The case you cite is under previous legislation that is highly pertinent and alters the reasoning. The judgement is from 1951. In-or-around 1980s (? can't remember exactly) the US signed up to the Berne Convention and so joined the majority of the rest of the world in not requiring registration to acquire copyright protection.

In the judgement [which I only skimmed the first page or two of] is this:

>'It is of course true that the publication of a copyrightable "work" puts that "work" into the public domain except so far as it may be protected by copyright. That has been unquestioned law since 1774;2 and courts have often spoken of it as a "dedication" by its "author or proprietor."'

Which is not true any longer. Production of a work now acquires copyright (eg under TRIPs) which publication in itself can not forfeit nor dispose of.

Similarly in the judgement it is clear that under the past regime affixation of a copyright notice was required. This is a central element to the case it seems.

Because of the central features relying on specifics of the law that no longer apply it seems there is very little if anything in this judgement that would bind, or indeed inform, a present day decision.

>You really are apparently neither a lawyer nor a photographer //

Hmm. You might be a photog, I'm guessing not.

FWIW I am neither.

Re you citing that caselaw. Abandonment and forfeiture as considered therein _do_not_ exist as they are reliant on parts of the USC which no longer exist subsequent to USA ratifying Berne (and the ensuing changes to registration and requirements to affix the © symbol and all that).

I'm not sure why you're citing the Berne Convention it seems pretty uncontroversial. Are you suggesting negatives aren't a "material form" of fixation for an image? Initially you said:

>"Undeveloped film is arguably not a tangible medium suitable for communication" (shawn-butler, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8905254) //

Can you point out where TRIPs or the USC requires "suitable for communication"? Better would be to cite current caselaw that discusses this "suitability" clause.

>"You can't claim copyright on that which is not authorable nor transmittable.. i.e. in a medium that can be copied." (shawn-butler, above) //

These conditions are quite unrelated. You can certainly claim copyright on sculptures, such as the Angel of The North, and on buildings which are not "transmittable" to any useful degree. A "work" is necessarily the product of an author for the purposes of all copyright legislation I've seen as elsewise they are not "works" for the purposes of that legislation. Truism and error by turns.

I can create a work by splattering baked-beans on my wall. It's authored. It is not transmittable except by secondary reproduction. It can be copied. If you take a print from those beans, by pressing paper on my wall, then you create a (reversed) image which is a derivative work. You may have made a lovely piece of paper and taken great care over making the print but it is I who created the initial work which you "copied" [ie derived your work from]. Whilst you have perhaps acquired a copyright in your print (by your creative production of it, say) it relies on my creative work and so is derivative. You could not lawful sell or reproduce your work without satisfying my conditions for license (until my copyright expires of course).

FWIW in the OP the Universal Copyright Convention gives the developer of the photos 10 years of protection as a minimum IIRC for this first publication of the original photographer's works.

[OT: I'm sure your arrogant insinuations as to the inexperience of others do not progress the discussion. If there is some material error then IMO you'd do well to point it out directly rather than insinuate it by way of ad hominem commentary.]

False. Abandonment certainly does still exist. There is a large body of widely-accepted case law on the matter. There have even been recent legislative initiatives, both foreign and domestic, attempting to extend abandonment to all "orphaned" works none of which have met with much success to my knowledge.

You should seek relevant legal advice if you have further questions on this pretty accepted point of law. If you wanted to say pursue a suit for damages against an infringer for taking a work seemingly in the public domain that as proper holder you have explicitly abandoned under the theory that "abandonment doesn't exist." I think any experienced attorney would inform you that you face an uphill battle to say the least but it is always about the specifics.

You raised the topic of Berne not me. I provided a quotation to show that the point of material fixation remains the same whether under USC or its treaty obligations. TRIPs leaves it to members to decide what material fixation means. In the US that means a work must be tangibly expressible, in a fixed medium, i.e. copyable.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf might be less technical and provide you the info you need regarding what generally "suitable" for copyright in the US means:

>> Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded) >>>

In case you don't understand, and please don't be insulted as I hate to be pointing out the obvious, but you seem not to grasp that undeveloped film != negatives. You use the terms interchangeably when that is the very point under consideration, e.g. undeveloped film : negative :: improvisational speech : recorded performance

Others in the thread have argued that exposing film to light : recorded performance meriting copyright, but I think that is tenuous because undeveloped film can not be viewed, disseminated.

Negatives are normally created under the direction of the photographer or her employer in order to disseminate images and are definitely works of authorship subject to copyright. Undeveloped film is arguably not and simply property, and the article is about the purchase at auction or yard sale of undeveloped film. The photographer, being long deceased, is definitely not the one creating the negatives. The purchaser of the film is. I hope that is clear.

Sculptures/architecture are most certainly subject to duplication especially when on public display. Sorry, you seem to be going off the rails here and with "baked-beans on a wall", and I have no interest in following; my interest in the topic has waned.

Copyright abandonment has to be explicit, you can't just say a copyright on something was abandoned by the creator because they did not do something. They have to explicitly do something (such as, but not limited to placing the creation in the public domain).

> Sorry, you seem to be going off the rails here and with "baked-beans on a wall", and I have no interest in following; my interest in the topic has waned.

Would it be possible for you to - whether you're wrong or right doesn't enter into it - at least be civil?

There was absolutely nothing uncivil in any comment on this thread. The rhetoric was fact-based and direct appropriate to the topic.

For the record, there is nothing civil about your pretense of offering false opinion as fact in nearly every frontage discussion topic bordering on "law" on HN.

You are just wrong more often than you are right. Sorry if pointing that out is uncivil but it a disservice to the community. Even if you use a downvote brigade to cover your mistakes, you should be responsible for dispensing "opinionated" advice about legal issues.