A photo that was taken when a monkey grabbed a camera and started taking photos has been uploaded to Wikimedia, who are refusing to take it down. The photographer who owned the camera used is claiming copyright but Wikimedia disagrees, saying that it is the animal itself that owns the copyright.
The Gloucestershire-based photographer now claims that the decision is jeopardising his income as anyone can take the image and publish it for free, without having to pay him a royalty. He complained To Wikimedia that he owned the copyright of the image, but a recent transparency report from the group, which details all the removal requests it has received, reveals that editors decided that Mr Slater has no claim on the image as the monkey itself took the picture.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Jiro on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:11PM
Wikimedia claims that because the animal took the picture, *nobody* owns the copyright, and the picture is public domain. They are not claiming that monkeys can own copyrights.
The camera owner *describes* Wikimedia's argument as "the monkey owns the copyright", but the camera owner is describing Wikimedia's argument inaccurately, and seems not to understand the idea of public domain.
(Score: 2) by everdred on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:57PM
Thank you for explaining this.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tathra on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:31PM
can you blame him? basically every country in the world has copyright lengths of life+50 years or longer, so i'd bet little to nothing has entered into the public domain for as long as he's been alive, and very little will enter it for the rest of his life as well.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @10:05PM
The camera owner *describes* Wikimedia's argument as "the monkey owns the copyright", but the camera owner is describing Wikimedia's argument inaccurately, and seems not to understand the idea of public domain.
No, the camera owner is right. The monkey does own the copyright, not just for this photo but also for everything in the public domain because we all own the public domain collectively.
What might seem like a mere issue of phrasing is actually quite important because whenever anyone tries to take something out of the public domain, they are stealing from everyone. So, when companies like Disney buy legislation to have copyright terms extended preventing hundreds of thousands of works from entering the public domain, as per the terms of copyright under which they were created, they are actually pirating from every single person on the planet. That makes them a million times larger thieves than all the other 'regular' pirates in the world combined.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Friday August 08 2014, @12:46AM
They are Privateers
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @01:53PM
The monkey does not have human rights (although there are some people who would like to extend human rights to animals), and therefore cannot legally own anything, not even something owned by the public.
Also, the camera owner is not claiming that the monkey owns the copyright, so he cannot be right on that.
And he is claiming that Wikimedia claims it, which apparently is wrong (independently on whether the claim itself would have been right or wrong if Wikimedia had made it). So again, the camera owner is not right on that.
Whether he's right on his claim of owning the copyright, I guess that's a question a court will answer.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Horse With Stripes on Thursday August 07 2014, @10:44PM
I think the copyright belongs to the better photographer. Slater claims "For every 10,000 images I take, one makes money that keeps me going." and yet the monkey only took a few hundred pictures before hitting a home run. I vote that the monkey gets the copyright and deserves to keep the camera as well.
(Score: 3, Funny) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:24PM
As far as licensing terms -- what's the usual rate in grapes or banana slices?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday August 08 2014, @01:42PM
Peanuts.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:11PM
For once, I think I'm on the copyright holder's side. If US law does not specifically assign copyright to the monkey, I'd say the guy has a good claim. I mean if someone dies without a will, you go to next of kin, not just assume the state gets to inherit the estate right off. I like having good quality photostock available royalty-free, but I can't see how Wikimedia could have the right to this one.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:21PM
If the monkey is property, then his actions would benefit his owners, so I would say that 'next of kin' as you say would be the zoo, not the camera owner.
Also, how good is this monkey at taking pictures that there is a battle over who owns them in the first place?
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:28PM
Nevermind, RTFA and see the monkey is wild, so the situation is more complex. And it seems that this guy couldn't get good pictures himself so he had the monkeys take them instead... guess they are that good.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday August 08 2014, @02:12PM
The picture is all over the net, here is one example [kottke.org] and here [wikimedia.org] is the Wikimedia Commons page with both versions (both the original picture and a rotated and cropped version).
And it is probably the best picture ever taken of a monkey. Not only is the female Macaque groomed, clean, and on best behavior, but the smile and pose is superb and some male Macaque was going to be lucky soon afterwards :)
The human owner of the camera deserves no credit for the picture; it ought to be obvious that the monkey knew exactly what it was doing (looking at the image of itself reflected in the camera lens from various angles, aka compositing the picture) and any camera would have done just fine :D
The human should stop withholding the rest of the pictures which are also Public Domain.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pendorbound on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:24PM
Death without a will can (though by no means always) distribute property to next of kin. Ultimately it's up to a probate judge to decide.
That line of reasoning assumes the existence of property (intellectual or otherwise). Wikimedia's claim is that there is no property to be owned. An image in the Public Domain is the anthesis of intellectual property. If their claim is accurate, then there's no property to be distributed to anyone.
The argument is reasonable. Copyright goes to the individual who created an image under US law. Unless the (human) photographer claimed that he was using the monkey as a tool to capture the image intentionally, then the human didn't take the photo. Non-humans have no legally recognized property rights, thus cannot own nor create copyright.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by cubancigar11 on Friday August 08 2014, @05:07AM
If you watch the video in TFA, you will see that the photographer is claiming exactly that - he worked for weeks, gained trust of the animal, let them invite him in his group, wanted them to take 'a monkey's selfie for benefiting environmental cause', set up the exact parameters on his DSLR and then let them take a picture.
You can doubt his narrative, but it is not effortless and he should be paid. Monkeys didn't come to his house - he sought them in wildlife where most will not ever set foot with an expensive and fragile equipment most won't leave near a child. Wikimedia may or may not have technical merit in its claim but I think they are in the wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @12:20PM
The article, however, claims that the monkey stole the camera, and was attempting to break it, when it accidentally hid a button that made an interesting sound, and kept pressing it again and again.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:29PM
The photo was taken in Indonesia, so Indonesian copyright law should have precedence here.
What I took away from this: if a monkey takes better pictures than you, maybe you should reconsider your career as a photographer.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:51PM
> The photo was taken in Indonesia, so Indonesian copyright law should have precedence here.
The very list sentence of the copyright law of indonesia rules out any possible ownership:
Author means a person or some persons jointly upon
whose inspiration a work is produced, based on
intellectual ability, imagination, dexterity, skill or
expertise manifested in a distinctive form and is of a
personal nature.
Monkeys are not persons ergo there is no author so the photo is in the public domain.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:28PM
"Upon whose inspiration" opens up a lot of ambiguity, though. Was the monkey acting on its own, or was the guy using the monkey as a tool? Since the status is ambiguous, and since there wasn't any overriding need to publish this, Wikipedia should have laid off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @12:02AM
> "Upon whose inspiration" opens up a lot of ambiguity, though.
No it does not, because "upon whose inspiration" is modifying the "person" and since the monkey is not a person it does not matter if he inspired anyone.
> Wikipedia should have laid off.
Bullshit. It is a really cool thing that happened and ought to be documented.
Furthermore you seem to be in the camp of copyright maximalists - that copyright exists for the benefit of the creator rather than for the benefit of the public. It is a means to an end and in no way does restricting the distribution of accidental photos created by animals benefit the public.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by quadrox on Friday August 08 2014, @09:08AM
While he may not have been the one pushing the button, this does not matter, as a photographers assistant doesn't get copyright just because he presses the button either. Without the time, effort and resources he spent to get there and socialize with the animals, these photos would never have happened. And obviously he didn't go to all this effort just for the fun of it, but BECAUSE copyright law - as he understood it - encouraged him to do so, since he saw the opportunity to get rewarded for his efforts. These images didn't happen by accident, they are his work.
The whole intent of copyright is to get people to do stuff they would never do otherwise. Claiming that copyright doesn't cover this just removes incentive for these things in the future, and then we all lose.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @12:23PM
This logic must be based on the idea that being a photographers assistants is not a job, otherwise the logical explanation would be that they fall under "work for hire".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @01:46AM
Sigh .. lists all photo kit on auction site...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Friday August 08 2014, @06:08AM
I do not believe this is the case. Just because some country's copyright law makes something public domain does not make it public domain in other countries. Witness George Orwell's 1984. Orwell died in 1950. In the United States, where the law is life plus 70 years, that book doesn't enter the public domain for another 6 years. However, in Australia, it's life plus 50 years. Therefore, the book entered the public domain there in 2000. If you want to download a legal copy of 1984 it's not difficult [planetebook.com]. You can't sell or give away what you download in the US and the very act of downloading it in the United States might be construed as a copyright infringement.
Copyright law sucks. When Disney's "Steamboat Willy" gets close to entering the public domain again I wonder if that incompetent, morally and legally corrupt Congress will extend the copyright period yet again at Disney's bidding and if that gutless Supreme Court will ignore the Constitution and not overturn it as it should have done. I think Mark Twain had the right idea of copyright law. In 1906, when Congress was debating a life plus 50 years copyright law for the United States, he said:
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @02:02PM
Well, I for one don't see why the copyright of the work of author A should last longer than the copyright of the work of author B published at the very same date, just because author A lived longer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SparkyGSX on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:49PM
Actually, since animals are considered "property" in most of the world (I don't know the specifics of Indonesian laws, obviously), I'd think whoever own the monkey would also own the copyright to the photos. If the monkeys are wild animals, I guess one could argue the photos are in the public domain.
I wonder, if I were to steal one of his cameras, shoot some amazing photographs with it, and it was somehow returned to him, would he own the copyright to those photographs? What is the determining factor for the ownership of the copyright? I find it very hard to believe ownership of the camera implies ownership of the photographs takes with that camera. I guess you could argue he "created" the photographs by "giving" them the camera. The fact that he didn't intentionally give them the camera might be relevant, but if I were to unintentionally create an magnificent painting, it'd still be mine.
"“If the monkey took it, it owns copyright, not me, that’s their basic argument. What they don’t realize is that it needs a court to decide that,†he said."
Now he's just being an asshole; it takes a court ruling to decide EITHER WAY, so either take it to court, or STFU.
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got
(Score: 3, Interesting) by cafebabe on Thursday August 07 2014, @10:09PM
I believe the current situation with photography is an absurd reduction of portrait artists. That is, a person would sit for a portrait and purchase work for hire or allow the artist keep the work. This situation progressed to early photography where it required skill, effort and expense to develop silver nitrate. However, now we've devolved to a situation where whoever pushes the button, gets the copyright. Even within this framework, it assumes that the person pushing the button owns the equipment and has the permission of the subject(s) or a reasonable expectation of being in a public space.
(The 2014 Oscars selfie is an example where the person arranging the scene is not the person pushing the button, neither owns the camera and it was taken in a ticketed event. See http://artlawjournal.com/owns-copyright-now-famous-oscar-selfie/ [artlawjournal.com] for details.)
Next, I broadly believe in rights for sentient beings. However, the current situation is that many humans are unable to enter into contract and non-humans are completely unable to enter into contract. This limits their ability to transfer or waiver rights.
Anyhow, a monkey is unable to enter into contract and get permission to take a picture to which the monkey retains copyright. If a wild animal triggers a picture surreptitiously or otherwise and without cruelty to the animal, I believe that owner of the equipment gets ownership of the picture rather than it being public domain.
However, if I had a complete free hand to define the law, subjects in a selfie would be assigned joint copyright.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @10:28PM
> If a wild animal triggers a picture surreptitiously or otherwise and without cruelty to the animal, I believe
> that owner of the equipment gets ownership of the picture rather than it being public domain.
You know, you wrote all that stuff but you didn't explain why you believe that. I will explain why you are wrong, and it has nothing to do with entering into a contract. You are wrong because copyright protects creative works. That's why you can not copyright a phonebook or any other facts. A monkey does not have creativity, thus anything a monkey makes is ineligible for copyright, just like a spiderweb or the grand-canyon - none of them are creative works so none of them are eligible for copyright.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Friday August 08 2014, @01:44AM
We start with precedents from portrait sitting and then iterate through the development of photography. At the beginning, we have hours of work with paint brushes. At the end, we have someone or something pushing a button. At the beginning, we have a process which is creative. However, as the accuracy of the picture increases and the required ability decreases to the point that a monkey can do it, we arrive at a situation where we argue whether photography has any creativity or if a monkey can participate in the legal framework.
If we make a distinction between oil painting and pushing a button, we may come to a different conclusion.
Ignoring that, if you find my reasoning disjoint, my belief about the copyright assignment was based on law and precedents. I regard that legal framework as flawed and my personal beliefs lay elsewhere.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday August 08 2014, @07:34PM
On what basis do you assert that a monkey doesn't have creativity? That appears to me to be clearly incorrect. The monkeys that I've seen generally don't have a deep understanding, but within their frameworks they are as creative as people. Sometimes their answers are better than those that most people come up with, though I admit that's probably because without a deep understanding their focus is on areas that people skip over.
In this case it sounds as if the monkey was posing for a mirror, not intentionally taking a picture. (Well, originally posing for a mirror, then investigating sounds.) Thus, while creative in a minor way, the creative expression is not directed at producing a photo, but rather more on "I wonder how I'd look with an upswept hair style?", i.e. creative WRT personal appearance.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Funny) by theluggage on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:01PM
That's my feeling too. Its pretty clear that the photographer was instrumental in creating the photo (and who know how much cropping and cleaning up he did on it). Or is every photo taken without a human finger on the shutter button now public domain? All those wildlife shots taken with automatic triggers? Now IANAL but I suspect that monkey selfies are a grey area in the law, and a judge will have to decide. If Wikimedia think they have a case for claiming the then maybe they should prove that case before they make free with the photo?
Meanwhile, a quick run-down on copyright law for simians:
Moral rights waiver: "Ook!"
Derivative work: "Ook!"
Creative commons non-commercial share-alike attribution: "Ooook?"
IP lawyer: "OokookookEEEKookookEEEKEEEKEEKEEKEEKEEEKEEEK(splat)OOKOOK(splat)EEK(splat)!!!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @10:11PM
> If Wikimedia think they have a case for claiming the then maybe they should prove
> that case before they make free with the photo?
And just how to you suggest that be done? If the photog wants to claim ownership it is up to him to go to court and enforce it. IF he's right, he'll get a ton of money from wikipedia because of all the cash that photo has brought in, you know for all the revenue that the ads on that page brought in.
Oh wait, you say he has not registered the copyright on the photo? Hhhhm.
(Score: 1) by jbWolf on Friday August 08 2014, @05:34AM
Two things came to mind when I read your post. The first occurred when I read "Ook" and thought of The Librarian [wikipedia.org] from Discworld.
The second: I thought it was highly amusing that you, theluggage, was taking about IP Lawyers in a "luggage test" [youtube.com] type way.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by nightsky30 on Friday August 08 2014, @11:31AM
Ook, so maybe he should build something like this:
http://www.ohesso.com/essays/essay006.htm [ohesso.com]
And attach it to his camera! It could say something like, "I waive all rights of photos I, Mr. Monkey, take to the actual purchaser and owner of this camera." Then all the photos will be his, because Mr. Monkey agreed to it by clicking the button and snapping the photos. Ook! Ook!
(Score: 0) by modest on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:14PM
I also support the copyright holder in this circumstance. He's a professional photographer who's made quite an investment on which he deserves a return. I see a lot of funny quips about the monkeys taking better pictures than him, but he had a really novel idea and saw the opportunity to interact with the monkey in this way.
Furthermore, to think of both sides losing money in the legal system is disheartening. This isn't a pinnacle case in copyright reform. Not by any means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:50PM
> on which he deserves a return
He deserves nothing.
The purpose of copyright is to promote the arts, not assure that the photog. gets what he "deserves". It just happens that the law has decided that "promotion" means the owner gets to decide who and when copies can be made.
But the photographer does not inherently deserve anything. Copyright is simply a legal framework that has decided that he could control the copies being made of items for which he owns the right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @06:46AM
His "creative work" was failing to protect his camera from being stolen by a monkey. Truly a masterpiece, he deserves millions.
(Score: 2) by nightsky30 on Friday August 08 2014, @12:04PM
I would pay to see a video of a monkey stealing a camera!!! :3
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:45PM
> If US law does not specifically assign copyright to the monkey, I'd say the guy has a good claim.
The problem is that copyright law specific precludes assignment to anyone because a key component is that the work be created by a person. Monkeys are not people and thus the photo is in the public domain.
503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.
In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable.
http://legalgeekery.com/2011/07/19/is-this-face-subject-to-copyright/ [legalgeekery.com]
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday August 08 2014, @05:07PM
...which, on the face of it, would mean that no photograph could be copyrighted, because it is formed by a combination of a mechanical process (the camera) and the forces of nature (optics/chemistry/electricity...) Obviously, that's not the case, so it all comes down to what "human authorship" means. I'm sure that there is a metric shedload of caselaw on what constitutes "authorship" - which you'd have to plough through at great expense and cross-refernce to the photographer's sworn statement of how the shot was taken to decide whether he 'contributed'.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday August 07 2014, @10:52PM
This line of arguing conveniently forgets about a whole bunch of other people who are being CHEATED out of the fruit of their hard work.
Doesn't Kodak or whoever manufactured the camera have a claim? Maybe the inventors of the CCD or film deserve some compensation? What about the people who made the trails and roads the photographer and monkeys used? Provided food, shelter, transportation and fuel? Is the location of the shot a nature sanctuary? Maybe the sanctuary had a hand in maintaining the jungle and the animals, and deserves some compensation?
Then, what of all the technology used to disseminate the photos? ISPs deserve a cut for transmitting the photo, and flat screen manufacturers and laser and ink jet printer manufacturers deserve a cut too, for making it possible for audiences to view the work of art. And storage, don't forget about storage, and the makers of hard drives and memory cards.
There are a lot of little shoulders supporting photography, and all they get is a tiny, flat fee.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:45PM
Think of this situation instead:
The photograph spends just as much money to travel to New York City. He starts setting up identically on a downtown sidewalk. As he turns away, someone on the street runs up, takes his camera, and starts taking selfies.
Who owns the copyright? In this instance it would be the "someone else" who grabbed the camera and started taking selfies.
The only difference between the above, and the monkey story, is that "someone else" is not human, but monkey.
The photog. does not have a copyright claim. Simple as that.
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Friday August 08 2014, @11:30AM
In your example the selfies were created without any intent by the owner of the camera, that is a big difference.
Suppose I go into the wilderness to film a documentary. I can:
1 Film wildlife in person as it wanders by and press record myself each time a monkey looks in my direction
2 Setup the camera and film continuously no matter if a monkey is in frame or not.
3 Setup a camera and equip it with a motion sensor to trigger a few minutes of recording each time a monkey walks by
4 Setup a camera and place a record triggerbutton within reach of the monkeys
I don't think anybody would argue that film produced by 1 and 2 are owned by me.
I would argue that all 4 are owned by the photographer.
Is 4 really that different from 3? (The monkey supplies the trigger in both cases)
Is 3 really that different from 2? (Monkey still supplies content, all I have to do is cut out empty stuff later)
Is 2 really that different from 1? (I do the editing onsite.)
(Score: 2) by youngatheart on Saturday August 09 2014, @03:39AM
Accidental.
If you do any of the things you describe, where you intentionally plan to get a type of picture, then the result isn't an accident. If an accident happens that you couldn't or didn't plan, then you don't own copyright. The law seems to be specifically written so that acts of nature or accident are excluded from copyright. Maybe it shouldn't be, but until the law is changed (possibly by precedent, even this very precedent) it means this photographer doesn't own copyright, unless...
Google image search monkey and you'll see as many awesome pictures of monkeys as you care to. Imagine you're a photographer well aware of the gray areas of copyright law because after all, that's what makes you money. You get some good pictures but they're rarely spectacularly profitable. You influence some monkeys into learning to press the button on a camera, show them how they are reflected in the lens and eventually get one to take a series of pictures with a couple good shots. Now, a smart photographer would brag about his success, but a brilliant photographer tells a story that carefully describes the pictures as being an accident as a result of an intentional process and puts those pictures into the gray area. As a brilliant photographer, you publish and tell your carefully crafted story, all the time pretending you claim ownership in a situation that many people find worth debate. As a result, you get your pictures and name published all over the internet, mentioned in serious and humorous articles and people who would never have heard of you or seen your work are exposed to it.
A smart photographer tells a story that makes it clear he owns copyright. A brilliant photographer tells a story that makes his work a sensation.
What happens when his story is revealed to leave out the details that prove he actually intentionally set up the picture?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @12:18PM
How can you be on the copyright holders side in a discussion about who is the copyright holder?
Copyright law in every (western, anyway) country assigns copyright to the photographer. Not to the owner of the camera.
I have not been able to find any exception for using borrowed or stolen cameras.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @01:56PM
Given that the question who owns the copyright is exactly what is disputed here, that statement is at best ambiguous.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Alfred on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:15PM
The monkey is a thief but I don't think he had intent to distribute or make available.
(Score: 5, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:19PM
Are you kidding? Look at the grin on his face. He knew exactly what he was doing.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Thursday August 07 2014, @08:55PM
Cut them some slack, they probably can't figure out how to display the copyright info in Media Viewer [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:08PM
,,,no one will be able to deny that all parties pursuant to this case, including lawyers, judge, etc are monkeying around with copyright law.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday August 07 2014, @10:42PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:29PM
OK! Who's slinging poo?!!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tizan on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:10PM
On the wikimedia discussion page there is an argument about who should own the painting which a chimpanzee made..
The buyer of the canvas or public domain and it is in public domain...so with this as precedent ...
the 'photographer' is just a provider of equipment...and the monkey took the picture.
Should providers of equipment get copyright over product of said equipment ?
I believe the answer is quite clear.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday August 07 2014, @09:44PM
The picture is the property of the owner of the camera if, and only if, there was a prior contract stating that any use of the camera was "work for hire". Then the monkey doesn't have a tripod to stand on. But monkeys are not legally competent to make contracts, so it cannot have been a work for hire, and it sounds like the camera owner did not agree to anything prior to the artistic work, so yes, Public Domain.
(Monkeys owning copyright! Ha! That's funny! Almost as funny as other non-humans owning copyright, like corporations. )
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 07 2014, @11:33PM
Not giving the monkey his copyright is yet another example of animal-slavery! AND it is discrimination. If a certain kind of relatively hairless ape took the photo, that person would get a copyright.
FN: half tongue in cheek, but I'm also partial to greater rights for mammals.
(Score: 3, Funny) by chewbacon on Thursday August 07 2014, @10:37PM
I, for one, would like to welcome our monkey intellectual property overlords.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Friday August 08 2014, @02:37AM
1. Say, if he would have set up a "trap" or a "set of sensors" that triggers a camera in certain circumstances, when animal of certain size or weight is present? He does not push any buttons himself, but he does kind of define the situation that gets on the film... Would this still be a problem?
2. Or, if he writes some AI for the camera, so that it takes picture of only grinning monkeys? The monkey triggers the camera by grinning, or the photographer by defining the triggering pattern? Would this be a problem?
In both above situations the photographer can predict the outcome of his "indirect" actions...
3. Does "giving" the camera to the monkey to play with the INTENTION or HOPE of getting photos count as a "planned indirect action" as above? The photographer can not predict, but can only hope that the monkey triggers the camera in some favourable situation...
Is point 3 a creative work of any kind?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gringer on Friday August 08 2014, @05:14AM
As someone previously pointed out:
Ask me about Sequencing DNA in front of Linus Torvalds [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ambient Sheep on Friday August 08 2014, @08:58AM
However it also says "without any contribution by a human author" and I would argue that he did indeed contribute by setting it up, gaining the monkeys' trust and so forth.
As for things like trip-wires (which he didn't use anyway), wildlife photographers have been using those for years, are all their photos taken in that way now no longer in copyright?
(Score: 2, Informative) by jelizondo on Friday August 08 2014, @06:25AM
Very interesting case: an Englishman claims copyright to a work produced in Indonesia against a U.S.-based entity...
To bring his suit against the U.S.-based entity, the claimant would have to demonstrate he owns copyright, but because he has not registered copyright in the U.S. he would have to show proof that copyright was extended by the U.K. Government. I can't find any indication that he did take the necessary steps in the U.K., many people think that slapping a copyright notice on a work is enough; it is not.
Now, if he claims copyright under U.S. law, he would have to show that he is the author, and as others pointed out previously, under U.S. law he is not the author, because he did NOT take the picture.
So unless he has previously gotten a copyright from the U.K., he's just barking, because legally in the U.S. he owns nothing. In the world of law, there is no justice, just the law. If you failed to take the steps required by law to register your copyright, then justice is applying the law and holding the work to be public domain.
I'm not familiar with U.K. copyright law so it might be possible to register a work after it is published (as is in the U.S.) but the autorship rule might be different.
(Score: 1) by cout on Friday August 08 2014, @02:23PM
US copyright law does not require copyrights to be registered; copyright which is not registered before infringement takes place is, however, limited in how much damage can be claimed in court.
http://copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register [copyright.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 08 2014, @03:19PM
Mr. Slater trekked through the Indonesian jungle. Mr. Slater's camera was used to take the photos. Mr. Slater 'brought the pics to market'. He should be awarded copyright for the photos. If Mr. Slater had dropped his camera and it accidentally took some amazing photos when it hit the ground, would they be having this argument? No. This is the same to me.