Volltext Seite (XML)
April 27, 1883.J THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. 265 last week in reference to Mr. Muybridge’s book, “ The Atti tudes of Man, the Horse, and other Animals in Motion,” that the work only will be undertaken if not less than 200 subscriptions of 100 dollars each be forthcoming. The pro posed volume will contain 100 permanent photographs, ten inches by eight, and selected by subscribers from the entire series to be made for the purpose. An interesting corollary on what Mr. Muybridge has already done will be a series of pictures showing the attitudes of moving animals as they have been represented by ancient and modern artists. The Daily Chronicle has thought it of interest to announce “by telegraph ’’that a Bristol firm of photographers has succeeded in photographing the “ Flying Dutchman” while going at express speed. The Daily Chronicle evidently does not know that two years ago a photograph of this train was shown at the Pall Mall Exhibition by Major Brownrigg. Since then Messrs. Marsh have also secured similar pictures. As a matter of fact, it is no great feat to photograph a train in motion “end on;” to photograph it “broadside,” to use a nautical term, is quite another matter. Have our Bristol friends accomplished the last named, and have they made a picture of it ? Who is the possessor of the copyright in an ordinary portrait negative, the sitter paying the photographer in the usual way? It is surprising how few photographers can answer this question off-hand, and how much ignorance there is on the subject. Within the last few days the point has been the subject of a practical issue, and, if the informa tion which reaches us be correct, the photographer has cer tainly come off second best. An individual whose sobri quet has lately been in everybody’s mouth, having been identified, his portrait immediately became of public interest. This portrait appeared in most of the illustrated papers ; in two cases, a photographer, who happened to have a negative of the individual in question, obtained payment for per mitting the proprietors to make use of his “copyright” photograph. But in another instance, where a claim was made, the photographer’s pretensions were repudiated on the grounds : firstly, that the artist had never seen the photograph in question; and secondly, that the photo grapher possessed no copyright. It is quite clear thet in the absence of any direct permis sion from the sitter, the photographer neither possessed any copyright in the photograph, nor had any power to sell prints from the negative. Mr. Copinger, in his exhaustive treatise on the law of copyright, puts this point beyond the possibility of a doubt. He says: “ As to photographs, the copyright in non-commissioned works belongs to the photographer; if reserved in writing, in commissioned works, the negative and the glass on which it is, is usually considered to belong to the photographer, while the copy right belongs to the person who gives the commission.” In this case the work was a “ commissioned ” one—that is to say, the sitter paid so much for the taking of the portrait and a certain number of prints ; therefore, unless he gave permission to the photographer to publish—a very unlikely thing, since publicity in the peculiar circumstances of the case was fatal—the photographer had no right to dispose of the picture to the proprietors of the illustrated papers, and it is a question whether those who made a payment for the alleged “ right,” could not demand their money back. Another curious point also arises out of the matter. The original negative contained the portraits of two figures. In the print that is offered for sale, one of these figures has been stopped out, leaving the features of the one who has excited public curiosity. The point is that, although this individual, who is so much “ wanted” by the police, cannot move in the matter, his companion might. The copyright of a picture is not vested in a portion of it, but in the whole; and it may be that each of these two per sons, whose portraits appear on the negative, could sue the photographer for an infringement of his rights. Alto gether—unless, as we have said, he is armed with the direct permission of the sitter—the photographer cannot be congratulated on a perfectly safe position. Although the reproduction of negatives by the aid of carbon tissue is frequently resorted to, photographers are not of one mind as to the best way of doing it. Mr. Henry Dixon, in showing us some fine pictures from his “ Old London” series the other day, told us his subjects were so varied that lens and plate had constantly to be varied, and, therefore, reproduction was with him a necessity, if he wanted uniformity in his series. His plan is to make a collo- dion transparency, and then to take a carbon negative, from which he prints. Mr. Dixon has a predilection f®r carbon negatives, especially when printing in carbon ; they are prepared with “special transparency ” tissue, and not one in twenty requires intensification with permanganate solu tion. Another point in manipulation from Mr. Dixon’s studio. In order that his gelatine plates may be well fixed, he em ploys three hyposulphite baths one after another, one of them being made fresh every day. The subsequent washing of the plates is no less energetically undertaken, the film not unfrequently being left in water for a night. Such a thorough course of treatment would surprise your rapid worker who boasts he can fix, wash, and dry, in half-an- hour. Qatent Jntelligente. Application for Letters Patent. 1960. GEORGE Robey, of 5, Chancery Lane, in the county of Middlesex, for an invention of “ Improvements in enamelling water colour or oil photographs.”—Dated 18th April, 1883. Grants of Provisional Protection. 1650. Richard Reynolds and FREDERICK Woodward Bran son, of the firm of Reynolds and Branson, of Leeds, in the county of York, for an invention of “ Improvements in photo graphic ‘shutters’ for instantaneous photography.”—Dated 2nd April, 1883. Patent Filed. 5086. Richard Brown, and Robert William BARNES, and Joseph Bell, all of the city of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, Photographers, for an invention of “ Improvements