342
This second court battle tested the validity of the
patent process. In July of 1854 James A. Cutting pat-
ented three elements of a collodion process called the
ambrotype. The patents covered the use of camphor with
collodion (No. 11,213), Canada balsam to hermetically
seal the image (No. 11,267), and the use of potassium
bromide in addition to potassium iodide to make col-
lodion more sensitive to light (No. 11,266). This last
patent affected not only the ambrotype process but also
the wet plate collodion process. Photographers at the
time did not believe that Cutting had originally invented
the ambrotype process and instead credited Archer with
its invention. As a result, they assaulted his claims and
blatantly infringed upon the patents. Many of the pho-
tographers who had purchased the right to practice the
process legally from Cutting brought litigation against
the patent infringers. The most zealous of the patent men
was William Tomlinson of New York. He was involved
in litigation with many photographers. Most of the cases
were settled by the infringer paying a fi ne rather than
having to be involved in a lengthy trial. Included in this
group were notable photographers Brady, Gurney, and
Bogardus. The photographic community eventually
joined together to form a committee whose sole purpose
was to fi ght the Cutting patents. The committee set up
a fund to help Charles A. Fredrickson to fi ght the suit
brought by Tomlinson in 1859. The case would last until
1865 when Fredrickson fi nally decided to no longer
legally oppose the Cutting patents.
In the end the patents were not revoked but instead
expired. An extension to the patent was applied for, but
the patent offi ce denied the application stating that an
error had be made in its original issuance.
Copyright protection, as opposed to patent rights,
was the issue in the case of Sarony vs. Burrow-Giles
Lithographic Company, which began in April 1883. In
this case the photographer Napoleon Sarony was asking
the courts to uphold his copyright protection for an im-
age entitled “Oscar Wilde, No. 18.” The Burrow-Giles
Lithographic Company contended that photographs
were not written works and therefore there was no au-
thor to claim copyright. Additionally, the defense stated
Sarony’s copyright notice, as it appeared on the image,
“Copyright, 1882, by N. Sarony,” was not valid because
it did not state his Christian name. Sarony countered
the defense by asserting the photograph was a work of
art because the he had directed the pose, costume, and
expression of the subject to produce an original image
despite the fact the process was mechanical. Painting
had been protected under copyright by the law of 1793.
In 1865, because of the case Woods vs. Abbott, Congress
extended copyright protection to include photographs.
The court found in favor of Sarony and set precedent for
photography to be legally included as a means of artistic
and original expression. The defense appealed the deci-
sion a year latter, but it was upheld. This case proved that
photography could be legally copyrighted and patented
and was therefore, both an art and science.
Towards the end of the nineteenth century there were
many other court cases that would carry through well
into the next century. Especially notable were the court
battles involving Eastman Kodak Company. In 1889
George Eastman and Henry Reichenbach fi led a patent
for cellulose fi lm. The patent was not approved at fi rst
because of a patent application for a similar invention
by Reverend Hannibal Goodwin. Eastman and Reichen-
bach were eventually granted the patent in December
of 1889. The use of this technology by Kodak led to
many court cases between Goodwin and Kodak and
later Ansco and Kodak. The cases were not fi nished until
1913 when the court ruled against Kodak.
Sarah TempletonSee Also: Calotype and Talbotype; Wet Collodion
Negative; Talbot, William Henry Fox; Cutting, James
Ambrose; Archer, Frederick Scott; and Eastman,
George.Further Reading
Collins, Douglas. The Story of Kodak, New York: Harry N.
Abrams, Inc., 1990.
Crawford, William. The Keepers of Light: A History and Working
Guide to Early Photographic Processes, Dobbs Ferry, New
York: Morgan and Morgan, 1979, 29.
Fredricks, Charles D. “Opposition to the Cutting Patents” and
“The Cutting Patent Card of C. D. Fredrick’s & Co.” in
Humphrey’s Journal of Photography, and the Allied Arts and
Sciences, 17 no. 14, November 15, 1865, 217–219.
Frizot, Michel. “The Transparent Medium” in The New History
of Photography, Koln: Konemann, 1998.
Newhall, Beaumont. The History of Photography, New York: The
Museum of Modern Art, 1964, 35–36, 48.
Root, Marcus A., “Photographic Patents,” in The Photographic
and Fine Art Journal (Feb. 1856), 60–61.
Taft, Robert, “The Ambrotype” in Photography and the American
Scene, New York: Macmillan Company, 1942.
Wood, R. Derek, “A Contribution to the History of Photography
to Welcome the Opening of the Talbot Museum at Lacock,”
Bromely, Kent: R. D. Wood, 1975.
“The Balsam and Bromide Patents,” in Humphrey’s Journal of
Photography, and the Allied Arts and Sciences, 11 no. 20,
February 15, 1860, 305–307.
17 F.591
111 U.S. 53, 4 S.Ct.279COUTINHO BROTHERS
(active 1870s–c. 1905)
The Coutinho brothers established one of the first
commercial photographic enterprises on the island of
Zanzibar, some time in the 1870s. Probably of Portugese
origin, little is known of their lives, and one brother is
referred to in records only as J. B. Coutinho. The other