1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Okay Guest, it's coming up to the festive season. If you'd like to take part in this year's Secret Santa gift exchange, click the link below and speak to our resident Jolly Red Guy.

    Dismiss Notice
  1. cambsno

    cambsno

    Messages:
    13,069
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  2. TCR4x4

    TCR4x4 Wishes he had a couple more Inches

    Messages:
    7,751
    Name:
    Tom
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Sued by a charity with no more say or influence on the monkey than the photographer. Crazy..
    What gives PETA the right to sue him? Nothing to do with them, they should be told to foxtrot oscar by the judge and pay all the legal fees too.

    The photographer owned the camera, he owned the memory card, he set the situation up, he put all the legwork in for it to happen.
    I think any sane person would agree it's "his" photograph even if he didn't physically press the shutter.

    Surely any photo that's been remotely triggered by a timer, or laser or anything else then doesn't have a copyright holder as no one pressed the shutter?
    Where does it end.
     
    Scooter, andy700 and maarten.dhaese like this.
  3. realspeed

    realspeed

    Messages:
    5,157
    Name:
    Bazza
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It could only happen in that sue for anything country America. Sometimes I wonder how far they can possibly go in the suing stakes.
     
    andy700 likes this.
  4. Tringa

    Tringa

    Messages:
    3,088
    Name:
    Dave
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    This is loopy. If, as PETA argue, the copyright belongs to the macaque then surely only it can sue for infringement of copyright? Have PETA asked the macaque if it wants to sue? Perhaps it is quite happy that its mugshot has worldwide circulation.:)

    Dave
     
  5. Lensflare

    Lensflare

    Messages:
    2,543
    Name:
    Simon Everett
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Who gets the payout? I wonder if it goes to PETA, to fund more of their looniness.
     
  6. Faldrax

    Faldrax

    Messages:
    1,061
    Name:
    Jonathan
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    There was a bit more info on this in The Register (a tech website).
    Originally PETA managed to convince someone who worked with the Macaques (and so 'knew' the one who 'took' the photo) to stand as 'Next Friend' - apparently a legal option in the USA intended to allow people who are not related to (but know well) an individual to is unable to represent themselves (such as due to illness or disability) to make legal representation on their behalf. They have now withdrawn from the case (apparently deciding that PETA had no intention of using any revenue from the case to help the Macaques in question).
    The article in The Register suggested that the Judge was now trying to decide how best to throw the case out (to prevent a repeat / appeal, and give the photographer the result they deserve).
     
    andy700 and Lensflare like this.
  7. Lensflare

    Lensflare

    Messages:
    2,543
    Name:
    Simon Everett
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hopefully sense will prevail and the judge will also decide that it was a waste of court time and possibly even contemptuous to think that it could go ahead......
     
    andy700 likes this.
  8. boyfalldown

    boyfalldown

    Messages:
    15,387
    Name:
    Hugh
    Edit My Images:
    No
    what publicity seeking crook for PETA (again)

    Sadly, if the judge though that he wouldn't have allowed it in the first place
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2017
  9. Keith W

    Keith W

    Messages:
    8,682
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  10. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    5,247
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I think the courts should rule that Slater owns the copyright... not that this should even be being heard in a US court.

    In the guidance regarding registering (claiming) US copyright there is this note (emphasis added):
    • one author must have either created or contributed to all the photos.
    And there is similar leeway in the UK/EU laws that allow him to claim authorship/copyright (which he does, but I don't think it's been tested).

    This is all very sad IMO... the poor dude's going broke with all of the copyright litigation over this image (some he started though).
     
    maarten.dhaese likes this.
  11. PPPPP

    PPPPP

    Messages:
    193
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Before going any further, I should say I am a firm believer in animal rights, however;

    Indonesia has various problems with animal protection issues, such as animals being used for street entertainment, and loss of habitats due to palm oil plantations. Despite this however, PETA see it as more relevant use of charitable funds to try and bully a near penniless individual in another country, using a cause of legal action that is questionable, and quite possibly a complete farce.

    Absolute disgrace. The very fact that they are holding this case in the US (when this charity has a UK branch and the defendant is situated in the UK) speaks wonders about them.
     
    maarten.dhaese, Lensflare and andy700 like this.
  12. Ed Sutton

    Ed Sutton

    Messages:
    3,627
    Name:
    Dave
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Mark Johnson, Lensflare and HoppyUK like this.
  13. Sejanus Aelianus

    Sejanus Aelianus

    Messages:
    579
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I can't help feeling that PETA and Slater deserve each other. :exit:
     
  14. DemiLion

    DemiLion

    Messages:
    11,029
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The thing is, this court case isn't really about © apart from at face value.

    In the US, the animal cannot own copyright because it isn't classed as a sentient being. If PETA can overturn that then they (by default and precedent) can award 'senitent' status to almost any primate.
    In terms of legal action and animal protection, that's a huge step (not necessarily in a good direction).

    There's a far bigger case than copyright at stake here which is why PETA are being so persistent.

    If I didn't think that they are mostly utter t***s, I'd quite admire them for the subtlety.
     
  15. Roshni Patel

    Roshni Patel

    Messages:
    55
    Name:
    Roshni`
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    This is something seriously loppy. Court will also decide the same and won't allow in further cases.
     
  16. Lensflare

    Lensflare

    Messages:
    2,543
    Name:
    Simon Everett
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    We can but hope you are correct.
     
  17. Retune

    Retune

    Messages:
    350
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It says here that the 'trap focus' function of various cameras was 'originally intended to capture photos of the wedding party as they walk down the aisle' - does that mean they've effectively taken a selfie and the photographer has to license it from them? Also, is the copyright of the prizewinning image owned by a honeybee?: https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=5992
     
  18. Peter Drought

    Peter Drought

    Messages:
    83
    Name:
    Peter
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I am no expert on the US legal system, however the item below (assuming valid) would be highly applicable:

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/frivolous-claims/

    If applicable, I think Mr Slater should pursue it to the fullest extent as it appears he has been nearly bankrupted by this, and an example needs to be set to act as a future deterrent. Making political statements about animals is one thing, but you don't do it by targeting the vulnerable, it should be done by targeting those who are doing real harm.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2017
  19. odd jim

    odd jim Flimsiest Lambresta

    Messages:
    9,292
    Name:
    Jim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    This has been banging on for years!

    6 years in fact.
     
  20. Dave70D

    Dave70D

    Messages:
    4,811
    Name:
    FujiDaveXX
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Now that is a total disgrace imo, copyright should be to the owner of the camera used, the courts should laugh this right out.
     
    davholla likes this.
  21. odd jim

    odd jim Flimsiest Lambresta

    Messages:
    9,292
    Name:
    Jim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Hmmm, I wouldn't agree with that. I could borrow a friends camera and take an award winning photo (unlikely but stay with me!), only to find the photo now belongs to someone completely unrelated as I borrowed said camera
     
  22. Nod

    Nod Ethel Prescott

    Messages:
    28,625
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    @StewartR could be sitting on a gold mine if the cameras' owners were assigned the copyright to all shots taken with their kit!
     
    Graham W, StewartR, cambsno and 2 others like this.
  23. viv1969

    viv1969

    Messages:
    28,000
    Name:
    Bat-Frog
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It's a very old story.
     
  24. DemiLion

    DemiLion

    Messages:
    11,029
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No

    Not really. The appeal by PETA opened two days ago.
     
  25. viv1969

    viv1969

    Messages:
    28,000
    Name:
    Bat-Frog
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Yes, but it's just a continuation of an old story.
     
  26. Bobsyeruncle

    Bobsyeruncle

    Messages:
    6,661
    Name:
    Robert
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    And?
     
  27. Bobsyeruncle

    Bobsyeruncle

    Messages:
    6,661
    Name:
    Robert
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Why?
     
  28. viv1969

    viv1969

    Messages:
    28,000
    Name:
    Bat-Frog
    Edit My Images:
    No
    So it's a 6 YO story. Not new. Old.
     
  29. DemiLion

    DemiLion

    Messages:
    11,029
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No

    If you want to get arsey about it, it's a two year old story, not six, on the basis that the narrative is about the law suit, not the image itself.
     
  30. DemiLion

    DemiLion

    Messages:
    11,029
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No
    PS - so what? If you don't want to read about the updates, scroll past.
     
  31. viv1969

    viv1969

    Messages:
    28,000
    Name:
    Bat-Frog
    Edit My Images:
    No
    New mod status working OK out for you?
    :LOL:
     
  32. Dave1

    Dave1

    Messages:
    6,895
    Name:
    Dave
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    More accurately, it's a new story relating to an old story.
     
  33. Lensflare

    Lensflare

    Messages:
    2,543
    Name:
    Simon Everett
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If you borrowed mine I could prove the copyright belonged to me....it is in the EXIF embedded in the image file that copyright is mine. :banana:
     
    odd jim likes this.
  34. StewartR

    StewartR Efrem Zimbalist Jr Advertiser

    Messages:
    10,310
    Name:
    Stewart (duh)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I hadn't really worked out what I felt about this case until now. OBVIOUSLY the owner of the camera owns the copyright. Thanks guys. ;)
     
    Nod, Faldrax, Phil V and 1 other person like this.
  35. StephenM

    StephenM

    Messages:
    2,150
    Name:
    Stephen
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    But what about the owner of the lens? :exit:
     
  36. DemiLion

    DemiLion

    Messages:
    11,029
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    No

    I'm not the one whining like a stuck pig.
     
  37. viv1969

    viv1969

    Messages:
    28,000
    Name:
    Bat-Frog
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Much. :LOL:
     
  38. Nod

    Nod Ethel Prescott

    Messages:
    28,625
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    If the body's rented (that's the camera body rather than the model...), the lens probably is as well - yet more potential income for Stewart!
     
  39. PaulF

    PaulF

    Messages:
    1,541
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    They are doing it in the US because the 'publisher' Blurb is a US company, the monkey is in the US and most other countries would just laugh at them for even trying.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017
  40. The Image Team

    The Image Team

    Messages:
    278
    Name:
    Nicholas
    Edit My Images:
    No
    To extend that even further, surely then a photo of lighting taken with a sound trigger would be the copyright of the lightning itself as it triggered the image not the photographer who composed the scene.
     

Share This Page