6 ms·

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 su

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
  That is property, the image was not disseminated to you or anyone else by looking at the film. It was developed into a negative and digitized in order to disseminate copies. You really are apparently neither a lawyer nor a photographer and should consult an experienced one if you are pursing either as a hobby or profession. Copyright can certainly be abandoned. It does not always require an overt statement. See for example National Comics Pub. v. Fawcett Pub., 191 F.2d 594, 598 [0] [edit] I was going to discuss abandonware of game content and its use in new works but that is a much longer discussion. You can follow up if you are interested. [0] https://casetext.com/case/national-comics-pub-v-fawcett-pub-2 https://casetext.com/case/national-comics-pub-v-fawcett-pub-...
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    The case you cite is under previous legislation that is highly pertinent and alters the reasoning. The judgement is from 1951. In-or-around 1980s (? can't remember exactly) the US signed up to the Berne Convention and so joined the majority of the rest of the world in not requiring registration to acquire copyright protection. In the judgement [which I only skimmed the first page or two of] is this: >'It is of course true that the publication of a copyrightable "work" puts that "work" into the public domain except so far as it may be protected by copyright. That has been unquestioned law since 1774;2 and courts have often spoken of it as a "dedication" by its "author or proprietor."' Which is not true any longer. Production of a work now acquires copyright (eg under TRIPs) which publication in itself can not forfeit nor dispose of. Similarly in the judgement it is clear that under the past regime affixation of a copyright notice was required. This is a central element to the case it seems. Because of the central features relying on specifics of the law that no longer apply it seems there is very little if anything in this judgement that would bind, or indeed inform, a present day decision. >You really are apparently neither a lawyer nor a photographer // Hmm. You might be a photog, I'm guessing not. FWIW I am neither.
    - shawn-butler 12y ago
      Hi thanks for commenting and appreciate your honesty in noting that you lack the understanding of the citation, didn't read it anyway, but wanted to share your thoughts based on your own information in an unrelated context. The citation was simply regarding the existence of abandonment / forfeiture of copyright which the parent said did not exist and then later edited. It was not intended to have bearing on "present-day." Sorry if that was unclear. Regarding the Berne convention... The same reasoning applies to TRIPs (Article 2 Section 2) [0] (2) It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form. You can't claim copyright on that which is not authorable nor transmittable.. i.e. in a medium that can be copied. >> FWIW I am neither. Very clear. [0] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works/Articles_1_to_21 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_...
trhway 12y ago
>Copyright protection attaches to a work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium by an author. this is what photons do to silver on the film the moment you press the button on the film based photo camera. This is why actual photographer has the copyright. The fact that more light can destroy the image until it is developed has the same effect on copyright as the fact that cassette recording can be destroyed by magnetic field. >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. are you trying to say that Kodak development shops own copyright for 99% of the photos made in the US in the second half of the 20th century?
- shawn-butler 12y ago
  Irrelevant. Copyright is about ensuring authors are paid for copies of their work being disseminated. You don't disseminate film. Copyright would cover negatives produced under an authors direction in order to distribute his or her image. Photographers "own" the film as property. It is a different legal standard.
  - trhway 12y ago
    Sounds like you saying that act of production of negative is where/when copyright starts.
icehawk 12y ago
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. If it is not tangible; that is, there is no significant change between unexposed and exposed film, how do you explain how the process of development works?
kelnos 12y ago
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. For starters, the bit you quote doesn't at all sound like it supports the assertion you're making. A film negative absolutely is a tangible medium of expression, certainly suitable for communication. And, according to the same website you reference[0]: "Ownership of a 'copy' of a photograph –- the tangible embodiment of the 'work' –- is distinct from the 'work' itself –- the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the 'work' is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer." It's pretty clear from this that the copyright is attached to the not-all-that-tangible "work" created when the photographer presses the shutter on his/her camera. [0] http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#copying http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#copying
- shawn-butler 12y ago
  You misunderstand the process and my assertion. >> A film negative absolutely is a tangible medium of expression, certainly suitable for communication. >> That is correct. A film photographer has negatives produced for the purpose of dissemination and in some cases directs in great detail how those negatives are produced. This is not the case in this story/article. Undeveloped film, which is the topic of the article at hand does not have any copyright. It was never "authored" as a duplicable work until the new owner of the film (whoever bought it at yard sale or auction) had the negatives created. And that new owner assigned his copyright to the images produced by the found film / restoration society via its terms and conditions. Let's put a tech spin on it since this is still HN, apart from the people who go around down voting informative posts because they disagree or want to hide posts that make their own look foolish. Imagine a contemporary digital camera with no "film" but one that cryptographically encrypts the sensor image with the owner's key to non-volatile RAM/storage. That data is not subject to copyright. It in principle cannot be copied or transmitted as an image. It can be stolen and copied for example violating property rights, or maybe "shown" as performance art but that's about it. The image itself (the creative work) cannot be viewed by others. Now the photographer decrypts it into a regular RAW or JPG or whatever file format that is easily transmitted / copied. That image is "authored" by the photographer and cannot be duplicated without his consent. The author has copyrights in that work/image.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Undeveloped negatives are considered tangible for legal purposes, and the creation of the negative has been considered the primary work of authorship almost cince the inception of photography: See Burrow-Giles Lithographic company v. Sarony, 111 US 53 - Supreme Court 1884, quoting Nottage v. Jackson, 11 QBD 627, High court 1883: Brett, M.R., said, in regard to who was the author: "The nearest I can come to, is that it is the person who effectively is as near as he can be, the cause of the picture which is produced, that is, the person who has superintended the arrangement, who has actually formed the picture by putting the persons in position, and arranging the place where the people are to be — the man who is the effective cause of that." Lord Justice Cotton said: "In my opinion, `author' involves originating, making, producing, as the inventive or master mind, the thing which is to be protected, whether it be a drawing, or a painting, or a photograph;" and Lord Justice Bowen says that photography is to be treated for the purposes of the act as an art, and the author is the man who really represents, creates, or gives effect to the idea, fancy, or imagination. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17794409671595926696 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=177944096715959...

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
That is property, the image was not disseminated to you or anyone else by looking at the film. It was developed into a negative and digitized in order to disseminate copies. You really are apparently neither a lawyer nor a photographer and should consult an experienced one if you are pursing either as a hobby or profession. Copyright can certainly be abandoned. It does not always require an overt statement. See for example National Comics Pub. v. Fawcett Pub., 191 F.2d 594, 598 [0] [edit] I was going to discuss abandonware of game content and its use in new works but that is a much longer discussion. You can follow up if you are interested. [0] https://casetext.com/case/national-comics-pub-v-fawcett-pub-2 https://casetext.com/case/national-comics-pub-v-fawcett-pub-...
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  The case you cite is under previous legislation that is highly pertinent and alters the reasoning. The judgement is from 1951. In-or-around 1980s (? can't remember exactly) the US signed up to the Berne Convention and so joined the majority of the rest of the world in not requiring registration to acquire copyright protection. In the judgement [which I only skimmed the first page or two of] is this: >'It is of course true that the publication of a copyrightable "work" puts that "work" into the public domain except so far as it may be protected by copyright. That has been unquestioned law since 1774;2 and courts have often spoken of it as a "dedication" by its "author or proprietor."' Which is not true any longer. Production of a work now acquires copyright (eg under TRIPs) which publication in itself can not forfeit nor dispose of. Similarly in the judgement it is clear that under the past regime affixation of a copyright notice was required. This is a central element to the case it seems. Because of the central features relying on specifics of the law that no longer apply it seems there is very little if anything in this judgement that would bind, or indeed inform, a present day decision. >You really are apparently neither a lawyer nor a photographer // Hmm. You might be a photog, I'm guessing not. FWIW I am neither.
  - shawn-butler 12y ago
    Hi thanks for commenting and appreciate your honesty in noting that you lack the understanding of the citation, didn't read it anyway, but wanted to share your thoughts based on your own information in an unrelated context. The citation was simply regarding the existence of abandonment / forfeiture of copyright which the parent said did not exist and then later edited. It was not intended to have bearing on "present-day." Sorry if that was unclear. Regarding the Berne convention... The same reasoning applies to TRIPs (Article 2 Section 2) [0] (2) It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form. You can't claim copyright on that which is not authorable nor transmittable.. i.e. in a medium that can be copied. >> FWIW I am neither. Very clear. [0] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works/Articles_1_to_21 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_...

trhway 12y ago

>Copyright protection attaches to a work as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium by an author. this is what photons do to silver on the film the moment you press the button on the film based photo camera. This is why actual photographer has the copyright. The fact that more light can destroy the image until it is developed has the same effect on copyright as the fact that cassette recording can be destroyed by magnetic field. >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. are you trying to say that Kodak development shops own copyright for 99% of the photos made in the US in the second half of the 20th century?

shawn-butler 12y ago
Irrelevant. Copyright is about ensuring authors are paid for copies of their work being disseminated. You don't disseminate film. Copyright would cover negatives produced under an authors direction in order to distribute his or her image. Photographers "own" the film as property. It is a different legal standard.
- trhway 12y ago
  Sounds like you saying that act of production of negative is where/when copyright starts.

icehawk 12y ago

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. If it is not tangible; that is, there is no significant change between unexposed and exposed film, how do you explain how the process of development works?

kelnos 12y ago

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. For starters, the bit you quote doesn't at all sound like it supports the assertion you're making. A film negative absolutely is a tangible medium of expression, certainly suitable for communication. And, according to the same website you reference[0]: "Ownership of a 'copy' of a photograph –- the tangible embodiment of the 'work' –- is distinct from the 'work' itself –- the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the 'work' is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer." It's pretty clear from this that the copyright is attached to the not-all-that-tangible "work" created when the photographer presses the shutter on his/her camera. [0] http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#copying http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#copying

shawn-butler 12y ago
You misunderstand the process and my assertion. >> A film negative absolutely is a tangible medium of expression, certainly suitable for communication. >> That is correct. A film photographer has negatives produced for the purpose of dissemination and in some cases directs in great detail how those negatives are produced. This is not the case in this story/article. Undeveloped film, which is the topic of the article at hand does not have any copyright. It was never "authored" as a duplicable work until the new owner of the film (whoever bought it at yard sale or auction) had the negatives created. And that new owner assigned his copyright to the images produced by the found film / restoration society via its terms and conditions. Let's put a tech spin on it since this is still HN, apart from the people who go around down voting informative posts because they disagree or want to hide posts that make their own look foolish. Imagine a contemporary digital camera with no "film" but one that cryptographically encrypts the sensor image with the owner's key to non-volatile RAM/storage. That data is not subject to copyright. It in principle cannot be copied or transmitted as an image. It can be stolen and copied for example violating property rights, or maybe "shown" as performance art but that's about it. The image itself (the creative work) cannot be viewed by others. Now the photographer decrypts it into a regular RAW or JPG or whatever file format that is easily transmitted / copied. That image is "authored" by the photographer and cannot be duplicated without his consent. The author has copyrights in that work/image.

anigbrowl 12y ago

Undeveloped negatives are considered tangible for legal purposes, and the creation of the negative has been considered the primary work of authorship almost cince the inception of photography: See Burrow-Giles Lithographic company v. Sarony, 111 US 53 - Supreme Court 1884, quoting Nottage v. Jackson, 11 QBD 627, High court 1883: Brett, M.R., said, in regard to who was the author: "The nearest I can come to, is that it is the person who effectively is as near as he can be, the cause of the picture which is produced, that is, the person who has superintended the arrangement, who has actually formed the picture by putting the persons in position, and arranging the place where the people are to be — the man who is the effective cause of that." Lord Justice Cotton said: "In my opinion, `author' involves originating, making, producing, as the inventive or master mind, the thing which is to be protected, whether it be a drawing, or a painting, or a photograph;" and Lord Justice Bowen says that photography is to be treated for the purposes of the act as an art, and the author is the man who really represents, creates, or gives effect to the idea, fancy, or imagination. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17794409671595926696 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=177944096715959...