4 ms·

"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 correct

by 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.
- larrys 12y ago
  As only one example, see this: "Dodging and burning are terms used in photography for a technique used during the printing process to manipulate the exposure of a selected area(s) on a photographic print, deviating from the rest of the image's exposure. In a darkroom print from a film negative, dodging decreases the exposure for areas of the print that the photographer wishes to be lighter, while burning increases the exposure to areas of the print that should be darker" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodging_and_burning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodging_and_burning Here see the part on Ansel Adams: http://improvephotography.com/1946/famous-photographers/ http://improvephotography.com/1946/famous-photographers/
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    I'm not saying that there can't be artistry in the darkroom. I'm saying that in this particular case such artistry would likely not be appreciated. And since you don't know what is on the film in the first place it is very hard to manipulate it in such a way. That requires a lot of pre-existing knowledge about what is on the film. I spent a ton of time in the darkroom of my dad when I was a kid and it's all lots of fun but in the end what wasn't in front of the camera lens is not going to magically appear on the developed film or the prints. At best you'll end up with a derived work, at worst you're destroying a bit of history.
    - noamyoungerm 12y ago
      IANAL but the word you're looking for is "derivative works". In order to develop film, you need to take someone else's work and apply your original interpretation to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work > Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: > (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        This is definitely the most stretched interpretation of the term 'derivative work' that I've ever encountered. Developing a negative does not create 'a derivative work', since developing film is not 'interpreting' it in an original way, it for the most part is chemistry. Do it the same way twice you get the same result. You can prove that to yourself by cutting a roll of film horizontally in half and then developing the two halves independently using the same recipe. If you do it all by the book they'll come out in such a way that the two film halves can be reconnected to give you the whole images.
teddyh 12y ago
That’s a “Sweat of the brow” argument, but copyright does not work that way.
- larrys 12y ago
  I don't agree. Have you ever operated a darkroom? It takes skill to develop and print pictures as a manual process on, in particular, old film.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Sure it takes skill. But the photos are not going to show anything the original photographer put in there. Copyright starts at the moment you press the shutter button. From: http://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/copyright-faq http://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/copyright-faq "When does copyright start? Do I have to register the work with the government? Copyright status is automatic upon creation of your original creative work in a fixed, tangible form. Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is not necessary for copyright status and protection, though registration is needed in order to pursue an infringement claim in court."
    - yitchelle 12y ago
      Copyright of photos is always a tricky subject that I could never get my head around. What about the folks in the photo, would they also not be copyright holders as well of the photo as they are part of the creation. Even tricker is if the photos contains items that are copyrighted, how is this dealt with?
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        Those are called 'portrait rights' or 'personality rights' and hinge on a whole pile of circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights Mix them with copyright by photographers (and now apparently by developers if we're to believe some in this thread) and you can feed a pack of lawyers for years.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Negative development is a pretty mechanical process by default, and yes I still shoot on film as well as digital and I love my lab. I think a good analogy is the editing, design, and typesetting of a book - it's visible on every single page and certainly affects perception of the work in multiple respects, but still a long way from being equivalent to authorship. Even to the extent that development of a film is copyrightable, it's entirely derivative of the original exposure and certainly can't be considered to subsume it for authorship purposes.

by larrys 12y ago

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.
larrys 12y ago
As only one example, see this: "Dodging and burning are terms used in photography for a technique used during the printing process to manipulate the exposure of a selected area(s) on a photographic print, deviating from the rest of the image's exposure. In a darkroom print from a film negative, dodging decreases the exposure for areas of the print that the photographer wishes to be lighter, while burning increases the exposure to areas of the print that should be darker" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodging_and_burning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodging_and_burning Here see the part on Ansel Adams: http://improvephotography.com/1946/famous-photographers/ http://improvephotography.com/1946/famous-photographers/
- jacquesm 12y ago
  I'm not saying that there can't be artistry in the darkroom. I'm saying that in this particular case such artistry would likely not be appreciated. And since you don't know what is on the film in the first place it is very hard to manipulate it in such a way. That requires a lot of pre-existing knowledge about what is on the film. I spent a ton of time in the darkroom of my dad when I was a kid and it's all lots of fun but in the end what wasn't in front of the camera lens is not going to magically appear on the developed film or the prints. At best you'll end up with a derived work, at worst you're destroying a bit of history.
  - noamyoungerm 12y ago
    IANAL but the word you're looking for is "derivative works". In order to develop film, you need to take someone else's work and apply your original interpretation to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work > Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: > (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      This is definitely the most stretched interpretation of the term 'derivative work' that I've ever encountered. Developing a negative does not create 'a derivative work', since developing film is not 'interpreting' it in an original way, it for the most part is chemistry. Do it the same way twice you get the same result. You can prove that to yourself by cutting a roll of film horizontally in half and then developing the two halves independently using the same recipe. If you do it all by the book they'll come out in such a way that the two film halves can be reconnected to give you the whole images.

teddyh 12y ago

That’s a “Sweat of the brow” argument, but copyright does not work that way.

larrys 12y ago
I don't agree. Have you ever operated a darkroom? It takes skill to develop and print pictures as a manual process on, in particular, old film.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Sure it takes skill. But the photos are not going to show anything the original photographer put in there. Copyright starts at the moment you press the shutter button. From: http://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/copyright-faq http://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/copyright-faq "When does copyright start? Do I have to register the work with the government? Copyright status is automatic upon creation of your original creative work in a fixed, tangible form. Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is not necessary for copyright status and protection, though registration is needed in order to pursue an infringement claim in court."
  - yitchelle 12y ago
    Copyright of photos is always a tricky subject that I could never get my head around. What about the folks in the photo, would they also not be copyright holders as well of the photo as they are part of the creation. Even tricker is if the photos contains items that are copyrighted, how is this dealt with?
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Those are called 'portrait rights' or 'personality rights' and hinge on a whole pile of circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights Mix them with copyright by photographers (and now apparently by developers if we're to believe some in this thread) and you can feed a pack of lawyers for years.

anigbrowl 12y ago

Negative development is a pretty mechanical process by default, and yes I still shoot on film as well as digital and I love my lab. I think a good analogy is the editing, design, and typesetting of a book - it's visible on every single page and certainly affects perception of the work in multiple respects, but still a long way from being equivalent to authorship. Even to the extent that development of a film is copyrightable, it's entirely derivative of the original exposure and certainly can't be considered to subsume it for authorship purposes.