Funny

lol..Thanks for sharing Tonji..

Is this funny or the start of an exceptionally good discussion about who owns copyright? The photographer owns the camera it was taken on... does he not then have rights over the image?

Yes, the monkey took the picture, I agree.

And it is for this very reason I keep ALL monkeys away from my cameras.

-YoPedro

New selling point for the camera, "So easy to use, even a monkey can do it."

I don't think there should be a question about the copyright. wikimedia is wrong. The copyright belongs to the photographer. Did the monkey process the photo? Did he buy the camera? No, photographer I hope will win the case. I wonder if he filed for copyright before this started?

"Did the monkey process the photo?"

If it's a jpeg, the camera processed the photo.

"Did he buy the camera?"

Moot point, I'm sorry to say. If I came to your home, for example, and painted a scene on canvas you owned, with your paint, gesso, and brushes, your electricity to light the room, do you own the copyright to what I painted?

If you're a monkey I do! lol!

I'm sorry, but you're analogy does not work, I'm afraid.

Give the monkey a banana and say you paid him to transfer ownership to you...

Let's use this then...I've set up outside with a tripod to take a picture of a rose bush, I notice a dead leaf I want to remove from the bush and step away from the camera mounted on the tripod. A crow lands on the camera and pecks at it and takes a picture. I present this image on my website. Wikimedia grabs it and says its public domain because the crow took the picture. So, who does the image belong to? Me, the crow, or everybody?

edit: I don't think the painting canvas analogy is the same Jeffrey.

A stranger's baby reaches over and grabs at your camera, and takes a pic. Who own's the copyright to that?

You drop your camera and it takes a picture when it hits the ground. Who own's the copyright? You, the camera, or the ground?

Technically, the crow is the copyright holder.

A crow [or monkey in the wild] cannot be represented in a court of law to defend their claim of copyrights. I do not disagree the photographer can sell the image, or you could not do the same, but no one can legally challenge your right to sell in these instances.

"You drop your camera and it takes a picture when it hits the ground. Who own's the copyright? You, the camera, or the ground?"

You. Your actions caused the shutter button to be pressed.

The issue for the photographer is Wikimedia says it's a public domain image because the monkey took it, not whether he can sell it, who owns the copyright.

I think it should be his photo ... because it is a monkey. But don't it kinda help the photographer a little that it was shared?? They did tell his name and all.

The photographer can take his case to court and ask to have the copyright awarded to him based on the circumstances. I, personally, cannot see how anyone could legally challenge that argument, and I feel the courts would agree, too.

Have to wonder, can monkeys legally own property?

Animals in the wild? No.

Privately owned? I feel would belong to the owner, and I feel the courts would agree.

Wiki has it right in my opinion, until [unless] the photographer applies to the courts based on circumstances beyond anyone's control. He knows he did not take the picture.

Jeffery,did you " break in " to her home or were you invited ? Suppose instead of a painting you did a " wood carving " into her coffee table.Do you owe for ruining her coffee table or does she owe you for your art work?
Thanks for sharing Tonji interesting topic.

Michael,

I'm not interested in what-if wood carvings on coffee tables. No court in their right mind would disagree if the photographer asked to be awarded copyrights.

I don't see how the monkey can own the copyright, as the monkey isn't, as far as I know, legally able to own anything. But of course, I also find that artists do not make the best attorneys. Best to let the court decide.

That this would go to court puts the right mind thing in question.
..............ain't crazy about that for example painting either.

"Best to let the court decide."

Absolutely.

"Many of the photos were blurry shots of the jungle floor, but among the throwaways were the selfie that gave Slater worldwide attention."

"Slater told the Telegraph the decision to add the photo to the public domain library has “jeopardized his income."


How this kind of "worldwide attention"..."jeopardized his income"...is the real mystery here. It's not like he killed someone. It's the price of advertising for future sales.


I don't think this is about the monkey "owning" the copyright. I just think wiki used that term for publicity because it felt it had the right to keep it posted, since the monkey took the photo.

Slater walked into the monkey's home uninvited...every living thing on this planet has its "right" to be here...and humans don't own the "right" to give those rights out.


BTW...animals do "own" things...you can learn that by trying to take it away. ;)

And I may be wrong...but I think they also can be represented by an attorney in certain situations?

Great timing... in walks the Orangutan! Hahaaa Get reminded here of Planet of the Apes. What a great movie!

its hard to believe that's at all true though. first off, who took the image from him? how did it end up on that site? the guy took the images with the intention of getting them, and it was his gear, its his images. it doesn't become public domain just because it wasn't a human that took that image. same with - dropping paint on a canvas - just tossing it on, setting a camera to trip when something crosses a beam of light, or any other number of circumstances that happened when your not physically touching the device. it doesn't become PD just like that. seems like a total cop out of admitting guilt on wiki's side. sounds like they downloaded his image without permission.

if i set up a tripod and set a timer to shoot a landscape - is that image really mine?


---Mike Savad

none of this is moot. if that guy was there, with his gear, and the intention to shoot them. without him, there would be no selfie. it would be far different if the monkey owned the camera and uploaded it himself.

it does raise a good question though - how does wiki acquire it's images?

based on what i read above - if you set it up, it's your copyright - correct? so that means, that you set up the camera and the monkey might have taken the actual image, but you set it up.

---Mike Savad

If the animal have rights then it has the right to respect your personal property! If I grab your camera and take a selfie then why should I have the rights to that photo?

and you know what's probably happening right now. because wiki claims it's public domain, stock companies like getty probably already took that image and placed their logo on it. so this guy will never be able to sell it as stock ever. he'll spend more money in court then he would ever make. and for those that think this is a great way that he's getting his name known. other works will probably be looked at in the same way that he or others made.

i know of an elephant that did the same thing, and i thought a bird also stole a gopro camera and made a movie and selfie of that.


---Mike Savad

I think the macaque has made a monkey out of many concerned.

This could start a trend. Like paintings by cats...

then it makes you wonder about other copyrights.

is it only human? can a baby own a copyright?

how about a zoo? if an animal paints something, do they own the copyright? does the zoo? the provided the idea, maybe even the training. if a monkey, elephant, etc make a picture, does the zoo own it? is it public? can i take and download those images that certain elephants paint and call it my own because animals don't have rights? the zoo can sue me, but based on this logic its public.

oddly, you can will all your money to your cat, and that seems legal.

if a person sets up a camera to take random pictures and it's tripped by some odd means, would the public own that image? if you attached a gopro to a dogs head to get a new view - does the dog own the copyright? or he person putting it on the dog?


---Mike Savad

Mike asked, "Can a baby own a copyright?" I have a serious question. My kids are 13 and 14 and sometimes they take pretty decent photos. My son is getting pretty good, even though the camera he uses sucks, They have no desire to do any post processing* so sometimes I will load the shots to the computer and edit a few of them for them. In the past, I have put joint copyright between me and whichever one took the actual shot since they are minors. But would this be correct?

* In two years, he'll set up an FAA account and proudly proclaim he doesn't "photoshop" any of his images.

they took the picture so it's their copyright. it's sort of like, i wrote the article, but you polished it. but without my story you wouldn't have anything. even if badly written, it would still be mine. i think it's the same thing here. overall it wouldn't really matter, unless you kids plan to sue you. and you claimed ownership of those images and maybe even made money off of them.

---Mike Savad

"If the animal have rights then it has the right to respect your personal property!"

But...When he brought his personal property into the animals home uninvited by the animal...he was "trespassing"....and I don't want to get into what they do to trespassers here in FL! lol
;))

I do believe the photographer owns the copyright, as it was his camera/time/setting..etc.
I agree with Melissa and Mike 100%.

I just can not understand how Wikimedia has the right to decide what is public domain or not. Without the photographer they would not have that monkey selfie to display. Simple as that....or maybe Wikimedia took that image from the monkey's website??

Here is the photographer's website, where he explains what happened on that day;
http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/Tropical%20Forests/Sulawesi%20Macaques.htm

double post,sorry

the link is not working, you have to c/p it

i do wonder how many other things wikimedia stole and called it PD. seems like they came up with a defense really fast. and as far as they know, the guy is telling the truth and they were shot by the monkey's. he could have shot all of those images. i wonder what wiki would say to that. that it was a funny story, and they didn't really take their own images. in any case, it doesn't matter, wiki can't decide what is law. and it's hard to believe that he has to go to court of something like this in the first place. i do wonder what wiki gets out of all of this.

---Mike Savad

Some copyright "experts" think Wikimedia is correct:
"According to copyright professors, Wikimedia is right: The photo is almost certainly in the public domain.

“It’s a great final-exam question for a copyright class,” says June Besek, executive director of the Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts at Columbia Law School. “Under the copyright law as it’s been interpreted, there has to be human authorship for there to be copyright. So I would say there isn’t copyright on the photo.”
source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/08/06/monkey_selfie_who_owns_the_copyright.html

Even the Washington Post got in on it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/08/06/if-a-monkey-takes-a-selfie-in-the-forest-who-owns-the-copyright-no-one-says-wikimedia/

It also seems that depending on what site is reusing the image, they are changing it from slanted to upright.

I posted this yesterday on a thread that was closed, but in my opinion it's in the Public Domain.

"This is actually pretty cut and dry. The Copyright statue allows for only two entities to own copyrights, individuals and corporations, LLC's etc. A monkey qualifies as neither. The photographer claims he didn't take the photo, so no copyright. Remember, copyright is made the instant the image is made, not found on a storage card. There was no work for hire agreement with the monkey, so the employer can't claim the copyright. The image is in the public domain."

i really think the monkey should have some say in this right? how that would work i don't know.

i really think if the intent was to go out and shoot the picture then its the person who had the intent. if he drops the camera and it fires, then it's still their picture. if an animal reaches out and shoots it, it's the same answer. it doesn't become someone else's because an animal took it.

what if the animal was intelligent enough to pass certain IQ tests - dolphins, apes, etc. have a certain aptitude, would they get to own the image?

this is kind of like when you drop cake on the floor and someone calls it theirs because it was on the floor. it isn't theirs until i say so. up till then its still mine. the floor doesn't make it public domain. the dog disagrees and will eat it faster than you can blink. but that's what this is like. wiki took it, under the premise that the story he gave was true. if we had no story, i wonder what the so called copyright experts would say then?

---Mike Savad

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S.Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.

The photographer is not the "Author."

I think you're taking the word author in the wrong context. Author in the statute means the creator or originator. Title 17 Code goes on to say that only two entities can have a copyright, individuals and corporations and most other legal entities. A monkey does not qualify. The copyright was "made" the instant the image was created. But it was created by neither an individual or corporation, thus no copyright protection can be afforded.

If there was a "work for hire" agreement between the monkey and corporation (obviously an unenforceable contract) then the owner of the camera/corporation could claim copyright, but that can happen either.

the next question is do you really want to reopen current copyright laws? This is a real Pandora's box and not something I want to see happen. I think artists would loose significant rights due to the publics current views on intellectual property.

Jeff, you make a very good point. On the one hand it would be nice to have copyright laws clarified, but really I don't think that would happen. What we have is a big enough mess...


Personally, I vote for the monkey, and am hoping the monkey got a good monkey laugh out of the whole thing...

I wonder who will be the first to offer the image for sale on FAA??? :-)

Have you checked to see that it isn't?

if wiki wins this case, then anything that wasn't physically touched by a human - gopro, remote video cameras, trip lines, tripod shots, etc - would also be up for debate. all those things would be up for grabs.

ideally, i don't think that guy will ever share a story ever again, just because people will take it out of context and use it as a way to steal it. more so, you can't tell if those are selfies or he set up a mirror with a camera behind it. and the story was just to reel people in. all i know is, if a horse took my camera and took pictures with it - i won't tell a single person.


the monkey needs to hire a good lawyer perhaps mr smith?





---Mike Savad

Glad you said that Mike :)

White horse curious about camera
http://www.photocapturesbyjeffery.com/p974771429/hcbd76d

I would think that anything setup as automation such as your go-pro example would be good due to a clear causality between action and the creation of the image.
With the monkey there as no direct causality, so it makes some sense legally (to me, not a lawyer, etc.) that copyright was not established.

HW Kateley:

"I would think that anything setup as automation such as your go-pro example would be good due to a clear causality between action and the creation of the image.
With the monkey there as no direct causality, so it makes some sense legally (to me, not a lawyer, etc.) that copyright was not established."

I agree. There is no issue with the copyrights of sports photographers that remotely trigger cameras in the top of Madison Square Garden or at the Olympics. But the act of a monkey actually pressing the shutter button and creating an image is different.

I'm curious about the zoo animals that paint etc. I know the paintings go for big sums at auction, but the zoo must limit the sales to only the original art work.

it's not like the monkey just found a camera. the guy went there on the intent to shooting the things. what if he trained them to do that? that would be a direct intention. the fact he went there at all with the gear is a direct intention.

is it that people are bothered that a monkey took a better picture of itself than most humans can do? - it's even straight. or are people hung up that it has to be a human taking it?

if i make a fractal on a computer, letting the computer choose a random sequence, i say ok - is it public domain because all i did was click the button?

how about videos on drones, using a screen capture? i don't see what difference it makes when an animal touches the button and when a human does it. that doesn't seem at all right to me.

and when an elephant paints, i should be able to go right up and take that original, its public domain because an animal made it. not a wise idea being elephants are what they are, but still.

---Mike Savad

But basically the monkey did just find a camera. You leave a camera on a tripod in the woods and someone comes upon it and takes a picture. Who has the copyright? The person that pressed the shutter release and created the image. Since monkeys can not legally have a copyright, and the photographer didn't create/author it, no copyright = public domain.

Remotely operated cameras are not operated by the subject or some random person finding a trip wire or remote release etc. The issue of animals creating original works of art etc. are generally managed by the zoo operators very closely. To the best of my knowledge, they don't make prints/copies because of issues with copyrights.

if anything the monkey owns the copyright, but you can't call it public domain. because the monkey would have to release it as such, and as far as i know, he isn't speaking to the press about this.

one could also argue why it has to be a human. i think anything that is aware enough to know what it's doing, and smart and able enough to manipulate the images, should be able to have that copyright. what it will do with it i don't know. i suppose it could have traded the copyright back to the photographer for some banana's.

and considering primates are touted as one step down in the chain of evolution, they might as well be humans.


---Mike Savad

I'll tell you though. I do feel bad for the photographer. He's got something that should, to him, be worth a lot and it's not. At least not until it's resolved in the legal system. A very unenviable situation...

This is both a funny story and a jumping off point for an interesting discussion.

First, I agree that the court should decide.

But I submit that the making of a photograph does not begin and end with triggering the shutter. (I am confident the camera in use was not a point and shoot, nor do I believe it was set on program mode.)

“The monkey was my assistant”.---David Slater (the photographer in question)

I do find it interesting that while the information on this video (see below) states that the monkey snatched the camera, Mr Slater does not consider the monkey a thief.

Question: If someone, or some creature, steals my camera and fires the shutter does the camera still belong to me, yet the image is now public domain?

This sounds like one of those questions that a law professor would ask his students. (By the way, I am not a lawyer. Although I did once litigate a pro-se. :-D

One other thing. Katherine Maher, (spokesperson for Wikimedia) states that the photographer did not 'take the photograph'. I am from the old school and firmly believe that as Ansel Adams said (paraphrasing here) “One does not take a photograph, one MAKES a photograph.” (Just another bit of food for thought)

This coverage by BBC includes at least part of an interview of the photographer.

Lets hear from the photographer himself.

Animals do have intelligence.

Which is why I believe that the monkey(s) in question had no problem learning by rote---if by nothing else---to act as the photographer's “assistant”.

Lets have a look at what some consider to be one of the most non human creatures in the world.

(I believe this is a New Caledonian crow.)

(there are many other videos demonstration the intelligence of animals. That said, I do not believe they are yet capable of setting up, and producing a photograph on their own. As an assistant? Well, the photographer stated that the monkeys had begun to become so close with him they were touching, and even grooming him. Which is what many monkeys do when developing a relationship with humans.)

At any rate, please enjoy this demonstration of a “bird brain”.

if the photographer was holding any part of the camera would that count? being hung up on "has to be a human holding the camera or touching the button" and that's what they are hung up on. so if i had the camera and someone hit the button - is it that button that is making the copyright stick? and with any case can the prove that the monkey was the one making those pictures just by looking at those pictures? i think it would have to be pretty self evident and more than just an arm sticking up (look up animal selfies in google you'll see what i mean). if say that my dog actually took the picture, just for fun. it becomes public domain just like that?


i think this is a case of one of those - never thought of it - wording issues. if it's a human that does it, that means any computer aided design that a computer generated is also PD. and anything with a remote tripper is also PD. i don't see any difference. would there be a difference between setting a camera with a trip line as a trigger. and setting up a camera for the hope that the animal will press the button? i would consider that technique more than anything else. and according to him, its not like the monkey grabbed the camera from his hand.

more than that though, wouldn't people have to follow UK copyright law? or even the copyright law from the country he was in? i would think that would apply a lot more than american copyright.


---Mike Savad

meanwhile the bird behind him just took his wallet while he was distracted.

i remember years ago there were a series of videos that showed a squirrel going through crazy ordeals to get the food. they would set up far more puzzles than that bird had to solve, just to get the prize. i can't find it on youtube now, but there are other tests.

in the case of the bird or whatever. and you trained it to take a selfie, would that animal get the credit? what if you made the button so it was deliberately made for that one use?

what about that shark cam?


the shark didn't push buttons, but neither did anyone else other than putting the probe in the water. is it public domain now?

---Mike Savad

I don't believe the intelligence or capability of the monkey is a factor. Even if the monkey had a degree in photography he still wouldn't legally be the photographers assistant as that would infer some sort of contractual arrangement.

The video does bring a new factor into it however. He's saying he planned to have the monkey click the shutter,, well if so, that's no different than any other wildlife photographer using a camera trap, which they have done for decades. This goes back to causality. If he planned it, then he caused it. This is different than "the monkey stole the camera". So which is it I wonder?

in the diamond district there are no contracts, its all done with a handshake. this wouldn't be much different. right now in the end, it's the photographers word that it happened the way he said, he was being honest. if he said nothing no one would know about it (he is getting his word out this way, but that was unplanned i assume). someone shouldn't download something on an assumption, based on a story next to the image. and that's really where it's wrong.

i'm sure his lawyer is advising him to "correct" the story on video, and he could always say he mistyped it, because who would read that and assume that anyone could take it after? it would be much easier to win the case if he said he wanted them to push the button, or hoping they would. but there is still only the one witness.

i wonder how many others are now scrutinizing other images and how they were captured so they can take it as well?

---Mike Savad

Here's the photographers original account of the incident, back in July 2011.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/04/shutter-happy-monkey-photographer

His version of events now is more than slightly different. In 2011 he said he set the camera up, turned his back, and the monkeys took the camera and started "monkeying around with it" and took 100's of images before he could get the camera back. I think he needs to train his assistants better.