Hi Bill,
Normally, the right to ownership transfers upon inheritance by will or codicil
to the will. An enforceable copyright ends at life plus 70 years of the
creator. So 70 years after your Father passed, the copyright ends and the
material enters public domain.
As the copyright owner (through direct or indirect legal inheritance) you can
enforce the copyright. The courts look to the relatives for guidance and then
shirt-tail relatives from there. If a brother or granddaughter claim copyright
control, you'd better listen. They have an arguable position and unless there
is a legal agreement that shows otherwise, most court cases ruled to the legal
heirs.
Copyright law is more about the dissemination than anything else. You can make
any copy of anything from anyone for any reason for yourself. But you cannot
give it to anyone else unless it is yours to give. Period. It's the act of
dissemination that trips the law. So scanning a Blackhawk slide and sending a
copy to a buddy is a violation of the copyright law. I use Blackhawk as an
example since the Blackhawk copyright owner still has rights to much of the
Blackhawk library.
Copy negs are usally made like a contact print. The original negative and copy
negative film were sandwiched together in a mechanical contact frame and then
exposed to light from the enlarger. When Kodak was in the film business there
were several copy emulsions available. Now, I think there were two or three
emulsions pre-bankruptcy. A couple of list members are excellent photographers
and very knowledgeable dark room guys. They have better insight although they
have closed down their darkrooms.
Professional photo labs still make copy negs. And you can still scan a negative
and have a copy negative made on film digitally that is as good as the
original. But it takes excellent optics and big files to retrieve the data of
negatives.
Scanners can illustrate more flaws than we want to know about. But the wealth
in the technology is the ability to see what was never there in a photograph.
Background detail is like a treasure hunt.
Hope it helps.
Randy
--- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, William Barber <clipperw@...> wrote:
>
> Randy,
>
> Thank you to you and Jan for the detailed responses on this issue. I have two
> questions, however.
>
> 1. If only the copyright owner can assert copyright, does that mean that the
> copyright dies with the owner if he hasn't passed it on? I have photos that
> my father took. There was no formal pass on of copyright between us, but I
> have assumed that I have the right through inheritance.
>
> 2. I have been around photography for more than 50 years, although I have
> never done any darkroom work. How does one copy a negative? Do you somehow
> photograph the negative or is there a contact method for doing it? I always
> thought a negative was a one time thing.
>
> The computer world and digital photography has changed all that. There are
> many things that can be done with photographs now that weren't even possible
> in the analog era.
>
> Bill Barber
> Gravois Mills, MO
>
> On Mar 6, 2012, at 4:17 AM, CBQ@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > Re: Scanning Negatives
> > Posted by: "qmp211" milepost206@... qmp211
> > Mon Mar 5, 2012 10:16 pm (PST)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jan is right. To summarily label an eBay seller to be in violation of
> > copyright law might be slanderous without any proof other than a broad,
> > reused eBay description. Further, only the copyright owner can assert
> > copyright ownership. Not a casual bystander.
> >
> > Unless you know the intentions under which the original or copy negative
> > were bought, acquired, traded or sold, it is merely hyperbolic speculation
> > on the intent and legal doctrine this seller is operating under.
> >
> > Lemonadesqueeze can sell any negative and doesn't have to detail anything
> > unless he/she knows the item is a copy and even then, how did he/she derive
> > that this subject negative is in fact a copy? In addition, a "copy
> > negative" could fall under a derivative work, another can of worms. And
> > there is no law requiring a reproduction to be labeled as such. It is an
> > ethical issue, not legal.
> >
> > Most every prolific rail photographer with a darkroom traded negatives and
> > prints. Corbin, Griffith, Hardy, Stringham and a hundred more traded, sold
> > and gave away negatives.
> >
> > Many of these negatives were copy negatives but a lot of negatives were
> > exchanged for other original negatives. The only way to know for sure is to
> > compare emulsion numbers on the film. And that only works if the emulsion
> > number is on the negative in question. Basically, no one makes copy
> > negatives any more. If can be done at a lab but it is very expensive and
> > not something for eBay.
> >
> > Most all the prolific photographers wanted to share their work with others
> > and took steps to see that the material they had was shared with others
> > instead of being rat-holed in a basement for no one to ever see. They
> > excelled at disseminating information on a mass basis - think analog social
> > media.
> >
> > There is no excuse for not asking questions of the seller. But don't
> > believe the seller has the necessary knowledge to make the statements they
> > profess. eBay is cloaked in caveat emptor. And sometimes that works out to
> > the buyers' advantage.
> >
> > BTW - The negatives I have purchased from Lemonadesqueeze have not been
> > copy negatives even though they were described as such and the emulsion
> > numbers supported it.
> >
> > Randy Danniel
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|