selling photos printed off old expired film

spoolman · Dec 7, 2011

I recently purchased a whole whack of old expired B&W film off ebay and I would like feedback on whether it would be proper to sell prints off of any images that these rolls have.I don't plan to take any credit just put a stamp saying from the collection of...

Doug

railwayman3 · Dec 7, 2011

Under UK law, the photos would be the copyright of the photographer, or, if a professional photographer, the copyright of the person who commissioned the pictures. So, unless the films were sold to you "with copyright" of the images, you would be potentially in breach of this if you sold prints.

In practice, or with really ancient film, you might "get away" with it, but.......

Ian Grant · Dec 7, 2011

Well they aren't your copyright so there could be issues. I'd wait and see what's on them.

Ian

benjiboy · Dec 7, 2011

It depends on how old the negatives are in the U.K. copyright on printed matter lasts until fifty years after the death of the author.

Jesper · Dec 7, 2011

With you holding the negatives it can be hard for someone else to prove that they own the copyright, but from a legal point of view you cannot sell prints from them if you do not have permission to do so (either if you have permission from the copyright owner or the copyright has expired).
You are, however, free to sell the film or print copies for your own personal use.

CGW · Dec 7, 2011

spoolman said:
I recently purchased a whole whack of old expired B&W film off ebay and I would like feedback on whether it would be proper to sell prints off of any images that these rolls have.I don't plan to take any credit just put a stamp saying from the collection of...

Doug

Don't you mean exposed film?

First, I'm not a lawyer. How old are they? Did you buy them from the photographer? If not, did the seller know the photographer? Who or what's on the film?

alanrockwood · Dec 7, 2011

spoolman said:
I recently purchased a whole whack of old expired B&W film off ebay and I would like feedback on whether it would be proper to sell prints off of any images that these rolls have.I don't plan to take any credit just put a stamp saying from the collection of...

Doug

A quote from the US patent and trademark office (Dead Link Removed

"For works created by individual authors on or after January 1, 1978, copyright protection begins at the moment of creation and lasts for a period of 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work (prepared by two or more authors) the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. "

What is unclear to me is the meaning of "at the moment of creation". Does that mean at the moment the exposure was made? Probably not, since the creative work is not completed at that point, at least not with print film. Does it mean at the moment of development of the negatives? Does it mean when the print was made? I don't know, but these seem to be important questions.

It seems to me that if you develop and print the film then it is a "joint work", and you would have equal interest to the work with the person who snapped the shutter. Under US patent law (which may or may not apply to copyright law, I don't know) unless there is an agreement of other provisions to the contrary, all inventors have 100% undivided interest in the work, which means that each can market or use the work without permission from the others. If copyright law works the same way, and if developing and printing the photos counts as part of the creation, making it a joint work, then it would seem to me that you would be free to sell the work without permission from the persons who snapped the photos.

I am not a lawyer, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

removed account4 · Dec 7, 2011

alanrockwood said:
A quote from the US patent and trademark office (Dead Link Removed

"For works created by individual authors on or after January 1, 1978, copyright protection begins at the moment of creation and lasts for a period of 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work (prepared by two or more authors) the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. "

What is unclear to me is the meaning of "at the moment of creation". Does that mean at the moment the exposure was made? Probably not, since the creative work is not completed at that point, at least not with print film. Does it mean at the moment of development of the negatives? Does it mean when the print was made? I don't know, but these seem to be important questions.

It seems to me that if you develop and print the film then it is a "joint work", and you would have equal interest to the work with the person who snapped the shutter. Under US patent law (which may or may not apply to copyright law, I don't know) unless there is an agreement of other provisions to the contrary, all inventors have 100% undivided interest in the work, which means that each can market or use the work without permission from the others. If copyright law works the same way, and if developing and printing the photos counts as part of the creation, making it a joint work, then it would seem to me that you would be free to sell the work without permission from the persons who snapped the photos.

I am not a lawyer, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

processing the film+printing it has nothing to do with its creation.
creating a photograph happens in a camera with film or paper,
not in the darkroom with an enlarger.

for copyright laws to be enforced, in the usa at least, the images
have to be registered with the copyright office, or it is not easy to declare ownership / creatorship
and if there is an issue, you won't be able to get a judge to hear the case. registration is needed.
if the film was abandoned / orphaned you might have a chance because of new laws
that suggest if you look for the owners and can't find them
you can use their work without consent ...

i'm no lawyer either so take my comments with a grain of salt as well ...

spoolman · Dec 7, 2011

CGW, I asked the seller where these rolls came from and he said they were in a box he bought at a flea market and did not know who shot them or where they originally came from.I doubt I'll get any useable images but I decided to float this question to see what the response was.

If tere are any printable images,I'll probably make one print for my collection and thats it.

Doug

spoolman · Dec 7, 2011

Ian that is exactly what I plan to do.If there are any useable images I'll make a print for my self and store the negs away.Thanks all for your input.

Doug

M.A.Longmore · Dec 7, 2011

.
Somewhat Similar To The Vivian Maier Situation ...

Are those { Vivians } prints also being sold, or only for exhibition ?

Ron
.

alanrockwood · Dec 7, 2011

jnanian said:
processing the film+printing it has nothing to do with its creation.
creating a photograph happens in a camera with film or paper,
not in the darkroom with an enlarger....

Well, that's one point of view, but not one that is universally accepted. There are whole books and courses devoted to creativity in the darkroom, and many famous photographers consider darkroom work to be as important in the creative process as exposing the film.

MattKing · Dec 7, 2011

alanrockwood said:
Well, that's one point of view, but not one that is universally accepted. There are whole books and courses devoted to creativity in the darkroom, and many famous photographers consider darkroom work to be as important in the creative process as exposing the film.

I don't think John disagrees with you - but questions of photographic copyright are usually determined by examining who took the photograph, and when.

I think of it as being akin to music. While there are additional issues of performer's copyright that arise when music is performed, that doesn't extinguish the copyright interests of the original composer.

greybeard · Dec 7, 2011

Are you familiar with this site: http://westfordcomp.com/updated/found.htm ?

It might be worth contacting its owner and asking what issues have arisen and how they were handled. He seems to have been doing this for a while.

My understanding is that even if an owner came forth and could establish copyright ownership, they could enjoin further use but only recover the amount of actual losses suffered, which in this case would be zero. It would be nice if someone knowledgeable could chime in on legalities here.

removed account4 · Dec 7, 2011

MattKing said:
I don't think John disagrees with you - but questions of photographic copyright are usually determined by examining who took the photograph, and when.

I think of it as being akin to music. While there are additional issues of performer's copyright that arise when music is performed, that doesn't extinguish the copyright interests of the original composer.

exactly matt !

i agree alan, darkroom work is as much photography, as the exposure in the camera
but unfortunately the copyright office only looks at the issue of exposure ( pressing the button ) .
i think of it like when devo did a cover of "( i can't get no ) satisfaction" .
their version KILLED ( the stones said it was better than theirs ) but, the stones still get paid.

oh well ...

its a great question, and i am imagining the legal calisthenics one might have to go through to make a courtroom
understand darkroom work, especially in a day and age when a button is pressed, and the camera is co-axed to a ink jet printer
and IT prints the photos without any darkroom ( or light room ) work at all ... i think a jury would be utterly confused ...

alanrockwood · Dec 8, 2011

Has the "creator" of a photo been defined, either in the law itself or in case law?

jordanstarr · Dec 8, 2011

...this brings up a lot of interesting philosophical questions of art ownership. I know Laura is a lawyer and active APUG member who is very helpful in these matters. Hopefully she chimes in.

What if you reloaded the film and did a series of double exposures? Who would own it then? What if you got creative with the film developing and printing? My impression is that there is no ownership unless that person was to develop it because the intension of ownership is not there. If I threw out a table that I built and someone picked it up off the curb and refurbished it to sell, could I realistically come back and say "that's my table, now give me my cut?" -not likely. But I'd have to think about it long and hard to draw the line somewhere that is consistent and logical.

I've seen artists sell images they have found before and displayed them in an interesting wait and call it "their piece" in very prestigious galleries.

Steve Smith · Dec 8, 2011

Legal issues aside, the chance that the original photographer is ever going to see any prints made from these negatives and realise they are his is effectively zero.

As the OP only intends to make prints for himself, there are no legal issues anyway.

Steve.

selling photos printed off old expired film

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency