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 ...