Used film?

[James G. Dainis]

"The thing you ordinarily do with cars is drive them, and with negative is to print them. "

 

Yes, you can print the negative if you own the copyright or have permission from the copyright owner to do so. Why is that so hard to understand? Any "implied right" is in the mind of a person who wants to make copies and does not own the copyright. Show me something in Title 17 pertaining to "implied rights" of non copyright holders being allowed to make copies.

[glen_h]

"The thing you ordinarily do with cars is drive them, and with negative is to print them. "

 

Yes, you can print the negative if you own the copyright or have permission from the copyright owner to do so.

 

Are you sure you have a legal right to drive a car that you happen to own? Did you get written notice from all the patent and copyright holders allowing you to use their IP?

 

We all buy and use things everyday, that we might not have the legal right to use, and even if we do, we might not have the documentation for that right.

 

We assume that the car manufacturer has the appropriate patent licenses, but we don't know that.

 

Reminds me of the Kodak Instant camera, where Kodak lost the patent suit from Polaroid. One could then, it seems, not legally use the film. That is, Kodak sold rights that it didn't have to sell.

 

I hope all the patents for JPEG have expired now, but people were using them, and selling them, while the patents were valid, likely, almost surely, without having licensed those patents.

 

Some years ago, I was writing a JBIG2 encoder from the original document, some of which references IBM patents. I faxed to IBM a request to be able to use those patents, but never heard back.

 

For that matter, I have never seen a book which gives me written permission to read that book. Is it obvious from above that after buying a book, that I have a right to read it? Books do usually tell you what you don't have the right to do with them, but not what you do have the right to do. Yet somehow life goes on.

[tomspielman]

There are lots of photographers and studios that definitely don't want you making your own prints but they typically won't give you a full sized jpeg unless it's watermarked or something.

 

However, I think if a studio is sending you shutterfly codes, they are expecting you to make prints. I don't know what the legal ramifications of that are. I don't know what other language there might be in any other agreements they present to their customers. Could they later file a lawsuit against any customer that were to have made copies? I suppose that's possible but it seems really unlikely. And if they won, what kind of damages are they likely to be able to receive, especially if they don't offer prints as part of what they're selling?

 

I remember trying to get prints made of my Step Dad's grad photo for his funeral. No one would make prints because it was from a studio, - long gone out of business and negatives probably destroyed. I understand why the law exist but I don't think that is the kind of thing that it was meant to stop. I understand though that no one wants to be the arbitrator of what should be allowed and what shouldn't. It's easier just to make it all illegal.

 

Eventually the photo goes into public domain, but I think it's like 70 years after the death of the photographer or something like that.

 

My point is that the letter of the law can absurd to follow in some situations and far outside what the original intent of the law was. And intent does matter. So I do think in some instances violating a law is an OK thing to do. But there are risks in doing so, however small.

Edited July 17, 2017 by tomspielman

[glen_h]

This one gave two JPEGs one that they call large, and one extra-large, not quite as big as I might have made, but big enough.

 

They have the option to buy JPEG or prints, or, I suppose, both. If you buy prints, I believe that they are retouched, but not the JPEGs.

I don't know about watermark. Shutterfly didn't complain when I printed them. Walgreen's sometimes has a form to sign, indicating that I have the right to print them.

(That is, to release them from any liability.)

 

I have wondered about negatives from studios that I had portraits done many years ago. Maybe they pass them down to a new owner.

 

Everyday we do things that have, hopefully small, risks. There is even insurance to protect us in the rare case that a small risk results in a large cost.

 

As someone mentioned privacy issues, if we have negatives with people in them, the copyright (and ethical) questions are more obvious.

 

A picture of a natural object, would be difficult for the photographer selling the (developed or not) negative to claim.

I suppose some put a watermark on the negative, though.

[James G. Dainis]

"Are you sure you have a legal right to drive a car that you happen to own?"

 

Yes, pretty sure. What I don't have is the right to make copies of that car in violation of patent laws.

[tomspielman]

I was curious and so I did a little research about studios and how long they tend to keep negatives. It varies but 5 years seems like a common number for run of the mill negatives. Storage costs money. They could be kept much longer if the studio gets regular requests for new prints. I'm not sure how digital storage changes the equation.

 

The laws exist to keep others from impeding the ability of the photographer to profit from their work. But after awhile the photographer/studio makes the decision that the limited possibility of future profits isn't worth the cost of keeping the negative, so out it goes. They've essentially made the decision that they aren't going to attempt to profit from that work anymore.

 

They haven't ceded their rights though. At that point I would think the only way to make another print legally is to get their permission to copy an existing print. I don't know what Sears would do for example, if somebody asked permission to make a copy of a photo that was taken in one of their studios 50 years ago.

 

The bigger question is would anyone, - including Sears, really care if you scanned an old studio print of theirs, cleaned it up and gave copies to your relatives. I'm not sure they're even in that business anymore. Would they respond to a request for permission to make copies in a timely manner? My guess is that they'd rather not deal with it but maybe I'm wrong.

[tomspielman]

We've talked about legal issues a fair amount but what about ethical ones?

 

Probably 20 years ago I left a camera on a beach. By the time I realized i'd forgotten it and went back to get it, it was gone. Maybe it was stolen or maybe somebody did the right thing and turned it into a lost and found somewhere. There was nothing on it that would have indicated that it belonged to me or who to contact if found. So let's assume it was turned into the police. What happens in my city is that any unclaimed stuff will eventually be auctioned off. So let's say that's what happened.

 

The new owner discovers there's film inside. There's no way to know who it belongs to. If it were you, your camera that was lost, would you care if the negatives were processed? Would it creep you out that some stranger was looking at your family photos? Would it matter what the photos were of?

Edited July 18, 2017 by tomspielman

[glen_h]

"Are you sure you have a legal right to drive a car that you happen to own?"

 

Yes, pretty sure. What I don't have is the right to make copies of that car in violation of patent laws.

 

IANAL, but as far as I know, that isn't the way patents work.

 

Well, OK, if a process is patented, then the person doing that process has to have the license.

 

Consider JPEG, and patents that it uses. As well as I know it, makers and users of JPEGs need a license for any patents.

But makers of cameras should be able to license the ability to build and sell cameras that generate JPEG files,

and camera buyers should expect such licensing.

 

But yes, it isn't always easy to separate the process from building items that implement the process.

 

More applicable to this group, consider Kodak Instant film, which was found to infringe Polaroid patents.

 

That is, the way that the film develops, the chemistry, and the way that the chemicals interact when processing. But the only use for such film is to process it in that way. It isn't reasonable to expect Polaroid to sue each film user, even though they are the ones actually doing the infringing process. On the other hand, Kodak having lost the suit, is open to suits from camera and film buyers, who now have unusable cameras and film. While the actual developing is the infringing step, making and selling the film enables that infringement.

 

Now, consider that playing with cats using a laser pointer is patented. (Cats really like to chase the red spot.) Should laser pointer sellers be expected to license the patent? I suspect not, as laser pointers have other uses, and even more, the other uses are more common. Only people actual playing with cats are infringing, and are subject to being sued. On the other hand, if laser pointer sellers packaged them for cat use, and sold them in pet stores, they could probably be sued for infringement. The same laser pointers, built the same way, but sold and licensed differently.

 

So, it is reasonable to expect car makers to have licensed the patent such that you can use it, and that if you make a copy of the car it won't have that license. But if the car maker turns out, maybe later, not to have an appropriate license, and doesn't immediately license it when the car company finds out, you are stuck. Or you can just hope that the patent holder doesn't find you.

[glen_h]

We've talked about legal issues a fair amount but what about ethical ones?

 

(snip on losing a camera with film)

 

The new owner discovers there's film inside. There's no way to know who it belongs to. If it were you, your camera that was lost, would you care if the negatives were processed? Would it creep you out that some stranger was looking at your family photos? Would it matter what the photos were of?

 

As far as I know, this has happened more recently. I believe that there is (at least) one where a digital camera was found in a lake. With no way to identify the owners, the pictures were posted on a social media site. Next, national TV news covered the discovery, and so not much later, the owner was found. I suspect that is easier with digital cameras, but it works either way.

 

Closer to me, was leaving a camera in a place we stopped to eat. Knowing the place, calling them up, and sending money to pay for postage, some months later, I got the camera back. But with different film inside! It was mostly scenery pictures, so I wasn't creeped out, but then did miss the pictures that I took.

 

Consider how many post family photos on social media, for all to see, I suspect most wouldn't feel creeped out.

 

Last year, I put some pictures from a trip to Cape Cod on a FB page, though not my personal page. They are on a page specifically for that trip. Someone found a picture of a boat that is owned by her uncle, that I happened to get into a picture. (There are a lot of boats in Cape Cod, though it is surprising that she actually found that picture.)

[glen_h]

I never would have guessed, but there is a web site:

 

CameraFound.com - The ORIGINAL Camera Lost and Found

 

specifically for posting found pictures, and for finding those that you lost!

[James G. Dainis]

Copyrights protect expression and patents protects inventions, and neither protect ideas. Playing with a cat is not an invention. The laser pointer is and it has already been patented.

[James G. Dainis]

United States Patent: 5443036 Cats and Lasers

 

Utility patents protect four kinds of things one of which is a "process". A process is any combination of steps or methods. I suppose listing a bunch of steps with the laser to get the cat to exercise would be a process and therefore patentable.

 

That just seems weird to me. I suppose you could patent the idea of giving some kids a ball and telling them to go outside and play. Great idea. You just have to give a list of specific steps they are to use with the ball.

[Sandy Vongries]

Cool, you can lock it down, then re open it and add? Perks!

[Mike Gammill]

So if someone wanted to use one of my late father's photographs online or to sell they would have to have permission from his heirs (me, my brother, and sister)? Situation has not occurred but just curious.

[glen_h]

So if someone wanted to use one of my late father's photographs online or to sell they would have to have permission from his heirs (me, my brother, and sister)? Situation has not occurred but just curious.

 

I suspect so. But if you don't, your brother or sister could sue you. Of course, that is pretty much true for inheritance in general.

 

There was not so long ago suits regarding MLK's things, among his heirs.

 

If you get along well with your siblings, you should be fine. If not, be careful.

 

And when you sell a print for a million bucks, expect them to ask for some of it.