>>
Again, if it were not fixed until developed then labs would often acquire copyright by default.
>>
Yes, if they were developing film creatively they would have some ownership. But, that is why the "publication" of the images by a film lab is done under the express direction of a photographer. There is a contract in force and terms agreed when you develop film using a service.
That is also how film labs avoid getting entangled in lawsuits, child porn, etc.
I am not so much hung up on 'expression' as copying / reproducibility. If it can't be duplicated or copied, or understood / perceived by audience copyright will not apply.
So undeveloped film is not subject to copyright.
Expression however does probably play a larger role in my thinking due to the copyright of binary software which is indeed absurd.
Yes, if they were developing film creatively they would have some ownership. But, that is why the "publication" of the images by a film lab is done under the express direction of a photographer. There is a contract in force and terms agreed when you develop film using a service.
That is also how film labs avoid getting entangled in lawsuits, child porn, etc.
I am not so much hung up on 'expression' as copying / reproducibility. If it can't be duplicated or copied, or understood / perceived by audience copyright will not apply.
So undeveloped film is not subject to copyright.
Expression however does probably play a larger role in my thinking due to the copyright of binary software which is indeed absurd.
Thanks for helpful comments