# X-ray film



## JamesD (May 23, 2006)

I have a patron.  His name is Ed.  He's done more for me in my quest to learn photography than anyone else.  He sold me the enlarger for $75, then "threw in" perhaps $200 worth of "extras."  Maybe more.

I love this man; he runs the shop down in Enterprise.  I hope and pray he gets to stay in buisness.

Anyway, thanks to Ed, I now have an unopened box of a hundred sheets of 8X10 Panalure.  Hopefully, there're no markings on the back; if not, it'll be wonderful to use for paper negatives, since it's panchromatic.  That's 400 shots!  Enough to keep me occupied, most likely, for  a year or two.

Also, some dental X-ray film.  Not sure what I'm gonna do with it, but I'll find something.  Has anyone ever used it before? It's  Kodak Ultra-Speed D, Safety 1 Film, Occlusal.  I've got 20 pieces.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 23, 2006)

never tried to use xray film but dental should be about the size of a 645 negative.  You might could load one into you mamiya in the dark.  It the kodak is rc you can strip the emulsion if it has writing on the back.


----------



## JamesD (May 23, 2006)

I haven't looked at it yet, but the datasheet says the back is specially coated and makes an optimal writing surface.  That seems to imply there's not logos there.  It stands to reason... seems like Kodak mostly imprints the papers you get regular prints on, as if to remind people who use the 1-hour labs that they're using a Kodak product.  The stuff you're going to take some care on doesn't usually seem to be imprinted so...


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 23, 2006)

The prolabs have a copy right standard statement around here.  It is on the back of the paper but i cant remember if it is kodak or fuji.  Something like please do not copy this material it is copy righted.


----------



## JamesD (May 23, 2006)

That's something I still don't get.  As a writer, if I write something on commission, I don't have any rights to it; it's a work-for-hire.  Why is photography any different?  If I go to the portrait studio and pay my eighty bucks to get my picture taken, it's a work-for-hire.  I'm paying him to do it.  So, why does he keep the rights?

If he takes the photo then offers me a print, that's one thing.  But I'm _commissioning_ him to take my picture, for my own purposes and uses, not his.  (Yes, I know that he's gotta put food on the table, and reprints are give a chance charge the customer again, but however...)  And then, he has the nerve to ask me for a model release? Yeah, right! (I gave him one anyway... don't ask me why; I don't know.  I was feeling stupid that day; after all, I paid eighty bucks for prints I didn't like.... but that's another story.)

Yeah, I know that magazine articles are words, and photographs are pictures, but they're all intellectual property.  So what's the difference?  Perception?  The fact that the photog is working directly for the customer, rather than a publisher?


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 23, 2006)

James what you write is copy righted.  You can formalize it or not that is up to you but they cant legally use it without your permission even on the net.  I get requests all the time to reprint stuff I wrote on the net even,


----------



## Jeff Canes (May 23, 2006)

JamesD said:
			
		

> That's something I still don't get. As a writer, if I write something on commission, I don't have any rights to it; it's a work-for-hire. Why is photography any different? If I go to the portrait studio and pay my eighty bucks to get my picture taken, it's a work-for-hire. I'm paying him to do it. So, why does he keep the rights?
> 
> If he takes the photo then offers me a print, that's one thing. But I'm _commissioning_ him to take my picture, for my own purposes and uses, not his. (Yes, I know that he's gotta put food on the table, and reprints are give a chance charge the customer again, but however...) And then, he has the nerve to ask me for a model release? Yeah, right! (I gave him one anyway... don't ask me why; I don't know. I was feeling stupid that day; after all, I paid eighty bucks for prints I didn't like.... but that's another story.)
> 
> Yeah, I know that magazine articles are words, and photographs are pictures, but they're all intellectual property. So what's the difference? Perception? The fact that the photog is working directly for the customer, rather than a publisher?


 
There is no different in the application of rights for one form intellectual proprieties to another. These are two are good site for US copyright info http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ and http://www.copyright.gov/


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 23, 2006)

If you are in the army I have no idea if that would effect it or not.


----------



## JamesD (May 23, 2006)

Yes, I know.  But that's not quite what I'm talking about.  Let me see if I can clarify.

I write short fiction, usually SF or fantasy.  I get an idea, write a story, polish it up, and send it off to various markets (magazines or online publications) until I find a publisher that wants it.  The contract specifies that they have limited publication rights--typically "First North American rights" for print markets.

Now, on the other hand, if a publisher approaches me and asks for an article (granted, this has never happened to me, but it could), and I write it, and they accept it and pay me, then it's a work for hire.

Now.. Let's say I'm out on the street and see an attractive young lady and want to take her picture.  Later, I offer her a few prints.  This is the same as the first scenario above.  I generate a product (photograph) based on a market (attractive young lady who might want a flattering photograph of herself).  She can accept or reject the offer (most would probably reject, I would guess).

On the other hand, let's say an attractive young lady approaches me and asks me to photograph her so she can, well, do whatever she's planning to do with them, in return for cash.  Why should I keep the rights to the image?  It's of no value to me, on a commercial basis.  It's unreleased, so I can't sell it to someone else or use it for my own profit.  Why would I even want to keep the rights, when I can't do anything with them?

Okay, I know the argument that's coming up.  The young lady, in accordance with the latter scenario, only wants one print.  From this, she makes a bajillion copies which she gives to everyone and their brother--maybe even charges for them.  As the photographer, I'm being cheated out of what I could charge to make multiple prints.  It devalues the service I provide as a photographer.

However, I sold her the image.  She paid me for it.  Normally, a model gets paid for modelling.  That's how they put food on the table.  If I'd bought the release, then I'm paying her for the right to use her likeness.  Since she paid me, she's buying the right to use the image to her own ends.  If she models, and doesn't get compensated for it, and I keep the rights, then I just got off without having to pay the model... especially if I got her to sign the model release.  That devalues the service she provides as a model.

I know that's not how the business world works, but it's a fair scenario.  And pointing out that the portrait photog is a professional, and the paying customer is, at best, an amateur model, doesn't hold up.  If the photog is an amateur, and the model is a pro, then the model still gets paid.

Is my line of reasoning clear? Or am I senselessly babbling?


----------



## JamesD (May 23, 2006)

Previous post was in respons to Charlie affirming my copyright on my written works.

As for being in the army, it makes no difference whatsoever if I'm working with a civilian in a non-official capacity, i.e. not representing the US Army.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 23, 2006)

Some civilian companys have a rule that anything you work on while employed by them belongs to them I wasn't sure how the military works.

As far as I know you still own any rights to the work you do unless you sign them away.  Maybe they have something in their contract but if it comes from your head it belongs to you.  That is my understanding.  however has never come up with me either so I cant be absolutely sure.  Most of the time a piece for hire isnt worth anything to anyone else but Im pretty sure you get paid if someone else picks it up and prints it though I can't imagine that being the case in say a newspaper reporter whose story is picked up by a different news paper.   Hell I dont know. 

Forty years ago I wrote for a news service but the issue never came up.  I was a saleried employee and the what I wrote was for them and them only.  I don't think anybody ever wanted to see it again.


----------



## JamesD (May 23, 2006)

> http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
> 
> A &#8220;work made for hire&#8221; is &#8212;
> 
> ...



So, that's it.  There are nine categories, and a portrait, unless it's part of a collection AND there's a written agreement, does not fall into any of those nine.  The fact that the customer is ignorant does not change the fact.

On the other hand, it would qualify if the photog was my regular employee, rather than an independent contractor, and taking my picture was within his job description.

Apparently, I was mistaken on the print article scenario, too.  Hmm.  I'm glad there are people out there who know more than I do, because otherwise, I'd never learn a damned thing.

Still, I don't think that I'd slap a "do not duplicate" stamp on a photograph someone requested and paid for, unless it was specifically stated in writing.  Just doesn't seem quite right.  Plus, she's an attractive young lady, and I'm a bit of a sucker.

Thanks for the links, Jeff.  I'd've probably never looked it up otherwise.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 23, 2006)

very interesting i didn't know that but the newspaper things is the good analagy also the work contract thing with the big think tanks.  Just so there is never any question who owns that damn widget.


----------

