What are the ethics of "found film"?

[lynnb]

I sometimes find partly exposed rolls of film in thrift store cameras that I buy. Rather than waste it, I usually expose the remainder of the roll to test the camera, and regardless of what film type (usually C41 colour) I develop in bw chemistry to save costs. This way I can tell if the camera works or has light leaks. However, it also often leaves me with a number of photos which were taken by the original owner, or perhaps by other people who have handled the camera in the store.

My question is, what are the ethics of publishing found film? The word publishing includes posting it in a forum like this. Sometimes found film photos are historically significant (the ones I have are not); and sometimes they show the private lives of people and families. Some of these pictures are delightful, and worthy of display as being of general interest or examples of "good" photography, i.e. competently taken and visually strong.

I'm excluding from this discussion any found photos of intimate moments (which I've never come across, but you never know what people photograph!). However I'm including pictures which include children, as many found films are from what were obviously family cameras.

Unless there are obvious cues it can be difficult to determine when some of these pictures were taken, but quite frequently the "where" can be worked out, depending on the clues. Trying to work out who/when/where can be an interesting exercise in logic and detective work in itself. In some cases I have been able to work out enough to know that it might be possible to contact the people who are in the photographs. However I have never done so. I wonder if they knew they were discarding what might be important family photographs, when they donated the camera to charity. What if something had happened to the people in the photos, and these were the most recent photographs taken of them?

Curious to hear some opinions about this. I searched Google for "found film ethics" and drew a blank. I was considering starting a W/NW thread on Found Film, but thought better to get some more input before posting any examples.

I was not sure whether to post this thread here or in Philosophy of Photography, so mods please feel welcome to move it if necessary.

 

[btgc]

Found film deserved to be developed. What one does with images, this is what I call ethics.

 

[sc_rufctr]

Ethics? I really don't think there are any when it comes to found film.
Or how hard is it to remove the film before donating or selling the camera? ...

So as far as I'm concerned the images belong to the person that acquired the camera.
Using good taste I don't see any reason not to use the images.

 

[lynnb]

My thoughts are that found film pictures that have recognisable people in them should not be published. The original owners probably did not realise they were throwing away or donating the film - only the camera. I am less sure about pictures that do not contain recognisable people.

Edit: another thought occurred to me - it is not all that uncommon for families to split up with acrimony on one or both sides. Sometimes one partner will move to a new community for safety reasons, particularly if children are involved. Publishing found film photos that have recognisable people and their locations (e.g. a school) could jeopardise safety.

But this argument also becomes nuanced - many of us have taken pictures of our children playing team sports, in which children on opposing teams are also clearly recognisable, along with team jerseys and playing fields that permit date and place identification. Many of these pictures are uploaded to FB/social media/Flickr. What is the difference between doing this, and publishing found films?

 

[lynnb]

Ethics? I really don't think there are any when it comes to found film.
Or how hard is it to remove the film before donating or selling the camera? ...

So as far as I'm concerned the images belong to the person that acquired the camera.
Using good taste I don't see any reason not to use the images.

Peter - many people do not know anything about film cameras. The newer generations have grown up with digital. They may not even realise that film exists, or that it can be in an old camera that is donated to charity or a thrift store.

Regards,

 

[ssmc]

What about cameras that came to be sold as part of an estate? What if all the people in the photos are decades older or deceased? What if they depict a crime being committed, or the aftermath? The possibilities for "complications" are virtually endless.

I dunno, there could be so much behind the circumstances under which found film was originally exposed that it seems worthwhile to at least think about posting the photos, even if there are recognizable people in them.

The chance of someone seeing a lost/found photo of themselves on the net seems pretty remote to me, unless it happens to contain a record of something exceedingly important and goes viral. Maybe not even then.

My 0.02

 

[lynnb]

What about cameras that came to be sold as part of an estate? What if all the people in the photos are decades older or deceased? What if they depict a crime being committed, or the aftermath? The possibilities for "complications" are virtually endless.

I dunno, there could be so much behind the circumstances under which found film was originally exposed that it seems worthwhile to at least think about posting the photos, even if there are recognizable people in them.

The chance of someone seeing a lost/found photo of themselves on the net seems pretty remote to me, unless it happens to contain a record of something exceedingly important and goes viral. Maybe not even then.

My 0.02

I think finding a photo of yourself (or anyone else) is becoming increasingly easier with face-recognition and tagging, and the increasing power of search engines - although I've not tested this. We live in a world where it is becoming increasingly difficult to remain anonymous! Of course, you would have to go looking for such matches - or be advised by someone who does. For most people I agree, it is unlikely they would come across random photos of themselves, at the moment.

 

[crosseyed-cricket]

Lynn,

A very interesting topic and question. I think the decision what to do goes beyond copyright issues and speaks to the question of 'should this image be published?'...which may be different for each photograph.

I would not publish anything 'intimate', or what I considered to be inappropriate. But, I might publish it if it was (as you mentioned) a strong image or a powerful one. Even if it meant someone got angry about it.

If I was on the other end of the 'publishing' and found one of my images from a long lost roll of film I might have some mixed feelings, but would probably be grateful that the image was saved and I got to see it.

Although I can't imagine this scenario since I don't think I've ever thrown away a camera!

 

[ian_watts]

this is no different than the Vivian Meyer case.

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.

 

[Keith]

What's the difference between a picture of a person from a salvaged film out of a used camera and a photograph of someone taken randomly on the street? In the final wash it's much the same IMO ... neither image has the consent of the subject and in my mind it's not really needed to stay within any ethical boundaries that may or may not exist.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

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.

I was of the understanding that Maier's film inventory included a number of exposed, but undeveloped ones.

 

[Sid836]

Providing that the developed photos of a found film are not offensive to anyone, I would publish them. Then, if any of the persons showing up on that film asks me to take them down, I would.
I don't care for the ex-owner though as he/she owns it no more.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Same as for found prints.

Cheers.

R.

 

[Muggins]

That reminds me - at school I borrowed the art department camera and took half a film or so at motor racing meeting. The art teacher had the film developed and took his prints, so imagine my surprise when I looked at the negatives to find that the other half of the film was a lass in her lingerie!

Adrian

 

[lynnb]

^^was she one of the students?

 

[nongfuspring]

There have been a lot of photographers who have made work from found negatives, and as the others say I don't think there's any moral quandary here; do what you like with them. Some of my favourite Daido Moriyama shots probably weren't taken by him at all, but he had the eye to pick up and edit what others discarded and change their interpretation by putting them into the context of other images.

The only point at which it becomes a bit ethically questionable is if you were to print off one of these images and claim it as a picture you yourself had taken.

 

[Muggins]

^^was she one of the students?

No, all male school. Very mysterious!

Adrian

 

[ian_watts]

Same as for found prints.

Only superficially. Developing abandoned unexposed film taken by somebody else (especially when the development takes the form of cross-processing as in this case) involves a greater mixing of labour (in the Lockean sense) and creativity than does scanning a finished print.

 

[ian_watts]

A large part of VM's work in unprocessed, but your argument led to the printing and display of VM's work.

Not really. VM's work was never orphaned – the creator was known, it was just that the owners of the physical negs took a punt that no descendants would turn up to claim ownership of the copyright. VM's work has also, rightly or wrongly, been commercially exploited. I was quite specific in talking about non-commercial usage of properly orphaned works. I'm still not certain that doing so is ethical and I do think it would (currently) be a breach of copyright but I think it is a different proposition to the whole VM saga.

 

[johannielscom]

Ethics? I really don't think there are any when it comes to found film.
Or how hard is it to remove the film before donating or selling the camera? ...

So as far as I'm concerned the images belong to the person that acquired the camera.
Using good taste I don't see any reason not to use the images.

My thoughts exactly. Buy the camera, buy the film inside it, acquire the rights to the images on the film.

No different from say John Maloof buying boxes of negatives and displaying what was on them. Oh, wait... 🙄

😀😀


That was a joke, I stand by my answer: the images, they're yours.