Copyright on used -undevelopped- film/slides

sNarah

Ghost Train wrote: »

looks cool, interesting to read about the reaction to it from a few people and the whole discussion about old photos

sNarah wrote: »

Jup, she was saying she had a few bad reactions as well from people saying she would ruin the slides by exposing them to direct sunlight. I like what this lady does, she - like myself - collects all sorts of old-ish cameras, but her main focus seems to be on finding cameras still loaded with film or used film, which she then develops. And the results seems to be pretty fantastic sometimes.

I wonder how that works though copyright wise... Finders keeper? Mh...

So I posted a link to this blog on the Off Topic thread because I liked the curtains this lady had made out of kodachrome slides. Like quoted above, she also buys a lot of old cameras - preferably filled with used film - or she buys used film rolls and slides, which she then develops at home. I really like that idea myself, sniffing around fleamarkets and having "found" (bought) film developped and see what's on it.

Which got me thinking of copyright issues. I read through about 15 pages in the search section on copyright and the closest thread i could find was this one, which didn't entirly provide me with answers.

The question basically is:

* If you purchase/find used film/slides and develop it, who retains the copyright?
* Are you allowed to use the images for artistic and/or commercial purposes?

This lady for instance, uses the developped prints for printing onto little Moo cards and hands them out as business cards. I am under the impression she might also sell the prints on her Etsy shop, though she has none listed at the moment. (not to be ratting her out or anything because I réally like her blog ).

Any thoughts, feedback, legal issues on this? (or a referral to an existing thread in case I missed it, if so, apologies for double posting).

melekalikimaka

the photographer retains the right to the photo... have your fun with is since the tog is unknown...but id say its not simply 'yours'.

thats my take on it. no matter what the tog owns the photo unless the tog gives the rights to you, sure ya coulda bought them of a bloke who robbed his gaf 20 years ago :P

melekalikimaka

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

might be of some help
Ownership of Photographs?

If A takes a photograph of B, who owns the copyright in that photograph? As a general rule, the photographer owns the copyright. This is true even if B has commissioned and paid for the photograph – as in the case of wedding photographs. If B wishes to enjoy the copyright, he must agree with A that the copyright will be transferred to him. B should make sure that the agreement and any transfer are in writing – or they may be ineffective under Irish law to transfer the copyright.

The main exception to this principle is where photographs are taken by an employee in the course of their employment – if X Ltd. employs Z as a photographer, then the photos taken by Z in the course of his work belong to X Ltd. and cannot be used by Z without their permission. This can trip up the unwary – for example, Z may be in difficulties if he wishes to use those photos as part of a portfolio of work.

magicbastarder

i once had a chat with one of the chaps in the camera exchange about what happened to uncollected film or prints. destroyed after six months. he said they'd had the occasional request from art students for them, but the words 'ten foot bargepole' quickly sprang to his lips.

sNarah

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the photographer retains the right to the photo... have your fun with is since the tog is unknown...but id say its not simply 'yours'.

thats my take on it. no matter what the tog owns the photo unless the tog gives the rights to you, sure ya coulda bought them of a bloke who robbed his gaf 20 years ago :P

True indeed .

Thanks for the feedback. I thought the same myself, but wasnt 100% certain as it is one of those stranger situations where I thought there might some exeptions.

Ghost Train

I was more surprised that a few people got angry about her hanging the slides in the sun and eventually destroying them. I guess if a photo lab destroys uncollected film and prints, there's not much differance with her doing the same... since she can't really or shouldn't really do anything with the images themselves.

sNarah

Ghost Train wrote: »

I was more surprised that a few people got angry about her hanging the slides in the sun and eventually destroying them. I guess if a photo lab destroys uncollected film and prints, there's not much differance with her doing the same... since she can't really or shouldn't really do anything with the images themselves.

I was suprised by that as well, sure they have better use being decorative than sitting in a dusty box on an attic.

On the other side, those slides she uses for personal use, i.e. decorating her house. She does use the images she finds on the film, which got me questioning this in the first place. I just think it's a pity - and yes, I do agree that copyright always has to be for the photographer - that if you "find" a wonderfull set of images, you are not able to use them, eventhough in most cases they'd be "unwanted" by the original photographer.

Just checking what the general consensus towards this is, that's all.