Who owns copyright of an image?

TCR4x4

Wishes he had a couple more Inches
Messages
8,443
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.
 
Messages
6,939
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.
 
Messages
4,667
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
 
Messages
3,087
Name
Simon Everett
Edit My Images
Yes
Who gets the payout? I wonder if it goes to PETA, to fund more of their looniness.
 
Messages
1,518
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 They have now withdrawn from the case (apparently deciding that PETA had no intention of using any revenue from the case to help the Macaques in question).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).
 
Messages
3,087
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......
 
Messages
16,821
Name
Hugh
Edit My Images
No
what publicity seeking crook for PETA (again)

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......
Sadly, if the judge though that he wouldn't have allowed it in the first place
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,284
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).
 
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.
 
Messages
12,257
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.
 
Messages
75
Name
Roshni`
Edit My Images
Yes
This is something seriously loppy. Court will also decide the same and won't allow in further cases.
 
Messages
4,138
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
 
Messages
208
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:

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
This has been banging on for years!

6 years in fact.
 

Fuji Dave

Teacher's Pet
Messages
15,682
Name
FUJI SON
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.
 

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Now that is a total disgrace imo, copyright should be to the owner of the camera used, the courts should laugh this right out.
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
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
35,893
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!
 
Messages
29,791
Name
Bat-Frog
Edit My Images
No
It's a very old story.
 
Messages
12,257
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
PS - so what? If you don't want to read about the updates, scroll past.
 
Messages
3,087
Name
Simon Everett
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
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:
 

StewartR

Efrem Zimbalist Jr
Advertiser
Messages
12,123
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
Now that is a total disgrace imo, copyright should be to the owner of the camera used, the courts should laugh this right out.
@StewartR could be sitting on a gold mine if the cameras' owners were assigned the copyright to all shots taken with their kit!
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. ;)
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,814
Name
Stephen
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. ;)
But what about the owner of the lens? :exit:
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
35,893
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
But what about the owner of the lens? :exit:

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!
 
Messages
1,886
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
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.
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:
Messages
285
Name
Nicholas
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
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.
 
Top