Re-cycling colour slides

[Littletank]

Because I am unable to handle a camera I spend my hobby time trying to recycle old colour slides some of which are mine and others are old commercial slides and about which various reservations have been expressed. Recently, I watched a video interview with Ansel Adams in which he compared photography with music and I began to wonder if what I do by producing images from other photographers' work was perfectly acceptable. In music the producer of the score (colour slide) is rarely the interpreter and producer of the music (final image) which we listen to.

The soloist, for example, takes the score and interprets it within a code of given parameters and presents the result to the audience. So, when I take a coloured photograph which a person with a camera other than myself has prepared, scan it, select from it and interpret it and, in many cases, convert it from colour to black & white. If and when I show the image which I have produced to an audience am I not the doing the same as the musician producing the music? I do not know the answer but it is a point for discussion.

 

[excalibur2]

Well the way I look at it is:- What pleases YOU...if you convert anything you'll never get everyone to agree on the result...so who do you want to please? yourself, family, local audience, the world?
Same principle in taking camera shots....who are the shots for? Yourself, family, exhibition, contest and so on.

 

[pingu666]

it would be like sampling records in hip hop, if your not doing it comercialy then it likely doesnt matter.

ive also heard copyright is with the person who holds the negatives

 

[Andysnap]

Whenever a director stages a play by Shakespeare he reinterprets it or a conductor conducts the work of Mozart, seems to me that you are doing the same so carry on, especially if you enjoy it.

 

[abdoujaparov]

From a legal standpoint . . . your reinterpretations probably create a derivative work of art that has its own copyright, but as you don't hold the copyright to the originals that doesn't really help you. (Commercial slides are probably corporate works for hire, btw, so probably the copyright lapses 50 years after publication.)

From an ethical and artistic point of view, go for it. Enjoy it. I think it's great to see old, forgotten stuff recycled and reinterpreted.

ive also heard copyright is with the person who holds the negatives

That's definitely not true.

 

[Littletank]

Thank you very much everybody for your contributions and encouragement. I'll continue doing what I am able to do and, from time time, I'll post an image for comment.

 

[Kevin Allan]

There is a photographer who is active in my part of the world selling prints of photos taken, say, 100 years go. He seems fairly successful as he at least has his stock for sale in good outlets such as Waterstones. Nothing wrong with reprinting old out-of-copyright photos but the strange thing is he signs them which, to me, implies that he was the photographer; but he'd have be about 120 years old for that to be true !

 

[Littletank]

I agree with you, Kevin, a signed print implies that the person who signed it is the author. Even if the copyright had long run out I would not want to give the impression that I was the original photographer.

 

[FujiLove]

I haven't seen examples of what you do, but it sounds similar to the relationship between photographers and their printers. Before I got into darkroom work I always assumed that photographers printed their own images, but it seems that is not the case at all. Many of them (the majority?) hand the negatives over to a printer who then interprets it to create the final image. Obviously the photographer can have an influence over the direction, but sometimes it is left entirely to the printer.

You are probably only on dodgy ground if you start making money from images that are less than 50 years old or try to pass them off as entirely you own work.

I say keep at it if you enjoy it, and remember that Rock & Roll would be nothing without a bit of robbin 'n' stealin'

 

[abdoujaparov]

if you start making money from images that are less than 50 years old

I should have added to my previous post that if they're not commercial works for hire, then the chances are that the copyright term is 75 years after the death of the photographer, unless . . . well, it's phenomenally complicated, depending on when and where it was published, and in some cases if it had a Copyright notice attached. Anyway, it's probably all academic. I still wouldn't try to make money off them.

 

[Littletank]

Thank you Keith and Fujilove - the last thing I am looking for is to make money and I only post an image now and then to share something of interest or to get useful comment. My recent posts have been in the photo section of this forum and future images will be there.