking photographs and benefitting from copyright protection of their work. The scenario referred to in this thread is not new, and any questions of law raised were answered long ago.

 

[rrusso]

The US inherited copyright protection as part of the English law that applied before 1776 and was adopted by reference at the time of Independence. There are 240 years of copyright experience in the US and during a lot of that time people were taking photographs and benefitting from copyright protection of their work. The scenario referred to in this thread is not new, and any questions of law raised were answered long ago.

Interesting trivia: Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution...the only "right" mentioned directly in that document.

Think the Founding Fathers felt that copyright was important?

 

[BobD]

Thank you, MattKing, for your intelligent and thoughtful post.

The scenario I have described has, I suppose, come up only rarely in a courtroom and only in certain high profile cases such the Meyer case. But, I have noticed recently what appears to be an increase in interest in the practice of locating old unprocessed film, developing it and publishing the results (on the net at least). I have seen some websites devoted to this "hobby" and also some news stories regarding old film discoveries, etc. It occurred to me that sooner or later the developer would hit the fan and somebody would end up in court arguing or defending just these sorts of issues.

 

[MattKing]

Thank you, MattKing, for your intelligent and thoughtful post.

The scenario I have described has, I suppose, come up only rarely in a courtroom and only in certain high profile cases such the Meyer case. But, I have noticed recently what appears to be an increase in interest in the practice of locating old unprocessed film, developing it and publishing the results (on the net at least). I have seen some websites devoted to this "hobby" and also some news stories regarding old film discoveries, etc. It occurred to me that sooner or later the developer would hit the fan and somebody would end up in court arguing or defending just these sorts of issues.

Bob:
It is natural to wonder about these things. And if you look at just the wording of the US Copyright Act and try to match the terms in it to the terms we use differently as photographers, it is even more natural.
The real problem is that the question probably came up at some time around 1805, was clearly decided, and has become so well understood that the modern cases don't even bother to refer to it.
I'm better at researching Canadian case law than the US version, but I don't think there is anything easily found that bothers to cite authority for such a well understood principle - that copyright arises at the time of exposure, and cannot be diluted by subsequent steps taken by the photographer or others.
As far as the found film arguments, they are more likely to be concerned with the fair use questions, along with the questions about time lapse of copyright, then they are about whether developing film creates any rights akin to the rights of the original photographer.

 

[cowanw]

1805...That shows the forward thinking nature of the United States judiciary.
See section 120: When the word for Light Writing is invented, the copyright for those items will abide in the person who takes the cover (tripping the Cap which functions as the window shutter) off the opening of the Camera Lucida, and, who will then be, henceforth, referred to as the "Tog"

 

[faberryman]

The real problem is that the question probably came up at some time around 1805, was clearly decided, and has become so well understood that the modern cases don't even bother to refer to it.

Actually, the precedent is Burrow-Giles Lith. Co. v. Sarony 111 U.S. 53 (1884), which confirmed as constitutional the provisions of The Copyright Act of 1865 which specifically extended copyright protection to photographs. It is summarized here.

 

[MattKing]

Actually, the precedent is Burrow-Giles Lith. Co. v. Sarony 111 U.S. 53 (1884), which confirmed as constitutional the provisions of The Copyright Act of 1865 which specifically extended copyright protection to photographs. It is summarized here.

Thanks for the citation.
The facts are different, but the ratio is particularly useful when considering the question raised in this thread.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

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.

Some will not believe what they are told. It is a common affliction of teenagers.

 

[BobD]

Some will not believe what they are told. It is a common affliction of teenagers.

Some will accept everything they are told regardless of its sense or lack if it. A common affliction of the feeble minded.