Processing Verichrome Pan film

[OldManJim]

I've always assumed that if I didn't take the image, I don't own it. This isn't a legal opinion (I'm not a lawyer), just my personal philosophy.

 

[480sparky]

Title 17

§ 101 · Definitions
“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans.


§ 201 · Ownership of copyright
(a) Initial Ownership.—Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work.

 

[compur]

If the latent image was not copyright, then the various proceedings labs around the world would own the bulk of photographic copyrights!

I don't think so. Dropping off film at a lab for processing doesn't give the lab ownership of the film any more than dropping off a car for service means the garage now owns your car. Only if the owner abandons it does the service provider have a right to take possession.

 

[compur]

Can you share a quote from the reference you found on this point?

the US Copyright Office has an FAQ page. It says, "In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. 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."


BUT there is also an abandonment clause that states I do have a right to them if I have tried to contact the photographer or family of. I would have also have to state that these are not mine if I publish them.
Before I decide to do anything I'm going to have a talk with my lawyer and see what if anything I can do.

You're missing my point about LATENT images which was that whooshing sound you may have heard above your head but never mind. It's probably all moot anyway.

 

[john.margetts]

If the latent image was not copyright, then the various proceedings labs around the world would own the bulk of photographic copyrights!

I don't think so. Dropping off film at a lab for processing doesn't give the lab ownership of the film any more than dropping off a car for service means the garage now owns your car. Only if the owner abandons it does the service provider have a right to take possession.

Ownership of the physical film has nothing at all to do with copyright. My point was if the latent image was not copyright before development but is after then the act of development would be the defining action in the creation of the image thus giving the developer the copyright. Perhaps you also heard a wooshing sound? [emoji38]

 

[compur]

Ownership of the physical film has nothing at all to do with copyright.

I know. You have once again missed my point.

I only wished to express a curiosity regarding copyright law as regards latent images.

 

[compur]

A copyright is created at the moment a work is made into a fixed form. For authors, it is created when you type the words on your computer. For photographers, it is created at the click of the shutter (latent image).
So yes, the latent image is copyrighted.

May I have a reference on that? I mean a specific reference regarding latent images? I am not arguing with you. I am just asking for a reference that mentions latent images if there is one.

The reason I ask is because a latent image isn't a photograph per any definition that I've seen.

 

[480sparky]

............I only wished to express a curiosity regarding copyright law as regards latent images.

Latent images are copyrighted as soon as the shutter closes, and the rights belong to the photographer.

 

[480sparky]

Again, Title 17, § 101:
A work is“created”when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

Latent images are considered a fixed copy.

 

[compur]

Latent images are considered a fixed copy.

Considered by whom? They aren't a fixed copy. They're invisible so how could they be considered "fixed"? They aren't even really an image by any definition that I know of.

I don't mean to be rude but courts of law require more than your personal assurance on legal points and I'm looking for an actual specific reference or precedent mentioning latent images if there is one.

 

[480sparky]

Latent images are considered a fixed copy.

Considered by whom? They aren't a fixed copy. They're invisible so how could they be considered "fixed"? They aren't even really an image by any definition that I know of.

I don't mean to be rude but courts of law require more than your personal assurance on legal points and I'm looking for an actual specific reference or precedent mentioning latent images if there is one.

It's fixed in terms of being a 'fixed' chemical reaction within the grains of silver on the film. Just because you or I or any other human cannot SEE it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's LOTS of stuff we cannot see that certainly exist. This includes the 'images' contained in computer files.

It's not just my 'personal assurance'. It's the result of court rulings.

 

[compur]

It's fixed in terms of being a 'fixed' chemical reaction within the grains of silver on the film. Just because you or I or any other human cannot SEE it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's LOTS of stuff we cannot see that certainly exist. This includes the 'images' contained in computer files.

It's not just my 'personal assurance'. It's the result of court rulings.

Well, that's what I'm asking. I would like to see something regarding these court rulings you mentioned. Not that I don't believe you -- I'd just like to read about it.

 

[480sparky]

Well, let's go back to the US copyright law.

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.

 

[compur]

^ Well that seems to be saying a latent image IS NOT fixed since it's not "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived."

So, I take that to mean, by the lettter of the law, that an unprocessed latent image is NOT yet in a form that can be protected by copyright. It becomes "copyright-able" when it is processed and then becomes "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived."

 

[480sparky]

Read the entire quote, not just the part that supports your view.

..sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.

It's sufficiently permanent to be brought out with a developer.

Also, apply your logic to digital. When does the automatic copyright start?