Slater lost "Monkey Photo" copyright case.

As we all know the work on a photo is not just pressing the button, which is all the monkey has done. If Slater set up the camera, downloaded it to his computer and did all his own pp then surely that's his work? If another human did it then it may be different but it was a monkey. He should own the copyright.
 
Not sure how American copyright works and also IANAL so wouldn't understand the legalese that the laws are probably written in anyway!

At a guess, Wiki have deeper pockets than Mr Slater so he was almost bound to lose, although he has managed quite a bit of publicity from it all, probably more than he would have got had he not originally stated that the monkey took the shot!
 
funny i don"t recall seeing any monkeys buying camera gear in jessops LAWS an arse!!!
 
Raptor Mike said:
.... If Slater set up the camera, downloaded it to his computer and did all his own pp then surely that's his work? If another human did it then it may be different but it was a monkey. He should own the copyright.
Click to expand...
If another person had used his camera to take the picture they would own the copyright. The only difference here is that a monkey cannot own copyright so the image becomes public domain.
You can't just "claim copyright" on an image in public domain. If he had edited it enough so that it was significantly different (i.e. a new unique work) then he would have owned the copyright on his "derivative work." But he didn't.
 
Nod said:
Not sure how American copyright works and also IANAL so wouldn't understand the legalese that the laws are probably written in anyway!

At a guess, Wiki have deeper pockets than Mr Slater so he was almost bound to lose, although he has managed quite a bit of publicity from it all, probably more than he would have got had he not originally stated that the monkey took the shot!
Click to expand...
There wouldn't have been a ruling on the matter if it was a money issue...
 
Crazy world!

To me, the guy who owns the camera has the copyright as he set it up etc. It was by chance that the monkey pressed the button! lol
 
Raptor Mike said:
As we all know the work on a photo is not just pressing the button, which is all the monkey has done. If Slater set up the camera, downloaded it to his computer and did all his own pp then surely that's his work? If another human did it then it may be different but it was a monkey. He should own the copyright.
Click to expand...

:agree: Bad judgement :(
 
I love the fact that the US copyright lawyers made sure they covered some other eventualities -

“The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. Likewise, the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit,”

So, if Jesus comes visiting, don't let him use your camera :rolleyes::D
 
so what about tracking cameras that animals set off by tripping a remote as they pass through is that a "selfie" as well.
 
Last edited:
dinorock said:
so what about tracking cameras that animals set off by tripping a remote as they pass through is that a "selfie" as well.
Click to expand...
That is a really good point and is no different in my opinion to the Slater case. They set the camera up, download the images, pp them. The animal triggers the camera, which is exactly what the monkey did. How it was triggered is neither here nor there.
 
sk66 said:
If another person had used his camera to take the picture they would own the copyright. The only difference here is that a monkey cannot own copyright so the image becomes public domain.
You can't just "claim copyright" on an image in public domain. If he had edited it enough so that it was significantly different (i.e. a new unique work) then he would have owned the copyright on his "derivative work." But he didn't.
Click to expand...
Why not, as long as you took it or was the one that set it up? He must have put it in the public domain in the first place.

Also how does this work with other things. If I find something on the beach it is then mine isn't it? Unless the beach is private. Edit: so if I find an old coin does it belong to me or is it public ownership because I didn't put the coin there?

Its his photo, his work and if it wasn't for him the photo wouldn't exist. How it was taken is irelivant. Surely the ownership should go to the first responsible human.
 
Last edited:
Thing, about this particular case, is that if the photographer hadn't identified that the monkey pressed the shutter, he wouldn't have had a problem. At the end of the day, he's gained more publicity than he could have ever dreamed off.
 
There's a whole other thread here about the copyright issues HERE. There's no real point in debating it all again.

But the basis of copyright is protection for "creative works." It must be made with intention and effort otherwise it does not qualify for copyright. Since Slater did not take the picture, nor did he have any intention as to what the image would be, he can't own the copyright.

Short answer... if you ever get an image "accidentally" just don't tell anyone.
 
dinorock said:
so what about tracking cameras that animals set off by tripping a remote as they pass through is that a "selfie" as well.
Click to expand...


What about burgulars who get caught on similar motion activated cameras! Could they then sue you?
 
Nevermind
 
dinorock said:
so what about tracking cameras that animals set off by tripping a remote as they pass through is that a "selfie" as well.
Click to expand...

That's different, and is effectively what Slater has recently claimed (somewhat conveniently) ie that he set it all up with clear intention. Unfortunately, when the picture/s were first published a few years ago, he went on record as saying it was a completely random accident that he played no part in, and that's the version of events that's being taken as true.

That's why he didn't own copyright, and animals cannot hold copyright, therefore there is no copyright holder and the picture is public domain.
 
sk66 said:
There's a whole other thread here about the copyright issues HERE. There's no real point in debating it all again.

But the basis of copyright is protection for "creative works." It must be made with intention and effort otherwise it does not qualify for copyright. Since Slater did not take the picture, nor did he have any intention as to what the image would be, he can't own the copyright.

Short answer... if you ever get an image "accidentally" just don't tell anyone.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It's quite clear cut. Slater shot himself in the foot as far as copyright is concerned when he originally said that the monkey had grabbed the camera and taken the selfie. End of.
 
StewartR said:
Absolutely. It's quite clear cut. Slater shot himself in the foot as far as copyright is concerned when he originally said that the monkey had grabbed the camera and taken the selfie. End of.
Click to expand...
Can you be certain that it wasn't the monkey who shot him in the foot:D

:coat:
 
HoppyUK said:
That's different, and is effectively what Slater has recently claimed (somewhat conveniently) ie that he set it all up with clear intention. Unfortunately, when the picture/s were first published a few years ago, he went on record as saying it was a completely random accident that he played no part in, and that's the version of events that's being taken as true.

That's why he didn't own copyright, and animals cannot hold copyright, therefore there is no copyright holder and the picture is public domain.
Click to expand...
Yeah reading the whole story it does sound like he "shot himself in the foot", oh well he won't make the same mistake twice. and maybe he's given a heads up to other people to be careful what they say about their picture taking, esp when copyright may be involved. que sera.
 
Raptor Mike said:
Why not, as long as you took it or was the one that set it up? He must have put it in the public domain in the first place.

Also how does this work with other things. If I find something on the beach it is then mine isn't it? Unless the beach is private. Edit: so if I find an old coin does it belong to me or is it public ownership because I didn't put the coin there?

Its his photo, his work and if it wasn't for him the photo wouldn't exist. How it was taken is irelivant. Surely the ownership should go to the first responsible human.
Click to expand...

Ownership is not copyright; Slater certainly "owned" the original photograph but he made three mistakes.
* He told everyone that he wasn't responsible for the picture.
* He thought he owned copyright when he did not.
* He put his picture on the web when he did not own copyright.

It was an unusual situation; but it shows how not understanding the laws can hurt you.
i.e. If you hand your camera to a stranger and ask them to take a picture for you, then the stranger probably owns the copyrights.
Or, if your second shooter doesn't show up and you ask your assistant to take pictures in their place, then the assistant probably owns the copyrights.
Or, if you drop your camera and it somehow manages to take an amazing picture, then no-one actually owns the copyrights.
etc., etc..
 
sk66 said:
Ownership is not copyright; Slater certainly "owned" the original photograph but he made three mistakes.
* He told everyone that he wasn't responsible for the picture.
* He thought he owned copyright when he did not.
* He put his picture on the web when he did not own copyright.

It was an unusual situation; but it shows how not understanding the laws can hurt you.
i.e. If you hand your camera to a stranger and ask them to take a picture for you, then the stranger probably owns the copyrights.
Or, if your second shooter doesn't show up and you ask your assistant to take pictures in their place, then the assistant probably owns the copyrights.
Or, if you drop your camera and it somehow manages to take an amazing picture, then no-one actually owns the copyrights.
etc., etc..
Click to expand...
Totally agreed - except: Or, if your second shooter doesn't show up and you ask your assistant to take pictures in their place, then the assistant would probably have signed the same contract your 2nd signed and you own the copyright, unless you're an idiot.
 
Phil V said:
Totally agreed - except: Or, if your second shooter doesn't show up and you ask your assistant to take pictures in their place, then the assistant would probably have signed the same contract your 2nd signed and you own the copyright, unless you're an idiot.
Click to expand...
Maybe; I can't see why the contracts would be "the same" (unless your contracts are "standardized boiler plate"). But it brings up a good point.... why would someone who is *only* going to be "an assistant" need to sign a contract addressing copyrights? The answer is, "just in case."

And do you even need a contract addressing copyrights if you're "hiring" a second shooter for an event? The answer is, "almost certainly."
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
That's different, and is effectively what Slater has recently claimed (somewhat conveniently) ie that he set it all up with clear intention. Unfortunately, when the picture/s were first published a few years ago, he went on record as saying it was a completely random accident that he played no part in, and that's the version of events that's being taken as true.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the issue. He probably exaggerated the story initially to make it more newsworthy and now his fibs have come back to bite him on the behind.
 
so the jist of it is even if you set the camera up own the camera etc you still dont own the copyright so then how can a police force charge you for a speeding offence ie a fixed speed camera? if in the eyes of the law they dont own the copyright to the evidence ?
 
So, at a family gathering for 2 of my aunts celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary (they married their husbands in the same year) I set up a family shoot which I was in. I'd not long had my 60D and my mind went blank on how to use the 10sec timer, cos I rarely use it. So I ask my cousins girlfriend who didn't want to be in the photo, the press the button.

I set it up camera settings, tripod position, etc, but it's her photo, not mine. Yes?
 
Last edited:
hoochy1 said:
so the jist of it is even if you set the camera up own the camera etc you still dont own the copyright so then how can a police force charge you for a speeding offence ie a fixed speed camera? if in the eyes of the law they dont own the copyright to the evidence ?
Click to expand...
Well, there are two distinct issues here. First, the gist is not that if you set the camera up and own the camera etc you still don't own the copyright. As pointed out above, Slater had overegged his lack of role initially; playing it as if it had all just been an accident.
Secondly, who owns the copyright doesn't really come into it to any great extent when we're talking about evidence of a criminal offence. If the court needs the evidence, they can get it, even if the copyright holder objects. So it's mostly irrelevant. In any case, the copyright (if any exists at all) to images captured by speed cameras is unlikely to be held by an individual or organisation who is likely to object.
 
Raptor Mike said:
So, at a family gathering for 2 of my aunts celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary (they married their husbands in the same year) I set up a family shoot which I was in. I'd not long had my 60D and my mind went blank on how to use the 10sec timer, cos I rarely use it. So I ask my cousins girlfriend who didn't want to be in the photo, the press the button.

I set it up camera settings, tripod position, etc, but it's her photo, not mine. Yes?
Click to expand...


Or is it like when animals trigger tracking cameras? Because I set it up and asked her on purpose?
 
Last edited:
You can tell I am not a professional photographer, I got as far as a monkey took a picture of its self and the Americans produce a 1200 page document of why the camera owner can't have the copyright?!? I'm
Guessing "a monkey took it, so no" didn't suffice?
 
I don't know if this has been covered, but if the image was shot in RAW, and he processed it, surely that's the clincher? (obviously not seeing as he lost but that's probably more to do with money than legalities)
 
Raptor Mike said:
So, at a family gathering for 2 of my aunts celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary (they married their husbands in the same year) I set up a family shoot which I was in. I'd not long had my 60D and my mind went blank on how to use the 10sec timer, cos I rarely use it. So I ask my cousins girlfriend who didn't want to be in the photo, the press the button.

I set it up camera settings, tripod position, etc, but it's her photo, not mine. Yes?
Click to expand...
Raptor Mike said:
Or is it like when animals trigger tracking cameras? Because I set it up and asked her on purpose?
Click to expand...
The key thing to remember about copyright is that it's there to protect creative works. So you have to ask who provided the creative input - decided the camera positioning, composition, lighting, exposure, etc. In both the situations you described, it was the person who set up the camera.
 
Fussyfez said:
I don't know if this has been covered, but if the image was shot in RAW, and he processed it, surely that's the clincher? (obviously not seeing as he lost but that's probably more to do with money than legalities)
Click to expand...
Obviously not, in this case. But I don't think it's to do with the money.

The conversion of a RAW image into a TIFF or JPEG is not, in itself, a creative act. Your camera and your image processing software (Lightroom or whatever) can do it automatically according to preset algorithms. If the RAW image is not copyrighted, then processing it into something which can be viewed or printed does not necessarily create a work which can be copyrighted.

It is possible to copyright a "derivative work" if you have made a significant creative input. However in this case, as I recall, Slater said that all he did was stuff like cropping, rotating, colour correction, sharpening etc. That wasn't enough to create a copyrightable derivative work.
 
BMG said:
You can tell I am not a professional photographer, I got as far as a monkey took a picture of its self and the Americans produce a 1200 page document of why the camera owner can't have the copyright?!? I'm
Guessing "a monkey took it, so no" didn't suffice?
Click to expand...
Sadly, no....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top