So who owns the copyright ?

[Pookeyhead]

I know I'll get a lot of hate for this but I'm so fed up of people who tend to shift their views based purely on what benefits them, it's so inconsistent.

How many times have people argued on this forum that 'if you pressed the button, you own it'. All of a sudden that accepted principle (one backed by copyright law) seems to be getting thrown aside by some photographers because they can see this hurting them in certain circumstances. It's the same old rubbish where you see some photographer using copyrighted music to play in the background of the Wedding DVDs they have created for a client or to play as background music on their website. To them it's only THEIR copyright that matters.

I think those who feel this photographer should hold the copyright probably need to think things through a little more and look at the possible implications. In my mind this would be a far worse legal scenario for photographers to be in.

Would you be so keen to acknowledge that the bride and groom at each wedding are entitled to share copyright with a photographer? After all they set the whole ambience for the wedding, picked the clothes, the decorations, the venue, the food, the lighting etc. Tell me the bride and groom of any wedding would not have just as much a claim to the copyright in such a scenario as this photographer. Hell even the venue could possible argue some small claim if the venue is quite unique.

The same goes for a lot of commercial photography where assistants setup a lot of the shots, the advertising people and artistic directors probably came up with the whole concept to begin with, are these people not as equally entitled to claim a share of the copyright if this photographer is?

This would apply in any number of situations and could eventually get as silly as car photographers having to share copyright with the car manufacturers who, after all spent far more time and money designing the car than the photographer did lighting the dam thing and pushing a button.

Slippery slope.

Wikipedia are on sure ground as far as I'm concerned. There are two specific states that a work can be labelled, copyrighted or public domain. The image was not taken by a human and my understanding of copyright law is that non-humans (with the exception of legal entities recognised under the law) cannot hold copyright. Therefore it's not a copyrighted work and as such automatically falls into the public domain.

/RANT

That's a very good point.


I think my standpoint is based in Wikipedia's cynical and pedantic use of copyright law merely to get their own way, rather than any genuine feeling that the photographer's rights have been abused. After all... his images being in Wiki won't harm print sales, and licensing for t-shirts etc. The law cuts both ways... while following the EXACT letter of the law wouldn't stop anyone else from printing t-shirts with this one... it won't stop him either. However.. poster sales? Only he has the high res raw file I presume. If the monkey wants to sue him for doing that... bring it on... LOL

 

[Nod]

Of course, the image concerned would be of far less interest to the world if the photographer had been the one to press the button so maybe (to create the extra interest that an animal selfie story would bring) it's possible that he was a little creative with the story.

If intention is part of the requirement to show creative input, does making a clicky whirry sound (hard to describe a shutter noise in animal terms!) count? I'm pretty certain the monkey didn't intend to take a photo, just wanted to hear that noise again!

Like Stewart, IANAL.

 

[StewartR]

If intention is part of the requirement to show creative input, does making a clicky whirry sound (hard to describe a shutter noise in animal terms!) count? I'm pretty certain the monkey didn't intend to take a photo, just wanted to hear that noise again!

Irrelevant because the monkey cannot own copyright.

 

[momoka]

All of the media articles from June and July 2011 quote Slater as saying it was taken as an accident by the monkey. He appears to have changed his story.

 

[StewartR]

He appears to have changed his story.

Yes, but which is correct?

Maybe the original version was correct, and he's now giving a different version in order to claim the copyright.

Or maybe the new version is correct, and he previously gave a different version on order to get more publicity for the images.

Either way, if he's changed his story it doesn't look good.

 

[momoka]

Yes, but which is correct?

Maybe the original version was correct, and he's now giving a different version in order to claim the copyright.

Or maybe the new version is correct, and he previously gave a different version on order to get more publicity for the images.

Either way, if he's changed his story it doesn't look good.

Yes that is what I was meaning.

 

[sk66]

He would have to prove that he is entitled to copyright in the US (since Wikipedia is there and any action would have to be taken in the US courts) *and* in any other relevant country (for example the UK if the pictures were first published here).

U.S. copyright law provides protection to other's who are party to the Berne Convention by default.

"Published Works.—The works specified by sections 102 and 103,when published, are subject to protection under this title if—

(1) on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or domiciliary of the United States, or is a national, domiciliary, or sovereign authority of a treaty party, or is a stateless person, wherever that person may be domiciled; or

(2) the work is first published in the United States or in a foreign nation that, on the date of first publication, is a treaty party; or"

 

[sk66]

Steve Smith said: ↑
The fact is that if I have a camera which created an image by some random means other than by me pressing the shutter and I asserted that the copyright was mine, no one can take that away from me unless they can show reason why they should have the copyright instead.
There are no copyright police who look at images and decide how it was created and if there is enough artistic merit for it to enjoy copyright protection.

This is the practical answer, for 'someone' else to claim ownership of my image, they'd need to show some evidence, I'm holding all the cards. They'd need a compelling argument.
That said, I'm not convinced that on this occasion, the photographer hasn't already put the compelling argument on public record.

There is no requirement for "artistic merit/quality." There is a requirement to intentionally create. Most of the time no-one would know or care (or you could lie), so it never comes up as an issue.

It's not a question of someone else claiming ownership/copyright. It's a question as to whether the image qualifies for copyright protection in the first place. Of course Slater owned the image (because the monkey can't). He screwed up by distributing it without also owning copyright protections.