Used film?

I sometimes buy old film, especially in sizes that aren't available new, on eBay.

 

Sometimes there are auctions for already exposed film.

 

Often the prices are more than I want to bid, and I suspect others would want to bid, but I was pretty surprised to see:

 

www.ebay.com/itm/172769894444

 

seven rolls of used (exposed) 127 film sell for $125. I might have bid $5 or $10, but the starting bid was $125.

 

Developing someone else's film can be fun, but not that much fun.

 

Oh well.

Possibly the 127 spools and backing paper for re-spooling were worth more than the old exposed film to that solitary bidder

 

Here is an example of a cheaper lot: 35 rolls of Rolls 35 mm EXPOSED Undeveloped looks like 1950's plus container's

I was willing to pay about $15 to $20 for for an unexposed roll of 120 from the 30's or early 40's just to see if I could do anything with it, but it sold for about twice that. Per roll those sold for less than what I would pay for one, but I would have never bought 7 ;)

 

How many exposures on one of these rolls? 8? So that's $125 for about 50 pictures (1 roll was unexposed). Would I buy a box of random prints from the 40's and 50's for $125? No.

 

Negatives seem like a little more of a treasure hunt. If I was fairly confident that I could get at least a half a dozen decent pictures, cared less about $125 than I do now, then I could see doing it. I'd never pay that much for exposed film that was only a decade or two old, but those are 70 or 80 years old. They're like little time capsules waiting to be opened.

I have, or have had, more than 10 rolls of unused VP116, I believe less than $10 each. More recently, I bought a few rolls of VP122, one exposed, and used the exposed one to practice tray development. Those were about $10 each. Even more recently, it seems that unused VP127 goes for close to $10/roll.

 

The roll of VP122, from about 1957, had a few printable negatives, but not worth more than about $1 each, other than the ability to practice tray development.

 

I have a few rolls of V116, from about 1944, and used one of them. It was so fogged that no images, not even the frame boundaries, were visible.

 

If the rolls come from old cameras, on the average you would expect half the roll to be used. (The VP122 that I bought came from a store that removed it from a camera.)

 

So, yes, there is a little fun in developing someone else's pictures from years ago, but I find it a little more fun to take my own pictures on older film.

 

If you just want someone's old pictures, you can buy slides and home movies, usually for a low price, and I suppose prints and negatives, too.

For unused film, there is NC 122 use by 1915, for $125

 

KODAK 122 NC EXTRA RAPID FILM, 1915, SOLD FOR DISPLAY PURPOSES ONLY/cks/194666 | eBay

 

could be fun, but not that much fun.

This thread made me think of the "Found film" posts that Gene M. had from time to time. The only found film I ever developed was in a used Olympus Quickmatic that I picked up cheap. It had a cartridge of Gold 200 in it so I developed in in HC110. Though dense due to fog and less than optimum process for this film, I could clearly recognize the famous Lombard Street in one of the frames. I also got a few strips of processed Panatomic-X from the late 50's. Wasn't interested in the images, but instead wanted to compare the grain with later versions. But not interested in developing and definitely not in paying a lot per roll.

I always loved Gene M.'s found film posts and the stories he would make up to go along with them.

 

With that said, I think most of his came from old cameras that he bought at thrift stores and the like. I have some found film that I've never gotten around to developing. I think among it is a couple of rolls of 127-perhaps I should try my luck on Ebay with it :) .

 

Of course, I've also ruined a lot of found film too-it's all too pop open the back of a camera without thinking to check(albeit ruby windows are obivous). I have a Canon EF with a broken roll of film in it that I need to extract so I can use the camera-I might do it in the dark so that I can see if there's anything. I bought a bunch of 4x5 film holders, and about half film in them. A couple are showing exposed, so I keep meaning to develop those. I have no idea what's in any of the holders, so I'm going to go out in the front yard with the unexposed ones, shoot them, and see what I get. Of course, I'm assuming that the photographer uses the conventional black/white exposed/unexposed that most others used. Otherwise, I'll end up with blank film and double exposures :)

What right do you have with these used film? Are the photographs yours now?

What right do you have with these used film? Are the photographs yours now?

 

As well as I know (IANAL) the copyright stays with the photographer, but he/she is going to have a hard time proving that.

 

(The case of the photographing monkey is back in the news again.)

 

Seems to me that the best way to prove that you own the copyright is to have the original negative.

 

Even more, if you sell the negative, it seems to me (again, IANAL) that, unless otherwise stated, you at least transfer the right to make copies, but maybe not exclusive right. If you sell an undeveloped negative, you don't have any way to make copies. When you sell, unless otherwise states, there is the implied warranty of fitness and merchantability. When you buy something, you have the right to use it the way it is meant to be used, and negatives are meant to make prints from. You might not have the right to sell them, though. Unless there is a good way for the photographer to prove ownership, though, you might just as well own them.

 

Note that many studio photographers now sell CDs with the digital images. Obviously, you have the right to make prints from there, otherwise you haven't bought anything useful. They should write on the CD what rights you have. I assume I have non-exclusive rights to the images.

 

In the pre-digital days, some would sell the negatives. We once bought a negative from a studio photographer in a supermarket, taking pictures of kids. (I don't know why they did that.) Again, I have to assume I have the rights to make prints.

 

I have known wedding photographers that, at the end of the wedding (and after being paid) hand the bride a bag of exposed rolls of film. Presumably with a previously signed contract explaining the rights, but it is hard to see that most rights wouldn't transfer.

 

On the other hand, if developed or undeveloped negatives were stolen, it seems to me that no rights transfer. In that case, it would be buying stolen property, but you likely wouldn't know that.

Merely selling a negative does not transfer copyright. Transfer of copyright has to be in writing. Only the copyright owner has a right to make copies or license others to do so. If you buy a CD you have the right to look at the pictures the same as if you buy photographs. You do not have the right to make copies from the CDs or photographes.

I experienced exactly the same exposing a 1947 V616 in a 1933 Kodak Art Deco folder. I gave it only one stop overexposure with normal development, the result of which was almost a clear film. Some very faint outlines of landscapes, barely visible in the scans, told me it needed at least four extra stops of light, a tripod and cable release

 

Consequently I don't bother exposing old film after that episode, I now trim down 4x5 sheets of modern film to 70mm and laboriously tape them into the camera. It's well worth it if you have the patience and want original size negatives to see how those early optics perform, and perhaps to get a good picture or two while you're at it

That was in response to glen_h

 

"I have a few rolls of V116, from about 1944, and used one of them. It was so fogged that no images, not even the frame boundaries, were visible."

I found some film in a camera I bought from eBay last year for parts. I offered to ship the film back to the seller if they wanted it. The response was a terse "No". So I processed it for practice. Based on the seller's other listings I'd guess he was just flipping this camera wasn't the one who took the pictures anyway.

 

The film was 10 or 20 years old based what I saw in the pictures. It looked like a young couple's weekend trip to Chicago. The colors were distorted in almost all cases, but some worse than others. Not sure if that was just the age or because I opened the back of the camera without knowing there was film in it. Who knows in what kind of conditions the camera was kept.

 

It's interesting to speculate. Is the couple still together? I would have been about the same age at the time these pictures were taken. Why was the film never processed? Where had the camera been since then? Was it lost? Stolen?

We all have our quirks, I certainly have more than a fair share of my own, but except in the case of family (or famous photog) I can't imagine buying / developing others' exposed film. Different strokes!

Buying used film? Why not! If someone is bold enough to sell it, there has to be someone crazy enough to buy it. Oh wait, I see it. It's good practice for loading your camera or an old Patterson reel.

 

By the way, I have some used dog food for sale.

Buying used film? Why not! If someone is bold enough to sell it, there has to be someone crazy enough to buy it. Oh wait, I see it. It's good practice for loading your camera or an old Patterson reel.

 

By the way, I have some used dog food for sale.

 

Sorry but used film is not the same as used dog food. As far as I know with used dog food you can do anything with it you want. With used film I asked the question but I am sure it's not legal to make prints from those used film and sell.

Sorry but used film is not the same as used dog food. As far as I know with used dog food you can do anything with it you want. With used film I asked the question but I am sure it's not legal to make prints from those used film and sell.

 

OK, say you go to a nearby car dealer and buy a brand-new car. About to drive it off the lot, and the dealer tells you to stop. That you now own the car, but that you forgot to buy the right to use the car. (Most likely for patent, and not copyright reasons.)

 

Well, IANAL, but besides copyright and patent, there is implied warrant of fitness and merchantability. When you buy something, it is implied that you can do what one ordinarily does when buying that thing. The thing you ordinarily do with cars is drive them, and with negative is to print them.

 

But you mention selling them. Seems to me that selling prints is not something people ordinarily do, and you might not necessarily have that right.

 

Back to the car. You might have the rights for personal, but not commercial use. That is more obvious if you buy a DVD, for which you ordinarily have the right to watch it for personal, but not commercial use. I suppose commercial use of a car might include using it in a movie or for advertising purposes. For example, you might need extra rights to display a trademarked logo. (I suspect fair use would often apply, but maybe not always.)

 

As above, IANAL, but if you buy a negative or CD with JPEGs on it, you don't necessarily have the right to sell such prints, but you should have the right for personal use, unless the seller specifically indicates otherwise. You don't own the copyright, and so don't have the ability to allow others to make or sell prints.

 

If you buy a car in a dark alley, cash and no signed contract, or buy a negative or CD the same way, I suspect you don't know what rights you have. You don't know that the seller has the legal right to sell the car, that he might not even own. You can't be sure at a car dealer, either, but you know they won't stay in business long selling stolen cars.

 

In the case of negatives or cars, if you buy stolen goods, you don't necessarily get the rights that you otherwise expect.

Continuing the above, say you are walking down the street and find a penny on the ground, and pick it up.

 

The next day, and on a different street, you find a sack full of $100 bills, with the name of a bank on the outside.

 

In the second case, you take it to the police department (or bank), as you know you don't own it. Why is the penny different?

 

If you find on the ground, or buy for a low price, a negative that obviously came from a famous photographer, and you obviously didn't pay an appropriate price for it, it is more like the sack of money. If the picture is an ordinary tourist snapshot, more like the penny.

 

It will cost you something to take the sack, penny, or negative to the police department to turn in. Unless you believe that the penny is a rare collectors item, no-one would expect you to turn it in, at much higher personal cost. (Gasoline to drive to the police station, and time off work.)

 

Often enough on "Antiques Roadshow" someone brings in an item that they bought for a low price, but turns out to be very valuable. I have never heard them suggest turning the item in. Valuable or not, it is assumed to be legally owned.

Buying used film or negatives isn't so common. Buying JPEGs is much more common. I have bought pictures of our kids' graduation, but the actual ceremony, and the senior pictures used for the yearbook, but otherwise sold to parents.

 

The price charged is normally a fair price for the work of the photographer, and I expect to be able to make all the personal use prints that I can use. I don't expect to sell such prints.

A lot of people are selling their films for next to nothing. Their film also don't contain any great photographs. I know for sure those films were not stolen they belonged to the seller. I wonder what can one do with them after buying them?

Maybe it is time to stop making up metaphors and analogies and just look at the law.

 

US Copyright Code Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 106

 

2) Ownership of the rights [copyright] conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights [copyright] conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.

 

The photographer who took the photo JPEGs owns the copyright to those photos. By law, he alone can make copies or authorize other to do so in writing.

"I expect to be able to make all the personal use prints that I can use. I don't expect to sell such prints."

It doesn't matter whether you intend to sell them or not. I suppose "unauthorized use" would be a mild term to apply.

For some not so obvious parts of copyright law, see:

 

Monkey selfie - Wikipedia

 

which is actual current news, as it is still in the courts, even just last week.

Maybe it is time to stop making up metaphors and analogies and just look at the law.

 

US Copyright Code Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 106

 

2) Ownership of the rights [copyright] conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights [copyright] conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.

 

The photographer who took the photo JPEGs owns the copyright to those photos. By law, he alone can make copies or authorize other to do so in writing.

"I expect to be able to make all the personal use prints that I can use. I don't expect to sell such prints."

It doesn't matter whether you intend to sell them or not. I suppose "unauthorized use" would be a mild term to apply.

 

 

First, many are done on the web, and through email, so there is nothing in "writing", (that is, ink).

 

I just looked at some that I "bought" an there is no explicit authorization to make prints from them, but there is certainly the implied ability to make prints.

(See my car buying case above.)

 

I suspect that suits based on misrepresentation and sales are easier than ones on copyright.

 

Just about everyone graduating from high school or college will have an offer to "buy" these files.

 

Ones that I have on CD do have writing on the CD granting rights, but not the e-mail versions.

I just notice that the e-mail JPEGs that I got from a professional graduation studio come with a Shutterfly discount code.

 

It sure looks like they expect you to make prints from them!

The law is the law, and then there is common sense. Laws are there to protect people and property. Laws can be violated without harming anyone. In any given instance a "victim" may elect not to pursue legal recourse or a law enforcement officer may choose not to enforce.

 

So let's take the very common scenario of being on vacation with your spouse and wanting your picture taken in front of some landmark. Another tourist may helpfully volunteer to take a picture of both of you with your camera. They take the picture an go on their way. Legally, they hold the copyright do they not? Should you not make copies or prints of that picture?

 

Now what if ET decides to photobomb in that very instance, then disappears. You later look at that photo and see him there. You sell the picture to the National Enquirer for $400. The real photographer then sees it and wants the money plus a little more for their trouble. It could happen, but probably not.

 

If you buy "used" film, my understanding that you can legally process it but can't scan it or makes prints because you don't own the copyright. I think there may also be an ethical argument that if the person who sold you them film wasn't the original owner, you could very well be invading someone's privacy.

 

You could still chose to do want you want in terms of making copies and there is at least a small risk you could run into legal trouble. Depending on whose film it is and what you do with it, there may be a substantial risk. But I think it's fair to say than many or even most of us violate laws (like speed limits) on a regular basis. And then there are moral issues.

Edited July 17, 2017 by tomspielman