Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,943   Posts: 1,557,682   Online: 1205
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    M.A.Longmore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New York
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,857
    Images
    15
    .
    Somewhat Similar To The Vivian Maier Situation ...

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


    Ron
    .

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    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.

  3. #13
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,599
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by alanrockwood View Post
    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.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  4. #14
    greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    377
    Images
    6
    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.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,558
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    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 ...

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    511
    Has the "creator" of a photo been defined, either in the law itself or in case law?

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    775
    Images
    28
    ...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.

  8. #18
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,613
    Images
    122
    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.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin