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

  • From: Mark Rabiner <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:39:43 -0500

> 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.

Defining a photograph as only coming from a negative- positive process is a
wild fantasy - Which can be corroborated nowhere.
Daguerreotypes or any other direct positive processs (slides) is photography
and are photographs. This gets questioned nowhere ever.



Mark William Rabiner



---
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: