[rollei_list] Re: rollei_list] Copyright, intellectual property and invention of photography

  • From: John Wild <jwild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:39:35 +0000

Marvin,

(smiling...) If a photograph comes from a negative, is a transparency not a
photograph...? 

I have seen printed images of Nicéphore Niépce's image in books, therefore
it must be a photograph ne c'est pas? ;-)

Why then did 'America' buy the 'photograph' if it wasn't a photograph? Was
it that Big Yella in Rochester wanted the copyright? ;-))

John


On 03/12/2009 09:30, "Marvin" <marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> That's the point Emmanuel, though it was the first recorded image it was not
> the first photograph, since a photograph requires the possibility of
> duplication-a negative,(I can hear people say now-but there's digital-der),
> that accolade goes to William Henry Fox Talbot, a photograph of his home,
> Lacock Abbey. 
> The process was one in which a negative was produced, the negative and the
> plate are stored in the UK I can't quite recall where I think the National
> Film and Television museum in Bradford. The year of his invention was 1836.
> Further, if the American's bought the Nicéphore Niépce plate on the strength
> of it being the first photograph, then I'd say the French got a very, very
> good deal.
> Thanks,
> Marvin.
> 

---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: