So who owns the copyright ?

Interesting. So, if I setup a selfie - lights, location, etc - and then ask someone to press the shutter button for me they own the copyright? Dodgy ground!
 
Seems perfectly reasonable, monkey clicked the shutter, monkey holds copyright and license rights. An ambulance chaser will be along shortly to assert the monkeys rights for damages for use of the image...
 
Anything for a free lunch. I didn't think animals could own anything least copyright.
 
The23rdman said:
Interesting. So, if I setup a selfie - lights, location, etc - and then ask someone to press the shutter button for me they own the copyright? Dodgy ground!
Click to expand...
It's simple Dean
If you set up a shot and an employee hits the button - the shot's yours.
If you set up the shot and you ask me to take it, I own it. In practical terms, if you're asking me to do it for you, we'd have an informal or formal agreement to give you the copyright.

Whether a monkey can legally own copyright though? Not so sure.
 
So what about all the wildlife images taken by using pressure plates, beam sensors and other such remote firing devices? As the animal being photographed in this manner is effectively taking the image themselves, do they own copyright too?

I think that wikipedia are suffering from a severe case of pedantry over this.
 
Its hard enough for pro photographer to make an living,i think wikipedia are being a bit childish on this matter :(
 
The23rdman said:
Interesting. So, if I setup a selfie - lights, location, etc - and then ask someone to press the shutter button for me they own the copyright? Dodgy ground!
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It is quite common for a photographer to set up a shot and have an assistant work the camera. The assistant doesn't get the copyright though. Although this is probably covered by contract.

I don't think there is any legal precedent for an animal to own anything. If the 'photographer' asserts his rights to the image, it would be up to anyone else (or any other primate) who thinks they own them to contest it.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Not necessarily. It is quite common for a photographer to set up a shot and have an assistant work the camera. The assistant doesn't get the copyright though. Although this is probably covered by contract.

I don't think there is any legal precedent for an animal to own anything.


Steve.
Click to expand...
Don't loonies often leave their estate to animals?
 
Is a monkey an individual?
There is no mention in copyright law of 'person', but individual or collective (eg a company/firm) and author are mentioned.
 
kendo1 said:
Is a monkey an individual?
Click to expand...

As far as the law is concerned - probably not.

I think in this case, the photographer (the human one) can safely claim ownership of the image and use it any way he wants. His problem now is getting a judgement against Wikipedia for infringement and only a court case can do that.

However, I think Wikipedia would back down if court action was started.


Steve.
 
kendo1 said:
Is a monkey an individual?
Click to expand...
In the USA, quite possibly, and if not there'd certainly be an attorney willing to argue that it is.
 
'If' Wikipedia believe that the image is 'owned' by the monkey, then did they get permission to use the image? o_O Regardless of the ownership, they know that they are using an image without permission, so shouldn't be using it surely. :thinking: :D
 
Gregory Crewdson doesn't press the shutter on his images either, so does he not own the copyright of his own work?
 
Jayst84 said:
He does a lot more work making the image, than having a monkey steal his camera though.
Click to expand...

Just by being there and having the gear and facilities means it's his. It's a monkey.. it didn't knowingly do anything except play with a strange black thing that went click. Wikipedia are trying to apply the law very, very literally because it suits them to do so, not because they actually believe the Monkey has right - they're just trying to avoid David Slater's rights... and by the same law, applied the same way Gregory Crewdson doesn't own the copyright to his work either, nor does Rankin for a great deal of his work, or many, many other professionals who once the shot is set up, can't really be arsed pressing the shutter.
 
I believe to claim copyright to a work a person must have some creative input to the work. The act of setting up the camera, placing it, deciding what it's going to frame, even where pressure pads and infra red traps are placed are all sufficient to claim creative input and therefore copyright.
The point about this particular picture is that in the photographer's own words the macaque picked up a camera that was just lying around. It may be that he was gilding the lily to create interest in the photograph but that is the distinction on which the argument of unassigned copyright is based. There are other "selfies" of the macaques where he has observed their behaviour and set up the camera waiting for them to press the shutter where the copyright is not in dispute.
I think he is now in a legal dispute with Wikipedia over the picture. His argument is that although the copyright on the original file out of the camera may be unassigned that is not what is being published. His cropping, conversion, and post processing work on an original file of unassigned copyright is sufficient creative input to create a new work to which he does own the copyright.
I assume any legal arguments will take place in the USA. More work for lawyers !
 
Phil V said:
It's straightforward over there, if it's registered; no argument.

Is he an American?
Click to expand...

No. He's English, Wikipedia is run by a US registered charity, and the original photograph was taken in Indonesia, the published photograph was processed we know not where.

I'm no expert but I would have thought there were additional costs in enforcing a foreign debt in the US if he were successful. In addition off the top of my head I seem to remember there are quite high statutory damages in the US if there is a wilful infringement. Wikipedia continued to publish the photograph even after the claim. I suspect there will be some agreement before any court case.
 
zednini said:
No. He's English, Wikipedia is run by a US registered charity, and the original photograph was taken in Indonesia, the published photograph was processed we know not where.

I'm no expert but I would have thought there were additional costs in enforcing a foreign debt in the US if he were successful. In addition off the top of my head I seem to remember there are quite high statutory damages in the US if there is a wilful infringement. Wikipedia continued to publish the photograph even after the claim. I suspect there will be some agreement before any court case.
Click to expand...
The Yanks have a nigh on mandatory registration scheme, basically if you haven't registered your work, you're not entitled to damages.
Foreign music performers have lost cases against Americans ripping off their work simply because it wasn't registered with the US copyright office. It's complete madness and needs a major international case to be won there to overturn their ridiculous system.

This isn't the case to do it though.
 
Thinking a bit further on this, if the photographer and monkey worked together on the image - photographer provided and set up the kit, and provided the opportunity for the monkey to 'take' the image, and the photographer did the PP (artistic input/interpretation) surely it is a collaboration, where they both own the copyright. Wikipedia are still in the wrong..............
 
Last edited:
This is all... Madness.

The photographer should IMVHO own the image. It's his camera, his time and money were expended to go there and give the monkey the camera etc... and I can't see any reasonable alternative to that.

Just a thought... if you set your camera up to take a picture on self timer or when triggered by another device does the engineer/programmer at Canon/wherever who made it all possible own the resultant image?
 
Last edited:
This has just been on Radio 2, with the photographer and a representative from Wiki, plus other 'experts' commenting.

It seems to hinge on the exact circumstances of the shot, and there are conflicting stories ranging from total accident (nobody's copyright) to a complete set up (photographer's copyright). Speaking live, the photographer said he'd noticed the monkeys messing with his equipment and thought they might respond, so he put the camera on a tripod with wide-angle, set exposure, AF to servo, and left the remote release for them to play with. In other words, he set it all up, waited and watched and encouraged the monkeys take the shots.

Morally I think the copyright is the photographer's, and if it went to court, legally too.
 
I've previously found wikipedia a very useful and interesting website and had even considered donating to help their cause. Not any more.

Yes, there may be a very technical argument about the copyright, but it should be clear to anyone that morally, the work belongs to the guy who set the camera and the shot up, not the primate who unknowingly pressed the button. Wikipedia's absurb position is extremely damaging to its reputation as one of the web's "good guys" and I cannot understand why they have adopted this position, which is of no financial benefit to them.

Is anyone aware of a petition of template letter of complaint to send to them?

Edit: Just went to the wiki page and it describes the sources as being the "Daily Mail". Given how notorious they are for not paying for photos, it just gets worse...
 
Last edited:
Anyway, have they asked the monkey the authorisation to use his picture? are they paying him copyright?

The photographer and the monkey should be both going to court for this! This would make an interesting court!

Jim Dunne said:
So what about all the wildlife images taken by using pressure plates, beam sensors and other such remote firing devices? As the animal being photographed in this manner is effectively taking the image themselves, do they own copyright too?
Click to expand...

I think this is a very good point! Which prove to me that the photographer own the copyright of this picture!
 
What about speed cameras? If I, as driver, cause the photo to be taken, presumably I own the copyright and can demand its destruction?

Wikipedia's position in denying copyright is pretty bad. Its decision to keep the photo up pending court action is indefensible. Slater - as original publisher and copyright claimant - is the de facto copyright holder until Wikipedia prove otherwise, and in the meantime his wishes should prevail.
 
Even if the shot had been an accident in that the monkey or any other animal picked up the camera and took a shot I still think that the shot should be owned by the human... and taking animals out of the picture (groan...) for a moment... if a branch had fallen from a tree onto the shutter button is the tree the owner of the shot?

These are IMVHO ridiculous legal arguments and any normal person should IMVHO decide that the photographer owns the image.
 
The photos were taken some years ago. The original story for this particular photograph was that the monkey had taken the camera which was lying around although there were subsequently others taken with the camera set up. See for example :- http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news/2011/07/photo-monkey-steals-camera-takes-self-portraits.html

As I said above the photographer may have been gilding the lily at the time to make the photograph more interesting but it is this point with which they are distinguishing unassigned copyright (monkey takes unattended camera and photographs himself) and Slater's copyright ( he sets up camera in anticipation of monkey hitting the shutter). I heard David Slater this morning on the radio and he was defending his copyright on the basis of post production and that nobody had ever seen the original OOC file except himself and his lawyer.

As I also stated above the setting up of a camera in a specific position and framing together with pressure plates, sensors, or speed traps is I believe sufficient creative input to give the copyright to the "photographer". However the point in this case is that the monkey picked up an unattended camera and took his own photograph. The shot had not been set up by anyone. David Slater may be back tracking on his original story but I didn't get that impression from this morning's interview where he appeared to be relying on his post production work to create his copyright in a derived work.

As people have said he shouldn't have to go through this and Wikipedia should do the decent thing.
 
Phil V said:
It's simple Dean
If you set up a shot and an employee hits the button - the shot's yours.
If you set up the shot and you ask me to take it, I own it. In practical terms, if you're asking me to do it for you, we'd have an informal or formal agreement to give you the copyright.

Whether a monkey can legally own copyright though? Not so sure.
Click to expand...

surely the monkey is an employee of the zoo ;)
 
Yes, it is interesting to note that Wikipedia have listed the photo as a "self-portrait, with rotation and crop by David Slater."

One might well argue that a crop is part of the artistic process, creating at the very least a derivative or collaborative work. In which case, Wikipedia have shot themselves in the foot. How I'll laugh.
I suspect, though, that substantially more PP work than a rotate and crop has been performed - in which case it will be very hard for Wikipedia to claim that Slater has had no artistic input.
 
Last edited:
wikipeadia are saying the photo is in the public domain, ie owned by no-one, or indeed by all of us - they're not saying the monkey owns it

they're arguing that they don't have to pay to use it basically

and they're going by US copyright law

it was on Radio 2 at lunchtime (Vanessa covering for Jeremy Vine - available on iplayer - worth a listen :) )
 
Byker28i said:
he's be foolish if he did. I think he'd be better off in UK or European courts
Click to expand...

He would be better off just making the most of the advertising he's getting at the moment.

Llamaman said:
What about speed cameras? If I, as driver, cause the photo to be taken, presumably I own the copyright and can demand its destruction?
Click to expand...

Even if you did own the copyright, you do not own the physical photograph - so no!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
I think they have to be left to a human to administer on the animal's behalf. After all, a sum of money put into a cat's bank account isn't going to be of much use to the cat directly.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Actually the estate can be left directly to the pet's name, and either a trustee is named by the nutjob deceased in the will, or one is appointed by the executors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top