What are the ethics of "found film"?

[Ko.Fe.]

If you think of the film images on forgotten roll as of images on abandoned digital camera or old mobile phone, which logic of ethics would apply?
If you think where are some difference between analog image storage and digital data, different logic might be applied.

Personally, no matter analog or digital, I'll check the images. Most likely, with digital storage, if no previous owner trace is available I'll delete it. But with film, I'm uncertain.

 

[raid]

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

I need to see those images, Adrian. Then only can I give you my informed opinion ...😀

 

[burancap]

I have three such rolls in 35, 110, and 120. I kept them all but never developed them. Frankly, I think the 35 is likely gone from light exposure as I, and whoever else may have opened the camera over the years, was not expecting it to be loaded. Same may be the case for the 120, but it was at the end of the roll. There is a chance there may be a few salvageable from the early tightened frames. The 110 could well be the best. Much more recent and sealed up in its canister. There are sites that handle found film and I have been considering sending them off for their best chance of returning something. Something like this: http://www.filmrescue.com/old-still-film-developing/

 

[Particular]

I have a collection of street photographs. Literally photographs that I have found on the street. Most are color negs that probably dropped out of the envelope when picking up prints. I also have slides, b+w negs, prints and a bunch of passport pictures. They have varying degrees of artistic scratches from being walked on. They were found over the years on 4 continents.

My position is that while I don't own the copyright, the owners have forfeited the moral right to the use through their carelessness. I feel free to use them until an original owner would ask me not to.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Twenty years ago a buddy of mine and his wife bought a home and in the attic they found some rolls of 35mm film. They had them developed and though the images were "age damaged" you could see they were images of a naked young woman taken in the 1950's. Always wondered what she would think, seeing them after all those years.

I've been getting into shooting one of those little Minolta 16 cameras and when I was acquiring film cassettes for it, every cassette I purchased on fleebay, (though listed as brand new, never exposed) were filled with exposed film. I processed all the rolls and two from one seller came out with images. I contacted the seller to try and find the original owners (pictures were taken in the 1960's), but even after I told him what I had found, and showed him some of the images, he refused to contact them or give me their contact information.

There would be no point in trying to do anything commercial with the images, but since I was not able to contact the original owners, I did post them on the internet because I found them to be really interesting, kind of a time capsule thing.

 

[btgc]

Speaking about digital, built-in memory is excellent source for forgotten images. Some of older digicams disabled access to small built-in memory* after inserting memory card.

* provided to test camera or use while deciding on size of card when they did cost much more.

 

[farlymac]

I don't normally process any film I find in cameras, unless it's a situation where the counter is on 2, and it's a 36 shot roll. Then I'll use it up, and hope for the best that the first couple of shots won't get me jailed!

Usually I just chuck the canister in a collection box I have of old film, as some of them have really lovely color and designs. But the last roll I had developed was one I couldn't remember if I shot it, or it came out of some other camera. It was interesting doing a fix on those scans to get halfway decent images to display, so it was a good exercise in working with over 40 years old latent images, and showing others what process was used to salvage them.

My take is the images don't belong to me, so I'm not going to try and make money off them. Nor am I going to present them in a way that is denigrating to the human subjects. But it's just like publishing old family photos taken by a professional studio. The copyright still belongs to the photographer. So I will not usually post anything like found film, unless it's in the context of a camera test (see, this camera is still kicking it).

PF

 

[charjohncarter]

I put them on Flickr and label them 'found film.' Although I do to some extent have my personal (not legal if there is one) limits. Recently I received a box of cameras and slides of unknown origin. Some of the slides were interesting historically, but there many of one women stripped. I didn't post those slides (you know which ones). I wish I could find her; I'm sure she would love them.

 

[Darthfeeble]

There is an organization dedicated to found film. Google "found film org" should get you there.

 

[Rodchenko]

I've used found photos in montages.

 

[Muggins]

I need to see those images, Adrian. Then only can I give you my informed opinion ...😀

I was waiting for a response like that!:angel:

Adrian

 

[alistair.o]

Would someone/anyone humour me by answering the following:-

Who said photography was ethical? As has already been said we make pictures by 'taking'. Now, you can ask or you just go ahead and do. There is no such thing as right and wrong conduct i.e. ethics in photography.

Just because we (in general) do not consider ourselves to be 'paparazzi' and that type of 'low-life' But, just give us that one fleeting chance to take that one glorious name-making, money-making shot and who here wouldn't? Please do not get tied up in knots over this.

If you make pictures or find pictures, so?

 

[Roger Hicks]

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.

Dear Ian,

No. Found prints, negatives and films are all fundamentally the same. Processing and printing does not affect copyright. Or indeed ethics.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Would someone/anyone humour me by answering the following:-

Who said photography was ethical? As has already been said we make pictures by 'taking'. Now, you can ask or you just go ahead and do. There is no such thing as right and wrong conduct i.e. ethics in photography.

Just because we (in general) do not consider ourselves to be 'paparazzi' and that type of 'low-life' But, just give us that one fleeting chance to take that one glorious name-making, money-making shot and who here wouldn't? Please do not get tied up in knots over this.

If you make pictures or find pictures, so?

Dear Alistair,

So if you found a manuscript in an envelope you'd have no problem with claiming it as your own work?

It's pretty simple really. People who create work usually own the copyright (except with work for hire or other contracts to the contrary). If you don't create it, you don't own it.

No knots needed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[alistair.o]

Dear Alistair,

So if you found a manuscript in an envelope you'd have no problem with claiming it as your own work?

It's pretty simple really. People who create work usually own the copyright (except with work for hire or other contracts to the contrary). If you don't create it, you don't own it.

No knots needed.

Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger,

What is being addressed here is film that has been found in a cassette or camera that has been either dumped at the charity shop or bought in a clearance sale or house clearance, car boot etc.

They were not wanted.

Claiming someones' work as your own is a totally different matter and unquestionably wrong.

Thanks

 

[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.

Do you mean it doesn't change the buyers lack of copyright?

Same as for found prints.

Cheers.

R.

I don't know if there is any law on ownership of found prints in the USA, so I don't quite understand your meaning.

I am surprised that no one has considered the possibility that someone may have completed the copyright process on photos made from found developed negatives. As to undeveloped film, I don't know enough about copyright law or court decisions to know if the undeveloped film would still be considered a created work for which the copyright remained with the owner/creator.

Also, if the camera were stolen, or perhaps even lost, and there was a police report; and that with a statement that the camera, even though the serial wasn't remembered, if the film was still in it, could be identified as there was a picture of the owner's late uncle in his coffin? A lot of circumstances would need to come together, but if they did, you as the purchaser would own neither the camera, nor its contents.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Roger,

What is being addressed here is film that has been found in a cassette or camera that has been either dumped at the charity shop or bought in a clearance sale or house clearance, car boot etc.

They were not wanted.

Claiming someones' work as your own is a totally different matter and unquestionably wrong.

Thanks

Dear Alistair,

Not legally. Physical possession, no matter how you come by it is NOT the same as possession of copyright. For the latter, you need an express assignment of copyright. This is one of the fundamentals of intellectual property law and is why there has been such a brouhaha over "orphan works".

To take a very simple example, suppose I steal your camera and sell it with a film in it. I have "abandoned" the film, but you haven't. And even if you had, you would still possess the copyright.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Do you mean it doesn't change the buyers lack of copyright?

I don't know if there is any law on ownership of found prints in the USA, so I don't quite understand your meaning.

I am surprised that no one has considered the possibility that someone may have completed the copyright process on photos made from found developed negatives. As to undeveloped film, I don't know enough about copyright law or court decisions to know if the undeveloped film would still be considered a created work for which the copyright remained with the owner/creator. . . .

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.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Hmmm, this opens a whole can of worms doesn't it?

F'instance, what are the ethics of giving a camera to a charity shop without testing it? Or removing the battery and stopping corrosion (first thing to look for imo)? FWIW, I think most people don't realise they have batteries and think they've broken... Especially if they threw the instruction manual away with the packing.

Anyway, given away means not highly valued by the owner and so you could assume it's all legit and yours. But the copyright won't be but you could extend that argument for ever. Example, I write something, change it, screw it up and throw it in the bin: what happens to the copyright? In reality it's abandoned as worthless.

So I assume they gave the film away and have abandoned the copyright. Then I use the film to practice cutting leaders or testing the loading of P&S's and so on.

OTOH, bag up their photo's and give them back to the charity shop. They won't thank you...

Regards, David

 

[DominikDUK]

Roger is correct. Finding a film does not give you the copyright, buying a film negative doesn't give you the copyright, finding a print doesn't give you the copyright. If you find a film or image that is over 100 years old you may market or use the image but you still don't own the copyright for it. If the original seller was unaware of the fact there was still film in the camera and you only paid for the camera with or without lens you do not necessarily have ownership of the film only of the camera.