Who owns copyright of an image?

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
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.
Would that work, as the flash is always ahead of the thunder by some seconds (the speed of light is much faster than the speed of sound!)?
 
Last edited:
Messages
193
Edit My Images
No
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.
They are doing it in the US because the photographer is in the UK and relatively in-affluent (meaning it is more difficult to obtain US legal advice), making it more likely that he would buckle and allow them to win, thereby giving them the PR coup that they are seeking (all at his expense).

The monkey is in Indonesia, which last time I checked, is not the US.
 

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
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.
It's a US case simply because it's PETA who is bringing the case and they are based and have their headquarters in the US (Virginia).

Not that I'm defending them / the case, it's plain ridiculous.
 
Messages
12,257
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
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.

Really? Is it on holiday in the USA from Indonesia?
 
Messages
285
Name
Nicholas
Edit My Images
No
Would that work, as the flash is always ahead of the thunder by some seconds (the speed of light is much faster than the speed of sound!)?
I don't know. I've never done lightning photography but I read a guide on it a couple of years ago which said you needed a sound trigger. I thought the same as you, light travels much faster than sound, but apparently thats the way to do it.
 
Messages
7,284
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
It's a US case simply because it's PETA who is bringing the case and they are based and have their headquarters in the US (Virginia).

Not that I'm defending them / the case, it's plain ridiculous.
PETA is using the fact that BLURB is US based in order to allow them to have the case heard in the US.
But PETA has a UK office/presence, and BLURB has a UK presence... combine that with the fact that Slater is UK based, that the image was first released/published in the UK, and it makes about zero sense for this case to be heard in the US.

Here's a good discussion of all of the considerations/facts.
 

StewartR

Efrem Zimbalist Jr
Advertiser
Messages
12,123
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
I've never done lightning photography but I read a guide on it a couple of years ago which said you needed a sound trigger. I thought the same as you, light travels much faster than sound, but apparently thats the way to do it.
No, no, no! You understand the science (light travels faster than sound), so you *know* that by the time you hear the sound it's too late.

I can't believe that both you and that guide which you read are being serious. Perhaps it was like a "Top Tip" from Viz? "Photographers! Save money when photographing lightning flashes! A cheap sound trigger will do the job just as effectively as an expensive optical trigger!"
 
Last edited:
Messages
193
Edit My Images
No
PETA is a UK charity. It has a US arm as well (presumably set up as a separate charity in that country), and indeed branches in other countries.

http://www.peta.org.uk/about/

Its UK charity registration number is: 1056453
It is also a UK Ltd Company:03135903

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03135903/filing-history

If you are really interested, you can have a look at the group accounts on Companies House. Turned over £3.8million according to the last set of financial statements.


The US branch will presumably have a separate registration in that country.
 

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
PETA is a UK charity. It has a US arm as well (presumably set up as a separate charity in that country), and indeed branches in other countries.

http://www.peta.org.uk/about/

Its UK charity registration number is: 1056453
It is also a UK Ltd Company:03135903

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03135903/filing-history

If you are really interested, you can have a look at the group accounts on Companies House. Turned over £3.8million according to the last set of financial statements.


The US branch will presumably have a separate registration in that country.
No, PETA is a US organisation and simply has a UK arm (as it does in most first world countries). It was set up and has its HQ in Virginia, USA. It's well known it's a US organisation.

Anyone operating in the U.K. has to be registered for various reasons especially tax, as charities have certain tax exemptions which they need to claim given their sole purpose is to generate funds.
 
Last edited:

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
PETA is using the fact that BLURB is US based in order to allow them to have the case heard in the US.
But PETA has a UK office/presence, and BLURB has a UK presence... combine that with the fact that Slater is UK based, that the image was first released/published in the UK, and it makes about zero sense for this case to be heard in the US.

Here's a good discussion of all of the considerations/facts.
Any large scale legal action on behalf of a corporation / company / charity will originate from its headquarters, which for PETA is in the US, regardless of the Blurb situation. The Blurb issue came about simply to bolster the US legal standing by the plaintiff (PETA), not as a reason in itself as to why the case is using the US legal system.

Even more relevant is that they are using US case law (as illustrated in your link) to influence the ruling.
 
Last edited:
Messages
9,407
Edit My Images
No
Would that work, as the flash is always ahead of the thunder by some seconds (the speed of light is much faster than the speed of sound!)?
As sound travels at about 1000 feet/330 metres per second, it would have to be very close to work. There is a delay of about five seconds between thunder and lightning if just one mile away.


Steve.
 

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
As sound travels at about 1000 feet/330 metres per second, it would have to be very close to work. There is a delay of about five seconds between thunder and lightning if just one mile away.


Steve.
Exactly, I was being gentle to the poster, unless you're stood right under it there's no way it would work, and even then it wouldn't be fast enough.

And you'd be fried...
 
Messages
16,822
Name
Hugh
Edit My Images
No
Oh look, PETA being nobs again.
While on the face of it they appear to be their usual nobbish selves, as at @DemiLion pointed out earlier that're using the case to establish (or attempt to) that animals are capable of owning property and therefore sentinent which has far bigger implications for their cause then one selfie they don't really give a flying monkey's about. Subtle really
 

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
While on the face of it they appear to be their usual nobbish selves, as at @DemiLion pointed out earlier that're using the case to establish (or attempt to) that animals are capable of owning property and therefore sentinent which has far bigger implications for their cause then one selfie they don't really give a flying monkey's about. Subtle really
It's never been about copyright, PETA don't care about that, they're all about animal rights so it was only ever about setting legal precedent on an animal rights issue. If they can legally define them as sentient beings it gives them far more protection and has huge ramifications.
 

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Erm, I'm pretty certain that I said that four days ago!
I was replying to Boyfalldown, reiterating it's not and never had been a copyright issue...
 
Last edited:
Messages
285
Name
Nicholas
Edit My Images
No
No, no, no! You understand the science (light travels faster than sound), so you *know* that by the time you hear the sound it's too late.

I can't believe that both you and that guide which you read are being serious. Perhaps it was like a "Top Tip" from Viz? "Photographers! Save money when photographing lightning flashes! A cheap sound trigger will do the job just as effectively as an expensive optical trigger!"
Im fairly certain it was Wex actually but equally wrong. My point stands though, no matter how the trigger triggers, it ain't done by the tog, so does the lightning own copyright as it triggered the photo of itself?
 
Messages
7,284
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
Im fairly certain it was Wex actually but equally wrong. My point stands though, no matter how the trigger triggers, it ain't done by the tog, so does the lightning own copyright as it triggered the photo of itself?
Triggering the shutter is not the only consideration in "authorship"... it's not even the most significant consideration. It's only meets the requirement of "creation" (which is a basic requirement). There is no evidence of creative/artistic intent/effort/originality on the part of the lightning so it can't possibly be the author with copyrights.

A more realistic scenario to raise such questions would be if you handed your camera to a stranger for them to take your picture... If you did everything (i.e. composed the shot on a tripod, set the focus and exposure, etc) and the stranger *only* pushed the shutter button; then you could reasonably claim authorship. But the more control over the outcome the stranger has, the more likely it is that they can claim authorship/joint authorship.
 

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Im fairly certain it was Wex actually but equally wrong. My point stands though, no matter how the trigger triggers, it ain't done by the tog, so does the lightning own copyright as it triggered the photo of itself?
You've set it up, you've set the trigger to go at a certain point, you've set the other parameters, you're still 'authoring' the final result, that's the key phrase with copyright.

Having a monkey get hold of a camera and pressing the shutter at his / her own desire and at the point they themselves choose is different.
 
Messages
23,810
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
Triggering the shutter is not the only consideration in "authorship"... it's not even the most significant consideration. It's only meets the requirement of "creation" (which is a basic requirement). There is no evidence of creative/artistic intent/effort/originality on the part of the lightning so it can't possibly be the author with copyrights.

A more realistic scenario to raise such questions would be if you handed your camera to a stranger for them to take your picture... If you did everything (i.e. composed the shot on a tripod, set the focus and exposure, etc) and the stranger *only* pushed the shutter button; then you could reasonably claim authorship. But the more control over the outcome the stranger has, the more likely it is that they can claim authorship/joint authorship.
And as has been discussed previously in discussions of this case:

If photographer A has a vision, and organises a team to create and light a set, it's likely to be any member of the team who actually presses the shutter button, but the author is (obviously) photographer A.

Only a pedant would try to argue the point, and it's this that PETA are pursuing. Id like to think that only the US legal system would let them burn through money in this way, but the recent D of E case against the parent who took his kid out of school suggests we could be just as barmy.
 
Messages
10,283
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
..............If photographer A has a vision, and organises a team to create and light a set, it's likely to be any member of the team who actually presses the shutter button, but the author is (obviously) photographer A.
A bit like Damien Hirst who has assistants to produce some of his work. No matter what you think of Hirst and his art, its still his vision and therefore his ownership.
 

simon ess

Just call me Roxanne.
Messages
8,325
Edit My Images
No
FWIW, I think the primate owns the copyright.
 
Messages
7,284
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
You've set it up, you've set the trigger to go at a certain point, you've set the other parameters, you're still 'authoring' the final result, that's the key phrase with copyright.

Having a monkey get hold of a camera and pressing the shutter at his / her own desire and at the point they themselves choose is different.
I think it's silly to suggest the monkey could be the author... Did it know that pushing a button would cause an image to be taken? Did it even know it was pushing a button? Does it have a concept of what a picture is? Did it have a conception for what the image outcome would be? I think all of that is highly unlikely. I think at best it saw it's reflection in the lens and was making faces. Where's the intent and creativity?

TBH, I kind of think the whole thing was a lucky accident and not really intentional by Slater either... would you let a monkey grab your gear hoping they might accidentally take a selfie??? If I were going to do something like that the gear would be in a protective housing and I would be triggering it wirelessly. As long as he doesn't admit it was an accident then I think he should be given authorship/copyright (but I think he did...).
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
35,896
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
I think it's silly to suggest the monkey could be the author... Did it know that pushing a button would cause an image to be taken? Did it even know it was pushing a button? Does it have a concept of what a picture is? Did it have a conception for what the image outcome would be? I think all of that is highly unlikely. I think at best it saw it's reflection in the lens and was making faces. Where's the intent and creativity?

TBH, I kind of think the whole thing was a lucky accident and not really intentional by Slater either... would you let a monkey grab your gear hoping they might accidentally take a selfie??? If I were going to do something like that the gear would be in a protective housing and I would be triggering it wirelessly. As long as he doesn't admit it was an accident then I think he should be given authorship/copyright (but I think he did...).
I only use the word 'author' as this is the term used in copyright law.
 
Messages
8,490
Edit My Images
Yes
First thing that caught my eye about that article Jim linked to was...

He was carrying a 40lb backpack, tripod, camera, several expensive lenses and a pack of rather soggy Jaffa Cakes for sustenance.
 
Messages
7,937
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
First thing that caught my eye about that article Jim linked to was...
Second was the thought that perhaps the monkey is a mod here :p

By the next day, the inquisitive animals were all over him; picking through his hair, rummaging in his backpack for food. 'They nicked my Jaffa Cakes!'
:exit:
 
Top