Slater lost "Monkey Photo" copyright case.

[big soft moose]

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?
.

in short - no it isnt , its stealing by finding and the item belongs to the original owner

two provisos

a) if its flotsam or jetsam you may have salvage rights / or not - its complicated and without using the verbotten search engine i can't give you the full SP ( if you think about the napoli - by your logic the looters had rights to those motorbikes , or possibly the Trust did since its their land ... wheras in fact the bikes belonged to the people who orginally owmed them and were shipping them and/or to the insurance company after they paid out )

b) if its an old coin then the laws relating to treasure trove may apply - again the search engine is your freind for the detail , but in short it may belong to the crown , or to the landowner (which is also the crown if you are between mean high and mean low water) or possibly to you in some cases. In fact even f you find treasure on land you own it may still belong to the crown in some circumstances.

 

[big soft moose]

back in the original topic, if an american tourist hands me his camera and asks me to take a photo of him with some land mark or other in the background - do i then own the copyright to that shot ? (which after al i composed, exposed etc) or does he since he initiated the taking by giving me the camera ?

 

[StewartR]

back in the original topic, if an american tourist hands me his camera and asks me to take a photo of him with some land mark or other in the background - do i then own the copyright to that shot ? (which after al i composed, exposed etc) or does he since he initiated the taking by giving me the camera ?

Yes. Though that might not be of any practical value.

 

[Raptor Mike]

in short - no it isnt , its stealing by finding and the item belongs to the original owner

two provisos

a) if its flotsam or jetsam you may have salvage rights / or not - its complicated and without using the verbotten search engine i can't give you the full SP ( if you think about the napoli - by your logic the looters had rights to those motorbikes , or possibly the Trust did since its their land ... wheras in fact the bikes belonged to the people who orginally owmed them and were shipping them and/or to the insurance company after they paid out )

b) if its an old coin then the laws relating to treasure trove may apply - again the search engine is your freind for the detail , but in short it may belong to the crown , or to the landowner (which is also the crown if you are between mean high and mean low water) or possibly to you in some cases. In fact even f you find treasure on land you own it may still belong to the crown in some circumstances.

You learn something new everyday. We'll forget about that line in thevbpoints I've made lol

 

[sk66]

back in the original topic, if an american tourist hands me his camera and asks me to take a photo of him with some land mark or other in the background - do i then own the copyright to that shot ? (which after al i composed, exposed etc) or does he since he initiated the taking by giving me the camera ?

99% you would own the copyright. If the camera owner had done everything but push the button (i.e. composed the shot/poses/lighting/angle/tripod/etc., etc.) then the camera owner would 99% own the copyright (very similar to an animal tripping a motion sensor).

I used 99% probability because nothing is ever certain until ruled on. I've seen the courts make some copyright decisions I completely disagree with (i.e. the London "red bus" decision).

 

[ricky1980]

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.

Absolutely right. That's what copy right is all about.

Slater didn't setup the shot, he may have dialed in camera settings but the shot itself was done by the monkey or babbon. Thus the creativity of the image was done by an animal which cannot hold a copy right.

The trap trigger is not the same as the photographer has the intent to setup shots and picture animals in the scenes. Even tho the shots are triggered by traps.

If Slater actually said that he intended to see if the monkeys were capable to using the camera and intended to see the images of "monkeying around" by the monkeys and the shots were spontaneously taken by the monkeys then he would have got the copy right as his intent or creative aspect is for the monkeys to carry out some sort of self portrait. Unfortunately he just wanted to big up his photo and for a professional photo journalist especially this is a school boy error. He would have came across copy right issues during his career at some point, he should have known the finer points. Totally his own fault.

 

[ricky1980]

back in the original topic, if an american tourist hands me his camera and asks me to take a photo of him with some land mark or other in the background - do i then own the copyright to that shot ? (which after al i composed, exposed etc) or does he since he initiated the taking by giving me the camera ?

I think he does also, because while you may have provided the composition, but the direction came from the tourist. The tourist wanted a portrait with the landscape in it therefore it is his intent and thus his image per say.

Also, whilst you may have a claim in his image, but you can never ever proved...unless he said you took the picture and provided the composition by yourself with no direction of his.

 

[sk66]

If Slater actually said that he intended to see if the monkeys were capable to using the camera and intended to see the images of "monkeying around" by the monkeys and the shots were spontaneously taken by the monkeys then he would have got the copy right as his intent or creative aspect is for the monkeys to carry out some sort of self portrait.

This part is actually wrong...
The difference between hoping the monkeys will take some pictures and a monkey triggering a sensor is "intent, effort, and control" over what the image would actually be.

 

[ricky1980]

This part is actually wrong...
The difference between hoping the monkeys will take some pictures and a monkey triggering a sensor is "intent, effort, and control" over what the image would actually be.

Ah damn...he should have built in wireless triggers then.