8 ms·

The overlapped images: are these simply because the film didn't wind a fill frame? Also: "Copyright of All Images On This Website is Owned By The Rescued Film

by delinka 12y ago

The overlapped images: are these simply because the film didn't wind a fill frame? Also: "Copyright of All Images On This Website is Owned By The Rescued Film Project." I have doubts about this statement. Can someone with more expertise in this matter explain? It seems to me that the photographer holds the copyright unless the copyright was properly transferred. Simple discovering the film and processing it does not a copyright holder make. EDIT: there form for donating unprocessed film contains the following: "By donating your rescued film to The Rescued Film Project […] you agree to release full print and publish copyright of all images recovered from the film to The Rescued Film Project and it’s proprietor(s)." This suggests to me that someone else may have obtained and donated the film to TRFP.

jacquesm 12y ago
> I have doubts about this statement. Can someone with more expertise in this matter explain? It seems to me that the photographer holds the copyright unless the copyright was properly transferred. Simple discovering the film and processing it does not a copyright holder make. I'd say you are 100% in the right here, the problem will be to find the person or their heirs to assert their claim. I definitely do not think that finding the film is enough to stake a claim this broad. see: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-monkey-selfie-copyright-20140821-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-monkey-self... Which has an interesting take on images with doubtful copyright status (selfie taken by a monkey, owner of the camera tried to assert copyright). Thinking about it a bit more, if the original maker of the images or their heirs were to be nasty they could likely file for infringement of their rights. Personally I think what the guy did was great, they're amazing images but asserting copyright goes one step too far. Maybe his argument is that by buying the film he owns the rights? Edit: another relevant bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier Heading 'legal challenge'.
- delinka 12y ago
  "Personally I think what the guy did was great..." Indeed. I'm glad we now have this additional snapshot of history. And I'd be happy to donate to cover some costs here. But I'm also wary of the copyright claim such that my donation would be contingent on clarifying the claim-- provide an explanation as to how copyright was obtained; step the notice down a bit; etc
  - larrys 12y ago
    "such that my donation would be contingent on clarifying the claim" If you contact them and ask about that please post a comment or blog post detailing what they say. It would be interesting to hear their perspective and how strongly worded and convicted it is.
- larrys 12y ago
  "Maybe his argument is that by buying the film he owns the rights?" As I mentioned in one of my comments they also developed the film which if not done correctly would result in images that wouldn't look the same as they do now. [1] The film without development has no creative appeal other than the appeal of a film canister. [1] As anyone who has done photography with a darkroom knows (I have and development is part of what you get just like picture composition is.)
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    The film carries within it all that you could get out of it even after developing. You can't get something out that wasn't in in the first place and the whole goal here is to change the output as little as possible. It's fidelity what is appreciated here, not creative license to solarize the film or do something else with it other than to try to extract the information with as little loss as possible. It's a mostly mechanical process, if you follow the recipe then the predicted outcome is the same, no matter who does the developing.
    - larrys 12y ago
      Have you ever done darkroom photography? (I have and have made money doing that). And if so, just to be clear, you are claiming that there is no difference in results from someone with experience and someone "just following a recipe?".
      - belorn 12y ago
        Are you saying that there is some form a originality done by operating a darkroom, where the result can be distinguished from reproductions, clones, or forgeries of the photograph. If its a reproduction of a photography, its no more original, in a copyrightable sense, than creating a forgery. Such actions might require high skill, but high skill is not what make works copyrightable.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        > Have you ever done darkroom photography? (I have and have made money doing that). Sure. > And if so, just to be clear, you are claiming that there is no difference in results from someone with experience and someone "just following a recipe?". Oh, definitely there can be a difference. But that difference will never amount to the person in the darkroom being able to supercede the copyright claim of the original photographer.
- shawn-butler 12y ago
  False. Copyright protection attaches to a work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium by an author. Undeveloped film is arguably not a tangible medium suitable for communication and this film is obviously not being developed by its author. The development process of film renders it suitable for copy. "A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission." [0] Also this would essentially be abandoned property. You can abandon copyright just like any other property right. Trademarks can also similarly be abandoned. Would you claim that all the "abandonware" games still belong to their original owners and deny people the right to use them as well? [0] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > Copyright protection attaches to a work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium by an author. Undeveloped film is arguably not a tangible medium suitable for communication Errm. No. In fact it is excellent for communication, seeing that it withstood being in its undeveloped state for decades and still preserves the original image. Registration, not development creates the copyrighted work. You can abandon property just fine but you can't abandon copyright (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonment_%28legal%29#Abandonment_of_copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonment_%28legal%29#Abandon... ), (you can abandon a trademark by not defending it but that's different). You can actively sign something into the public domain but copyright infringement cases typically have a very important date attached to them: when you became aware of the infringement. > Would you claim that all the "abandonware" games still belong to their original owners and deny people the right to use them as well? Technically, yes. And on top of that if your interpretation were true then someone else could claim copyright on these games now that they are 'abandoned'. Which of course isn't true.
    - shawn-butler 12y ago
- nkurz 12y ago
  I definitely do not think that finding the film is enough to stake a claim this broad. In the absence of case law, I wouldn't be so sure. In the US there was a case that was decided last year that might imply otherwise. A somewhat "famous artist" (Richard Prince) used a photo by a relatively "unknown photographer" (Patrick Cariou) and "transformed" it by printing it much larger, splotching the subjects eyes with paint, and superimposing a guitar: http://newsgrist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c66f153ef01157010d2a5970b-500wi http://newsgrist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c66f153ef01157010d2... On appeal, it was concluded that this was fair use, there was no copyright infringement, and that Cariou had no claim against Prince or right to collect royalties: http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/news/richard-prince-wins-major-victory-in-landmark-copyright-suit/ http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/news/richa... It's not the same, but I wouldn't want to bet that a court would have decided otherwise if Prince had started with Cariou's negative and had done the work in the darkroom rather than on the easel. Which would imply that it's not even necessary for the film to be lost or abandoned, and that mere access could be enough. And the parties settled the case after the appeal, so there is no chance that the Supreme Court will clarify it further until something else similar makes it to them.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    That's a major alteration of the source image though, not an all out effort to preserve as much of the original as possible so I don't think that it applies. Interesting case though.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    That work was creative, as opposed to what the developers did, which was (probably) not creative, and therefore falls under the rubric of there not being a 'sweat of the brow copyright' in American law: https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:No_Sweat_of_the_Brow_Copyright https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:No_Sweat_of_the_Bro... > Work performed on a public domain item, known as sweat of the brow, does not result in a new copyright. This is the judgment of Project Gutenberg's copyright lawyers, and is founded in a study of case law in the United States. This is founded in the notion of authorship, which is a prerequisite for a new copyright. Non-authorship activities do not create a new copyright. Now, they're only talking about public domain works, which these photographs may or may not be (if there was a copyright on them in 1945, for example, it was not renewed in a timely fashion; Night of the Living Dead is public domain because its copyright wasn't renewed, and it's newer than WWII), but I would be completely shocked if this doctrine didn't apply here at all. https://archive.org/details/night_of_the_living_dead https://archive.org/details/night_of_the_living_dead
- rhizome 12y ago
  Maybe his argument is that by buying the film he owns the rights? As we learned in the SCOX vs. Novell trial, copyright can never be transferred without a full description of the items and rights being transferred in writing.
- prawn 12y ago
  Finding Vivian Maier is a great Kickstarted film for anyone looking for something to watch or interested in photography.
ncza 12y ago
AFAIK it does. It's how museums make money with reproductions. I might be wrong on this though.
- teddyh 12y ago
  Yes, museums like to claims this to make money. This does not make them right.
- schrijver 12y ago
  Museums in most cases do not own the copyright to the works in their collections, yet they often pretend they do to be able to charge higher processing fees. http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/2011/06/27/copyright-museums-and-licensing-of-art-images/ http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/2011/06/27/copyright... Of course they can ask money for the cost of for example photographing, scanning etc., it is just not correct to say it is for copyright licensing.
  - ncza 12y ago
    I thought it was obvious that I did not mean copyright of the exhibits but of reproductions like scans. Thanks for your clarifications.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Scans don't meet the threshold requirement of originality under US copyright law. See for example Batlin v. Snyder - https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=originality+museum+reproduction+copyright&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&case=16845746302991569414&scilh=0 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=originality+museum...
larrys 12y ago
I think what they are referring to is the presentation of the photos (for lack of a better way to put it). Best way to describe it is that it's similar to the copyright that a company (back in the day) that created what is known as a reverse phone directory. That's where you could find someone's phone number by address (or address by phone number). The point being that even though all the info is public (anyone can input same info from a free phone directory) the act of organizing it and displaying it in a certain way (reversed by address as only one example) gives you copyright over the presentation of the material. So you can't grab that wholesale. Another example that I can think of is dnjournal.com which publishes a list of domain sales which they gather primarily (but not exclusively) from easily available info from other sources (like sedo.com). So you are free to do the same from the same sources. However you can't take the list they created, that is lift it from their site, and publish it without violating their copyright. There may of course be some other principle involved obviously but off the top the above seems possible. Edit: Appears what I am referring to is possibly a version of "derivative" work: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works... I think this also goes under "the golden rule" meaning he who has the gold rules. The film was undeveloped so someone could argue that that act was instrumental in making the pictures able to be seen (seems like a scotus grade discussion). The original owner took the pictures but he never created the image which people see. The image was created by the person who now claims copyright. Without the developing there are no images. May not win but perhaps most importantly a leg to stand on.
- delinka 12y ago
  But they claim copyright on "all images" on the site. This would have the implication that simply pulling the images off the site (and not using their web site presentation) for use anywhere else would be infringement. Does their scanning of the photos add such a transformative element that they hold copyright on these images? Perhaps it could but I don't believe that it does in this case. As to the phone number lookup examples, lists of facts cannot be protected under copyright. My understanding is that this extends to indexes of facts as well. Though there may indeed be a presentation or transformative element (which may have copyright protection), the underlying facts (and their indices) do not have copyright protection. I've seen many websites attempting to make this claim with lists, and they make it technically non-trivial to copy the data from their site, but should such a case actually make it to court, I don't think the claim would hold water.
legulere 12y ago
The barrier of copyright is extremely low. Simply reproducing copyright free works is already covered again by the copyright.
- delinka 12y ago
  Not exactly. A newly typeset and printed copy of Alice in Wonderland does have copyright protection. The presentation has transformed the (public domain) text enough to qualify for protection. Someone chose fonts, letter sizes, line lengths, book size... You can't go making photocopies of that particular work and sell them without infringing. You can, however, take the original text, which is now in the public domain, and typeset and print your very own Alice in Wonderland book. And now you hold a copyright on a presentation of Alice in Wonderland.
  - teddyh 12y ago
    > The presentation has transformed the (public domain) text enough to qualify for protection. Do you have a reference for that?
    - delinka 12y ago
      http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transformative.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transfo...
  - legulere 12y ago
    The problem is that the text might have been altered (intentionally or unintentionally) and then you are infringing on copyright again.
nkurz 12y ago
You are correct to have doubt. While it is criminally illegal to falsely claim copyright, there is almost no chance of prosecution. And the only entity able to sue under civil law would be the heirs of the photographer, who are unlikely to know that they hold the copyright. The public, while potentially deprived of the the ability to make use of the work, is not deemed to "have standing". The seminal paper on the topic calls this "copyfraud": Copyfraud Jason Mazzone, University of Illinois College of Law Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 40 New York University Law Review, Vol. 81, p. 1026, 2006 Abstract: Copyfraud is everywhere. False copyright notices appear on modern reprints of Shakespeare's plays, Beethoven's piano scores, greeting card versions of Monet's Water Lilies, and even the U.S. Constitution. Archives claim blanket copyright in everything in their collections. Vendors of microfilmed versions of historical newspapers assert copyright ownership. These false copyright claims, which are often accompanied by threatened litigation for reproducing a work without the owner's permission, result in users seeking licenses and paying fees to reproduce works that are free for everyone to use. Copyright law itself creates strong incentives for copyfraud. The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials. There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free. While falsely claiming copyright is technically a criminal offense under the Act, prosecutions are extremely rare. These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale, with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted, and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free. Copyfraud stifles valid forms of reproduction and undermines free speech. Congress should amend the Copyright Act to allow private parties to bring civil causes of action for false copyright claims. Courts should extend the availability of the copyright misuse defense to prevent copyright owners from enforcing an otherwise valid copyright if they have engaged in past copyfraud. In addition, Congress should further protect the public domain by creating a national registry listing public domain works and a symbol to designate those works. Failing a congressional response, there may exist remedies under state law and through the efforts of private parties to achieve these ends. http://ssrn.com/abstract=787244 http://ssrn.com/abstract=787244
- 12y ago
potatolicious 12y ago
> "The overlapped images: are these simply because the film didn't wind a fill frame?" Yes - it's hard to appreciate how far camera tech has come since the 40s, and presumably also a typical soldier isn't bringing a high-end 35mm camera into the field. More specifically, if there's play in the gears of the winding mechanism then you'll get a lot of variance when it comes to inter-frame space. > "I have doubts about this statement. Can someone with more expertise in this matter explain?" It doesn't have to be nefarious - they can assert copyright over the scans of the film without asserting copyright over the original images themselves (though in this case it does look like if you donate film they want the whole shebang). It's like recording a cover - your recording itself has a separate copyright regardless of the copyright status of the song upon which it is based. Like a cover song there could be some legal issues between the scanner and the copyright owner of the original film images, but presumably they sort this out between themselves.
- galago 12y ago
  More specifically, if there's play in the gears of the winding mechanism then you'll get a lot of variance when it comes to inter-frame space. NO! This is old 120 format film--just a roll of film with paper backing. On his camera, you probably just looked through the red window on the back at the frame number. If you forgot to wind, double exposure. The Holga toy camera from Lomo still works this way today.
- primelens 12y ago
  On medium format film - I can't tell if this is 120, 220, or 620, or something like 616 - many cameras can take pictures of varying width. For example, on a camera that makes 6x9, or 6x7 pics, you might be able to put in a masking attachment and make 6x6 pictures. If you forget to put the attachment, you might think you're shooting 6x6 shots and advance the film accordingly, but you'll actually make wider shots which overlap at the edges.
- ars 12y ago
  > they can assert copyright over the scans of the film without asserting copyright over the original images themselves No they can't. Scanning a photo is not a creative work subject to copyright.
lisa_henderson 12y ago
About this: "Copyright of All Images On This Website is Owned By The Rescued Film Project." They are almost certainly making the claim under the various Orphan Work acts that several nations have passed recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with those laws, there is no question that these images fit the classic description of an orphan work.
- yaddayadda 12y ago
  If I'm reading the information on your provided link correctly, then no, the photographer can not claim copyright - precisely because they are orphaned works. In the U.S. there have been bills, but no legislation to change this.
yaddayadda 12y ago
To add to the copyright conversation, assuming the work is covered under U.S. law [1] then wouldn't it be covered under the Copyright of 1909 law [2]? This law only granted copyright for 60 years, which means copyright would have expired no later than 2005. [1] Because the photographer was a U.S. soldier. If he took some of those photos in other countries there may be other laws in effect. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909
anigbrowl 12y ago
Any pictures taken in the course of carrying out military service on behalf of the US might automatically be in the public domain for copyright purposes, I think, as the person would be an employee of the US government by definition. I don't know exactly how this plays out for military personnel but I'd imagine you waive a lot of private citizen rights when you set off on a tour of duty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the...

by delinka 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

> I have doubts about this statement. Can someone with more expertise in this matter explain? It seems to me that the photographer holds the copyright unless the copyright was properly transferred. Simple discovering the film and processing it does not a copyright holder make. I'd say you are 100% in the right here, the problem will be to find the person or their heirs to assert their claim. I definitely do not think that finding the film is enough to stake a claim this broad. see: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-monkey-selfie-copyright-20140821-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-monkey-self... Which has an interesting take on images with doubtful copyright status (selfie taken by a monkey, owner of the camera tried to assert copyright). Thinking about it a bit more, if the original maker of the images or their heirs were to be nasty they could likely file for infringement of their rights. Personally I think what the guy did was great, they're amazing images but asserting copyright goes one step too far. Maybe his argument is that by buying the film he owns the rights? Edit: another relevant bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Maier Heading 'legal challenge'.

delinka 12y ago
"Personally I think what the guy did was great..." Indeed. I'm glad we now have this additional snapshot of history. And I'd be happy to donate to cover some costs here. But I'm also wary of the copyright claim such that my donation would be contingent on clarifying the claim-- provide an explanation as to how copyright was obtained; step the notice down a bit; etc
- larrys 12y ago
  "such that my donation would be contingent on clarifying the claim" If you contact them and ask about that please post a comment or blog post detailing what they say. It would be interesting to hear their perspective and how strongly worded and convicted it is.
larrys 12y ago
"Maybe his argument is that by buying the film he owns the rights?" As I mentioned in one of my comments they also developed the film which if not done correctly would result in images that wouldn't look the same as they do now. [1] The film without development has no creative appeal other than the appeal of a film canister. [1] As anyone who has done photography with a darkroom knows (I have and development is part of what you get just like picture composition is.)
- jacquesm 12y ago
  The film carries within it all that you could get out of it even after developing. You can't get something out that wasn't in in the first place and the whole goal here is to change the output as little as possible. It's fidelity what is appreciated here, not creative license to solarize the film or do something else with it other than to try to extract the information with as little loss as possible. It's a mostly mechanical process, if you follow the recipe then the predicted outcome is the same, no matter who does the developing.
  - larrys 12y ago
    Have you ever done darkroom photography? (I have and have made money doing that). And if so, just to be clear, you are claiming that there is no difference in results from someone with experience and someone "just following a recipe?".
    - belorn 12y ago
      Are you saying that there is some form a originality done by operating a darkroom, where the result can be distinguished from reproductions, clones, or forgeries of the photograph. If its a reproduction of a photography, its no more original, in a copyrightable sense, than creating a forgery. Such actions might require high skill, but high skill is not what make works copyrightable.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      > Have you ever done darkroom photography? (I have and have made money doing that). Sure. > And if so, just to be clear, you are claiming that there is no difference in results from someone with experience and someone "just following a recipe?". Oh, definitely there can be a difference. But that difference will never amount to the person in the darkroom being able to supercede the copyright claim of the original photographer.
shawn-butler 12y ago
False. Copyright protection attaches to a work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium by an author. Undeveloped film is arguably not a tangible medium suitable for communication and this film is obviously not being developed by its author. The development process of film renders it suitable for copy. "A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission." [0] Also this would essentially be abandoned property. You can abandon copyright just like any other property right. Trademarks can also similarly be abandoned. Would you claim that all the "abandonware" games still belong to their original owners and deny people the right to use them as well? [0] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > Copyright protection attaches to a work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium by an author. Undeveloped film is arguably not a tangible medium suitable for communication Errm. No. In fact it is excellent for communication, seeing that it withstood being in its undeveloped state for decades and still preserves the original image. Registration, not development creates the copyrighted work. You can abandon property just fine but you can't abandon copyright (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonment_%28legal%29#Abandonment_of_copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonment_%28legal%29#Abandon... ), (you can abandon a trademark by not defending it but that's different). You can actively sign something into the public domain but copyright infringement cases typically have a very important date attached to them: when you became aware of the infringement. > Would you claim that all the "abandonware" games still belong to their original owners and deny people the right to use them as well? Technically, yes. And on top of that if your interpretation were true then someone else could claim copyright on these games now that they are 'abandoned'. Which of course isn't true.
  - shawn-butler 12y ago
nkurz 12y ago
I definitely do not think that finding the film is enough to stake a claim this broad. In the absence of case law, I wouldn't be so sure. In the US there was a case that was decided last year that might imply otherwise. A somewhat "famous artist" (Richard Prince) used a photo by a relatively "unknown photographer" (Patrick Cariou) and "transformed" it by printing it much larger, splotching the subjects eyes with paint, and superimposing a guitar: http://newsgrist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c66f153ef01157010d2a5970b-500wi http://newsgrist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c66f153ef01157010d2... On appeal, it was concluded that this was fair use, there was no copyright infringement, and that Cariou had no claim against Prince or right to collect royalties: http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/news/richard-prince-wins-major-victory-in-landmark-copyright-suit/ http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/news/richa... It's not the same, but I wouldn't want to bet that a court would have decided otherwise if Prince had started with Cariou's negative and had done the work in the darkroom rather than on the easel. Which would imply that it's not even necessary for the film to be lost or abandoned, and that mere access could be enough. And the parties settled the case after the appeal, so there is no chance that the Supreme Court will clarify it further until something else similar makes it to them.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  That's a major alteration of the source image though, not an all out effort to preserve as much of the original as possible so I don't think that it applies. Interesting case though.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  That work was creative, as opposed to what the developers did, which was (probably) not creative, and therefore falls under the rubric of there not being a 'sweat of the brow copyright' in American law: https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:No_Sweat_of_the_Brow_Copyright https://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:No_Sweat_of_the_Bro... > Work performed on a public domain item, known as sweat of the brow, does not result in a new copyright. This is the judgment of Project Gutenberg's copyright lawyers, and is founded in a study of case law in the United States. This is founded in the notion of authorship, which is a prerequisite for a new copyright. Non-authorship activities do not create a new copyright. Now, they're only talking about public domain works, which these photographs may or may not be (if there was a copyright on them in 1945, for example, it was not renewed in a timely fashion; Night of the Living Dead is public domain because its copyright wasn't renewed, and it's newer than WWII), but I would be completely shocked if this doctrine didn't apply here at all. https://archive.org/details/night_of_the_living_dead https://archive.org/details/night_of_the_living_dead
rhizome 12y ago
Maybe his argument is that by buying the film he owns the rights? As we learned in the SCOX vs. Novell trial, copyright can never be transferred without a full description of the items and rights being transferred in writing.
prawn 12y ago
Finding Vivian Maier is a great Kickstarted film for anyone looking for something to watch or interested in photography.

ncza 12y ago

AFAIK it does. It's how museums make money with reproductions. I might be wrong on this though.

teddyh 12y ago
Yes, museums like to claims this to make money. This does not make them right.
schrijver 12y ago
Museums in most cases do not own the copyright to the works in their collections, yet they often pretend they do to be able to charge higher processing fees. http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/2011/06/27/copyright-museums-and-licensing-of-art-images/ http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/2011/06/27/copyright... Of course they can ask money for the cost of for example photographing, scanning etc., it is just not correct to say it is for copyright licensing.
- ncza 12y ago
  I thought it was obvious that I did not mean copyright of the exhibits but of reproductions like scans. Thanks for your clarifications.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Scans don't meet the threshold requirement of originality under US copyright law. See for example Batlin v. Snyder - https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=originality+museum+reproduction+copyright&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&case=16845746302991569414&scilh=0 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=originality+museum...

larrys 12y ago

I think what they are referring to is the presentation of the photos (for lack of a better way to put it). Best way to describe it is that it's similar to the copyright that a company (back in the day) that created what is known as a reverse phone directory. That's where you could find someone's phone number by address (or address by phone number). The point being that even though all the info is public (anyone can input same info from a free phone directory) the act of organizing it and displaying it in a certain way (reversed by address as only one example) gives you copyright over the presentation of the material. So you can't grab that wholesale. Another example that I can think of is dnjournal.com which publishes a list of domain sales which they gather primarily (but not exclusively) from easily available info from other sources (like sedo.com). So you are free to do the same from the same sources. However you can't take the list they created, that is lift it from their site, and publish it without violating their copyright. There may of course be some other principle involved obviously but off the top the above seems possible. Edit: Appears what I am referring to is possibly a version of "derivative" work: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works... I think this also goes under "the golden rule" meaning he who has the gold rules. The film was undeveloped so someone could argue that that act was instrumental in making the pictures able to be seen (seems like a scotus grade discussion). The original owner took the pictures but he never created the image which people see. The image was created by the person who now claims copyright. Without the developing there are no images. May not win but perhaps most importantly a leg to stand on.

delinka 12y ago
But they claim copyright on "all images" on the site. This would have the implication that simply pulling the images off the site (and not using their web site presentation) for use anywhere else would be infringement. Does their scanning of the photos add such a transformative element that they hold copyright on these images? Perhaps it could but I don't believe that it does in this case. As to the phone number lookup examples, lists of facts cannot be protected under copyright. My understanding is that this extends to indexes of facts as well. Though there may indeed be a presentation or transformative element (which may have copyright protection), the underlying facts (and their indices) do not have copyright protection. I've seen many websites attempting to make this claim with lists, and they make it technically non-trivial to copy the data from their site, but should such a case actually make it to court, I don't think the claim would hold water.

legulere 12y ago

The barrier of copyright is extremely low. Simply reproducing copyright free works is already covered again by the copyright.

delinka 12y ago
Not exactly. A newly typeset and printed copy of Alice in Wonderland does have copyright protection. The presentation has transformed the (public domain) text enough to qualify for protection. Someone chose fonts, letter sizes, line lengths, book size... You can't go making photocopies of that particular work and sell them without infringing. You can, however, take the original text, which is now in the public domain, and typeset and print your very own Alice in Wonderland book. And now you hold a copyright on a presentation of Alice in Wonderland.
- teddyh 12y ago
  > The presentation has transformed the (public domain) text enough to qualify for protection. Do you have a reference for that?
  - delinka 12y ago
    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transformative.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transfo...
- legulere 12y ago
  The problem is that the text might have been altered (intentionally or unintentionally) and then you are infringing on copyright again.

nkurz 12y ago

You are correct to have doubt. While it is criminally illegal to falsely claim copyright, there is almost no chance of prosecution. And the only entity able to sue under civil law would be the heirs of the photographer, who are unlikely to know that they hold the copyright. The public, while potentially deprived of the the ability to make use of the work, is not deemed to "have standing". The seminal paper on the topic calls this "copyfraud": Copyfraud Jason Mazzone, University of Illinois College of Law Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 40 New York University Law Review, Vol. 81, p. 1026, 2006 Abstract: Copyfraud is everywhere. False copyright notices appear on modern reprints of Shakespeare's plays, Beethoven's piano scores, greeting card versions of Monet's Water Lilies, and even the U.S. Constitution. Archives claim blanket copyright in everything in their collections. Vendors of microfilmed versions of historical newspapers assert copyright ownership. These false copyright claims, which are often accompanied by threatened litigation for reproducing a work without the owner's permission, result in users seeking licenses and paying fees to reproduce works that are free for everyone to use. Copyright law itself creates strong incentives for copyfraud. The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials. There is also no remedy under the Act for individuals who wrongly refrain from legal copying or who make payment for permission to copy something they are in fact entitled to use for free. While falsely claiming copyright is technically a criminal offense under the Act, prosecutions are extremely rare. These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale, with millions of works in the public domain deemed copyrighted, and countless dollars paid out every year in licensing fees to make copies that could be made for free. Copyfraud stifles valid forms of reproduction and undermines free speech. Congress should amend the Copyright Act to allow private parties to bring civil causes of action for false copyright claims. Courts should extend the availability of the copyright misuse defense to prevent copyright owners from enforcing an otherwise valid copyright if they have engaged in past copyfraud. In addition, Congress should further protect the public domain by creating a national registry listing public domain works and a symbol to designate those works. Failing a congressional response, there may exist remedies under state law and through the efforts of private parties to achieve these ends. http://ssrn.com/abstract=787244 http://ssrn.com/abstract=787244

12y ago

potatolicious 12y ago

> "The overlapped images: are these simply because the film didn't wind a fill frame?" Yes - it's hard to appreciate how far camera tech has come since the 40s, and presumably also a typical soldier isn't bringing a high-end 35mm camera into the field. More specifically, if there's play in the gears of the winding mechanism then you'll get a lot of variance when it comes to inter-frame space. > "I have doubts about this statement. Can someone with more expertise in this matter explain?" It doesn't have to be nefarious - they can assert copyright over the scans of the film without asserting copyright over the original images themselves (though in this case it does look like if you donate film they want the whole shebang). It's like recording a cover - your recording itself has a separate copyright regardless of the copyright status of the song upon which it is based. Like a cover song there could be some legal issues between the scanner and the copyright owner of the original film images, but presumably they sort this out between themselves.

galago 12y ago
More specifically, if there's play in the gears of the winding mechanism then you'll get a lot of variance when it comes to inter-frame space. NO! This is old 120 format film--just a roll of film with paper backing. On his camera, you probably just looked through the red window on the back at the frame number. If you forgot to wind, double exposure. The Holga toy camera from Lomo still works this way today.
primelens 12y ago
On medium format film - I can't tell if this is 120, 220, or 620, or something like 616 - many cameras can take pictures of varying width. For example, on a camera that makes 6x9, or 6x7 pics, you might be able to put in a masking attachment and make 6x6 pictures. If you forget to put the attachment, you might think you're shooting 6x6 shots and advance the film accordingly, but you'll actually make wider shots which overlap at the edges.
ars 12y ago
> they can assert copyright over the scans of the film without asserting copyright over the original images themselves No they can't. Scanning a photo is not a creative work subject to copyright.

lisa_henderson 12y ago

About this: "Copyright of All Images On This Website is Owned By The Rescued Film Project." They are almost certainly making the claim under the various Orphan Work acts that several nations have passed recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with those laws, there is no question that these images fit the classic description of an orphan work.

yaddayadda 12y ago
If I'm reading the information on your provided link correctly, then no, the photographer can not claim copyright - precisely because they are orphaned works. In the U.S. there have been bills, but no legislation to change this.

yaddayadda 12y ago

To add to the copyright conversation, assuming the work is covered under U.S. law [1] then wouldn't it be covered under the Copyright of 1909 law [2]? This law only granted copyright for 60 years, which means copyright would have expired no later than 2005. [1] Because the photographer was a U.S. soldier. If he took some of those photos in other countries there may be other laws in effect. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1909

anigbrowl 12y ago

Any pictures taken in the course of carrying out military service on behalf of the US might automatically be in the public domain for copyright purposes, I think, as the person would be an employee of the US government by definition. I don't know exactly how this plays out for military personnel but I'd imagine you waive a lot of private citizen rights when you set off on a tour of duty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the...