Photography is primarily defined by its tools and is subject to the limitations imposed by its mechanical characteristics. Consequently, it cannot be integrated into the artist’s personal and expressive work and, as a result, cannot be considered a trademark in the photographer’s name. The industrial instrument in question lacks any inherent privilege. It cannot be equated to the artistic endeavors of a painter or sketcher, who solely rely on their imagination to create compositions and subjects.
Similarly, the artist, guided by their personal emotions, interprets the perspectives presented by nature, which are considered their own property. The historical perspectives of bourgeois legality assert the interconnectedness of personality, creativity, and property, a notion that may have been previously overlooked. However, at a certain timeframe, photography was excluded from this coveted circle. The reason behind this exclusion, which resulted in the photographer being reduced to a mere machine devoid of legal rights, was not devoid of commercial motivations.
Consequently, the initial image of the law underwent a transformation due to the displacement of force. Due to the economic influence of the photography industry, which had become a major part of capitalist production, the mechanical device was transformed into a tool for creative expression. This creative expression could be legally protected because it included the creator’s intellectual mark, which was essential for the work to possess the unique characteristics required for its creation.
The changes in an economic process, namely the capitalist industrialization paradigm, were replicated and enforced by the legal system. The advent of photography in the industrial sector gave rise to unforeseen legal consequences, when the subordinate photographer assumed the role of both an artist and creator due to the demands of production relations. Since its inception, the history of photography has been closely intertwined with the development of an industry.
The impetus for its development arose from a significant growth in the market for reproductions, particularly portraits. This growth required and relied on a mechanized production process that could ensure the affordability and accessibility of the images, while also maintaining their perceived authenticity. The following expansion of this phenomenon resulted in the emergence of a business environment that was highly conducive to entrepreneurial exploitation. This was primarily driven by the demand for goods that could be produced and provided in an unrestricted manner.
Essentially, it served as a paradigm of capitalist growth. In the 1850s, Louis Blanquart Evrard, the creator of albumen paper, operated a large-scale printing facility that resembled a factory. This business employed a workforce of thirty to forty helpers, predominantly women, who were trained based on a very intricate division of labor. During the same decade, particularly in the United States, daguerreotype galleries, such as those under the ownership of Matthew Brady in New York and Washington, implemented mechanized techniques for daguerreotype production, including buffing and coating.
This was done with the aim of achieving cost-effectiveness in plate production, with a daily output of one thousand plates. The adoption of Disderi’s method of mass manufacturing of carte-de-visite images resulted in an eightfold increase in the pace of production. This innovation enabled Disderi’s studio in Paris to reach a daily turnover of four thousand francs. During the 1880s, photography saw a further technological revolution. The advancements encompassed the creation of expedited dry plates and pliable film, which established the foundation for a photo-finishing sector. Additionally, it facilitated the expansion of markets for mass-produced photographic equipment.
Furthermore, the invention of the half-tone plate enabled the replication of photographs on a standard letter-set press, enabling the economical and boundless production of photo-mechanical images. This revolutionized the status and economic aspects of photography and conventional image-making techniques, comparable to the profound impact of Fox Talbot’s invention of the paper negative in 1835.
From 1880 until the early 1900s, a significant number of professional photographers, manufacturers, and workers relied on photography as their main source of income. Without legal protection against unethical competition, their livelihoods would have been jeopardized. In 1891, France had over a thousand studios, employing over half a million individuals, and the yearly output value had increased to over thirty million gold francs. This spread was particularly pronounced in other European nations, and particularly in America.
The field of photography has also led to the development of many chemical, mechanical, and industrial processes and applications, contributing to the growth of a thriving industry. Legal analysts started advocating for the safeguarding of individuals with ‘artistic sentiment’. It was imperative for the industry to acknowledge photography as a kind of property, therefore establishing the photographer as a creator. The demand for the acknowledgment and limiting of copyright involved the blending of pseudo-aesthetic factors with financial reasons, resulting in their subordination.