What are the ethics of "found film"?

[David Hughes]

SNIP! ... Also, if the camera were stolen, or perhaps even lost ...

The law in the UK was that if something is sold in the open market then the purchaser has a legal right to it as his/hers. The City of London used to, and may still be, regarded as an open market and that upset the police and MP's some years ago but I don't recall what happened.

Anyway, the idea behind the sale in the open market was that as the goods were on display the owner could claim them and the buyer's rights ought to be protected. But that was when I did basic principles of English law for my pro qualifications in the 50's. And a fat lot of good it did me.

Anyway search on "Marche ouvert" for more info and apologies for the lack of accents as it crashes the machine.

Regards, David

 

[oftheherd]

Well obviously the copyright belong to the creator, but the film belongs to the new owner, this is no different than the Vivian Meyer case.

Data on a sold computer is the same, finding an author's work does not change the buyer's copyright.

Just because something is in the trash does not change copyright.

Lynn you already knew the answer to your question. But most of the time the question is irrelevant.

It's straightforward intellectual property law: the creator owns it, whether it is a print, a negative or an undeveloped film. I don't think you could argue that developing a film "completes" the copyright in any way, though you might just be in with a chance that until the film was developed there was no "work". But as soon as it is developed, it exists, and it certainly doesn't belong to the person who developed the film.

Cheers,.

R.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought that was what you meant, but for some reason my mind must have been clogged and I didn't grasp it.

 

[mdg137]

Only up to a point. There are two differences that are relevant to the ethics and legality of publishing these photos. Firstly, this involves unprocessed film (unlike with Maier) and the development of the film is, arguably, part of the creative process that has led to the printable negs. Secondly, unlike Maier, these are classic orphaned works. Whilst (for now) the latter doesn't substantively change the copyright situation it does, I think, make the non-commercial publishing of these photos a different ethical proposition.

Irrespective of the above, I think there are two ethical and legal avenues to go down here. Either justify the publication of these photos on artistic grounds (think Richard Prince or Doug Rickard) or tiptoe along some kind of "fair use" justification.

In terms of when copyright vests, it is at the moment you trip the shutter. Or " when the idea is reduced to a tangible medium" the subsequent processing does not change that. The copyright rests with the author of the work.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The law in the UK is that if something is sold in the open market then the purchaser has a legal right to it as his/hers. The City of London used to, and may still be, regarded as an open market and that upset the police and MP's some years ago but I don't recall what happened.

Anyway, the idea behind the sale in the open market was that as the goods were on display the owner could claim them and the buyer's rights ought to be protected. But that was when I did basic principles of English law for my pro qualifications in the 50's. And a fat lot of good it did me.

Anyway search on "Marche ouvert" for more info and apologies for the lack of accents as it crashes the machine.

Regards, David

Dear David,

"Market overt" is a fascinating legal byway but relatively few markets are legally markets overt and even then it would make for an interesting moot point whether copyright would be included. "Goods on display" would be a fruitful starting point: the copyright is not "on display".

Cheers,

R.

 

[D.O'K.]

Alas, there are no more "markets overt"--that quaint ancient principle of the English law was abolished by the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994.

Regards,
D.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Alas, there are no more "markets overt"--that quaint ancient principle of the English law was abolished by the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994.

Regards,
D.

Thanks. I thought they probably had been abolished, but I have paid less attention than I should to legislation for some decades.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David Hughes]

Alas, there are no more "markets overt"--that quaint ancient principle of the English law was abolished by the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994.

Regards,
D.

Thanks, once again I've/we've lost another right.

Quaint, agreed but practical. I'd hate to by something expensive in all innocence and then find it wasn't mine...

Regards, David

 

[D.O'K.]

Indeed--although the contrary argument was that "market overt" was a charter for thieves and their fences and operated unfairly against those who had their goods stolen as it extinguished their rightful title in favour of the innocent buyer. As such, it was seriously anomalous to the general rule of law nemo dat quod non habet, i.e. you can't give what you don't [lawfully] have.

Regards,
D.

 

[ian_watts]

In terms of when copyright vests, it is at the moment you trip the shutter. Or " when the idea is reduced to a tangible medium" the subsequent processing does not change that. The copyright rests with the author of the work.

Yes, I'm aware of (and fully understand) the copyright laws but the OP was asking about the ethics of the matter. Without wishing to start up a wider debate about legal positivism and natural law, the ethical question is IMO much more interesting than the easier question of whether the OP's proposal is a breach of copyright or not.

Even sticking to the question of copyright, in my opinion the OP's proposal (which involves cross processing the original film) isn't as clear cut, copyright wise, as is implied in the rather simplistic interpretation of the copyright laws being made in this thread. You need to look less at the statutes and more at the legal cases. Consider, for example, what Richard Prince has been doing and the wider implications of the "fair use" doctrine: Richard Prince Wins Major Victory in Landmark Copyright Suit.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Indeed--although the contrary argument was that "market overt" was a charter for thieves and their fences and operated unfairly against those who had their goods stolen as it extinguished their rightful title in favour of the innocent buyer. As such, it was seriously anomalous to the general rule of law nemo dat quod non habet, i.e. you can't give what you don't [lawfully] have.

Regards,
D.

Dear Darren,

I've often wondered, though, whether the "thieves' magnet" might not have made it easier to catch thieves...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, I'm aware of (and fully understand) the copyright laws but the OP was asking about the ethics of the matter. Without wishing to start up a wider debate about legal positivism and natural law, the ethical question is IMO much more interesting than the easier question of whether the OP's proposal is a breach of copyright or not.

Even sticking to the question of copyright, in my opinion the OP's proposal (which involves cross processing the original film) isn't as clear cut, copyright wise, as is implied in the rather simplistic interpretation of the copyright laws being made in this thread. You need to look less at the statutes and more at the legal cases. Consider, for example, what Richard Prince has been doing and the wider implications of the "fair use" doctrine: Richard Prince Wins Major Victory in Landmark Copyright Suit.

Dear Ian,

Your opinion would probably not prevail. "Fair use" is has admittedly been interpreted surprisingly flexibly but merely processing someone else's pictures is not quite the same as using them as the basis for another artwork. Of course you might find a judge to agree with you but I'd not want to hazard money on it.

Those of us who have given more conventional opinions on copyright were not discussing ethics: we were merely trying to point out that "I possess the film, therefore I own the copyright" is simply untrue. This is hardly simplistic.

Purely ethically, I'd argue that as long as the "found" image does not hold the subject up to ridicule or contempt, and as long as there is no reasonable expectation that the photographer can be found by any readily available process of investigation, there are rarely ethical problems -- though "ridicule or contempt", "reasonable expectation" and "readily available process of investigation" are wonderfully weaselly and therefore litigable. That's before you start on "rarely"...

Cheers,

R.

 

[willie_901]

Ethics apply to members of an organized group, and that group establishes code of ethics members must abide by.

If the OP is not bound by a code of ethics, then the decision is personal and subjective. Of course legal issue involved as well such as there are copyright, defamation and legal obligations involving lost vs abandoned property.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ethics apply to members of an organized group, and that group establishes code of ethics members must abide by.

If the OP is not bound by a code of ethics, then the decision is personal and subjective. Of course legal issue involved as well such as there are copyright, defamation and legal obligations involving lost vs abandoned property.

Dear Willie,

Eh?

Where did you get that one from? At least as a primary definition?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

I thought ethics was, my habit but I admit I'm struggling with greek translations in general

... so 'true to myself' rather than abiding by an external code

 

[Muggins]

Surely Ethics ith a county Thouth of Thuffolk?

I'll get me coat...

Adrian
(should know, born there)

 

[Roger Hicks]

Develop the film. Ethically there is nothing to worry about in my opinion. The donor forfeited their right to ownership of intellectual property.

I on the other hand throw out the film inside the cameras I buy used. I do not want to waste my time, energy and chemicals on developing the film with the hope something worthwhile seeing is on the roll.

Is it ethical to throw the film out without trying to find the owner to return the roll?

Mike

Dear Mike,

No.

Read the thread. Or study the law. Or both.

Cheers,

R.

 

[pete hogan]

In summary, film is a lot of trouble.

 

[David Hughes]

"In summary, film is a lot of trouble."

Hi,

But think of the ethics around the three thousand photo's you find on the SD card in that digital camera you've just bought second-hand on ebay...

Regards, David

 

[pete hogan]

"In summary, film is a lot of trouble."

Hi,

But think of the ethics around the three thousand photo's you find on the SD card in that digital camera you've just bought second-hand on ebay...

Regards, David

Right, I wouldn't do that. Give me an empty Zorki 1 from Oleg or Fedka.