[supercat]

Ownership of a copy (positive or negative) grants no right to make copies of it or from it, or to sell anything other than the item. The utility of an item for making copies does not come into play. Even if the item has no other use.

If I purchase a camera positive home movie, odds are pretty good that film is a one-of-a-kind item. It isn't a copy--it's the original film that was put through the camera. As for copyright, unless there is specific mention of the film in a will, I can't really see how copyright authority would be assigned to any particular heir. Further, it would seem that anyone who sells all existing copies of a work demonstrates a willingness to forfeit any and all future income therefrom.

Especially in cases that span generations (e.g. someone sells a bunch of stuff that they had inherited from an ancestor or relative) it would seem that the concept of 'copyright ownership' can become so vague as to be basically meaningless.

[Atlas Sneezed]

>If I purchase a camera positive home movie, odds are pretty good that film is a one-of-a-kind item.

Which is irrelevant to copyright.

>As for copyright, unless there is specific mention of the film in a will, I can't really see how copyright authority would be assigned to any particular heir.

Wills generally have remainder/residue interests.

>...it would seem that the concept of 'copyright ownership' can become so vague as to be basically meaningless.

That is a tempting position for the infringer, of course. Of course, in many instances, there is little to worry or feel bad about copying something in practical terms.

What is it you wish to do?