Debate Over Monkey Selfies And Copyright Issues May Be Over

I guess we'll be seeing a lot of stuff with that particular monkey's image on it now.

Nobody wins. The monkey can't sell his photo either.

Well, somebody wins. Just not the owner of the camera. Next time, I'd just keep my mouth shut and claim I took the doggone monkey picture if I were him.

Looks like it will probably go into the Public Domain, as Wikipedia contended.

Sorry, James, but I say, Not so fast!

The copyright office does not legislate law. There is much precedence set (for decades) for the laws on the books.

I highly suspect there will be more than one judge that will weigh in on this issue before it is resolved.

So no post processing was done? The monkey set up the camera settings? The monkey made the lens choice? The copyright office is right not to issue a copyright to the animal but should issue it to the photographer.

I personally would sue the Monkey for trespassing and using a private camera for self-aggrandizement, This would have a chilling effect on other monkeys too, as this would make all tourist cameras off limits to them. There is nothing worse than having a monkey steal your camera while traveling to Gibraltar and having them published in the Al Jazeera News and making a ton of money off your own equipment. This has to stop now !.....

The Human Authorship Requirement:

” the [Copyright] Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884)."

Examples:
• A photograph taken by a monkey

It'll be interesting to see how this goes through the courts. Lawyers and legal scholars are split on this and both sides have persuasive arguments. What hurts is the conflicting stories that the photographer has told. His original story is that the monkeys took the camera while he had his back turned and took 100's of photos before he got the camera back. The "monkey selfie" is one of many images produced.

Now, the photographer tells Newsweek that he staged the whole thing and setup the camera, background etc., and he's the author. It seems to me that he originally thought he get more promotion milage by telling one story, but when it backfired and he's losing money, now the story his he did the setup and "authored" the photo.

If the first account is true, the photographer had very little input in the creation of the monkey selfie. The monkey caused the AF to work, the cameras AE set the exposure, the monkey may have even zoomed the lens to create the framing and the monkey created the image when he pressed the shutter. The background was random and the timing of the shutter release was out of the photographers control.

If the monkey selfie was elaborately staged, and the photographer had more input than he originally stated, I think he has a strong argument against Wikipedia.

http://www.newsweek.com/lawyers-dispute-wikimedias-claims-about-monkey-selfie-copyright-265961

@Jeff. I think you are correct in that the details are critical. Sadly, we don't know them. My 1st question is, why did the story change?

I, too, think he shot himself in the foot when he went public with the story. And trying to backtrack is only hurting his street-cred.

i still don't get it though. what in the world does it matter if the US copyright allows that? the guy lives in the UK, and made the picture in another country. i don't see how wiki is covered at all. makes no sense. still, no one will ever admit to an animal or a plant taking the picture for them.

---Mike Savad

Why does it matter, or why is it important?

Because the image now has the potential to generate millions of dollars in marketing products worldwide, -- none of which at this point the photographer has any rights to.

but that doesn't matter either. US law has nothing to do with UK law. they are the only people who have any solid say in the matter. it doesn't and shouldn't come down to money. because if the US can step in and say - our law overides your law. then any country can do the same thing to us. Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights. they can change the law to say - we can take your things because of this or that reasons.

we can't do that, we can't take a trademark or a copyright even if it's in another country. because of how the law is set up. the photographer lives in the UK - that's the law people have to look at. its not or shouldn't be about making a buck over someone else's hard work.


---Mike Savad

"Why does it matter, or why is it important? Because the image now has the potential to generate millions of dollars in marketing products worldwide..."



Which sort of goes back to my post 3 hours ago: "I guess we'll be seeing a lot of stuff with that particular monkey's image on it now. " :)

"...its not or shouldn't be about making a buck over someone else's hard work. "


Mike,

We've seen that argued, um, I mean discussed, in numerous threads here. There are a few proponents that see nothing wrong with doing that. I'm not one of them by the way.

yep, wanna bet we will see that face sold here on this site, zazzle and all the others?


---Mike Savad

"yep, wanna bet we will see that face sold here on this site, zazzle and all the others? "


:)

I think you may be missing the point.

The U.S. Copyright Office has not interjected in this particular case, per se, -- at least I cannot locate anything in writing that says they have. They have only updated the U.S. books, so to speak.

Because the photographer cannot gain U.S. Copyrights, his rights to anything (products, etc.) cannot be claimed in a U.S. court. That is my understanding of how it works. So if Mike Savad wanted to take this public domain image and do some crazy monkey hdr to it, well, who can legally stop him?

I do not know if the photographer has tried to claim copyrights in any other countries.

everything these days is about money. US law only justifies it as being ok because wikimedia is US based, the photographer and the money are based elsewhere and i haven't heard their side of the story yet.

remember about 10 years ago, an american, did some crime in singapore? and he was caned for it? even though americans tried to protest and say it's wrong (based on american law), he couldn't get away with it because he had to follow the laws of that country. this is the same thing. unless UK law says it's his images, wikimedia still doesn't have a leg to stand on because they already made the assumption it was ok. and this new addition is the dumbest thing i've heard, mentioning ghosts and such? please. and it leaves more open then closed. does tripping a line count as a ghost? its leaving even more open to interpretation, opening new holes.

like if i shot a picture, accidentally, because lightning went off. and i got a great shot of lightning, is that an act of god? insurance companies think so, does that mean my image is now public domain?

---Mike Savad

i would assume UK law would stop me from modifying the image. that's how i understand it. the copyright thing seems totally useless at this point if you can't claim its your work in other countries.

---Mike Savad

the main lesson we should all have learned -- never, ever share how you got the shot to anyone. keep it yourself as a trade secret. or people will take it from you.

---Mike Savad

@Completely agree Mike. I was given that advice early on by a fellow who had been working as a photographer for many many years. He told me when he'd do something new, and tell folks how he did it, the next show, contest etc. There would be folks just copying him.

This is why i consider it a gift when people are kind enough to share. As with everything, balance.

i just wonder how many countries are now trying to take advantage over their own copyright laws to try to cache in things we and other make. like are their any clauses that suggests that if one were to take a picture of a certain place, object, location etc - then it belongs to that location? i'm betting yes and there will be more loopholes being exploited. ironically, i bet one of those are the software platforms wikimedia uses.


---Mike Savad

Speaking of "ghosts", etc, taking a photo, makes me wonder about the cameras that deer hunters (as an example) have mounted on trees to find out if deer are in the location where the camera is mounted. The motion of the deer passing by activates the shutter, and takes a picture. Who would own the copyright? The camera owner, the deer, the property owner of the woods? Just wondering.

Greg,

The Copyright Act does not explain what level of creativity is necessary for a work to qualify as a “work of authorship” under the Act. Section 102(a) of the Act states — without further elaboration — that “Copyright protection subsists… in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” Numerous courts have analyzed what an original work of authorship is under the Act.

Thanks, Jeffrey. The discussion just got me to wondering about the motion activated cameras popular with hunters, and how that would fall under the copyright laws.

Nope, I don't have one of those cameras or hunt, just wondering.

and there are all kinds of triggers - sound, laser, pressure, remote, drones, video stills, who knows where all this will lead into the future.

---Mike Savad

Greg, depending on the arrangement made with the property owner where the hunter was hunting, the property owner might have at least a partial claim. I have friends that share a portion of the hunt with the property owner. It would be reasonable to assume that the property owner should share in other "profits" created on his property.

Good point concerning the property owner, Jeff.

"i would assume UK law would stop me from modifying the image. that's how i understand it. the copyright thing seems totally useless at this point if you can't claim its your work in other countries."

In summary, assuming the photographer applied for and receive copyright protection in a foreign country, someone in the U.S. who uses the monkey picture could be held liable by U.S. courts.

-----

Generally speaking, U.S. copyright law applies only to acts that take place in the United States, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. See Subafilms,
Ltd. V. MGM-Pathe Communications Co., 24 F.3d 1088, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 1994). Under the Berne Convention, national law applies to foreign works, and the law of the country in which infringement takes place generally applies to infringement disputes. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, art. 5(1), (3), Sept. 9, 1886, as revised at Paris on July 24, 1971 and amended on Sept. 28, 1979, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-27 (1986).

Thus, copyright infringement that occurs in the United States is governed by U.S. law. However, courts may look to the law of a foreign country where ownership of the work was established or transferred in cases where questions are raised concerning foreign ownership and copyright origin even in the context of a U.S. infringement action. See, e.g., Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82, 88-92 (2d Cir. 1998).

MMMMMM..... Let's add a spin to that.... Only because it's a slow day at the Office and the boss is not looking and Ebola is here anyway.....

So I set up a high end video security system in my house, and sure enough, a catch a perpetrator committing a crime within the boundaries of my property. The TV news Media gets a hold of the footage and publishes it on TV.

So now, the robber sues me and the TV station for invasion of privacy - amongst others - because I don't have copyright to the footage, because I didn't take it - a triggering device took it.....mmmm?????

OK, rip into that scenario......

:)

"Well, somebody wins. Just not the owner of the camera. Next time, I'd just keep my mouth shut and claim I took the doggone monkey picture if I were him."

I read that article and many more on the same topic. I've already seen art work on diviantart using the image. Doesn't take people long to take advantage when money can be made.

I definitely agree with Joseph's comment above. Hopefully, as sad as the ruling is, a lesson learned for many photographers from this point forward . . .


--Donna Proctor

Don't see how he/she could sue you over copyright as they would have to have a copyright claim to do that. Also, don't see how invasion of privacy would work on your property.

Now, let's say you took the video and used it to sell security systems.... ;)

Just so won't think that I am way off my rocker here is an actual case that happened to us 3 months ago;

My wife was driving down a congested highway (I-95) in Miami - heavy stop and go traffic - My wife's car got rear ended by another driver.

The driver was to the LEFT of her, and changed lanes. By the time he looked back to change lanes, my wife had stopped. He accelerated right into her car's back end.

Here came the Police and cited the driver.

When we went to court, my wife described what happened. The Ticket Clinic lawyer - representing the other driver - had the case dismissed when they heard that the car was to the LEFT of my wife's car and CHANGED lanes, thereby hitting the car at a SLIGHT ANGLE from the rear.

Since the police office wrote DRIVER REAR ENDED VEHICLE, then technically the car was not hit from the BACK but at an angle. CASE DISMISSED....

Talk about BS, Lawyers and the justice System !...

I think the point is, that logic, horse sense, common sense, and or your opinion means absolutely nothing when it comes to law. No wonder that " A Good Lawyer Knows the Law" - but "A Great Lawyer Plays Golf With the Judge"....

Carlos, I believe this addresses your concerns and is in addition to Greg's question.

Subject Matter of Copyright:

Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

A Haiku, machine generated:

bartenders plunge, sad
smooth hysterical redhead
wanders, rancorous

This poem is machine generated.
I wonder if can be copyrighted?
If not, because it was not created by a human being, then what impact will such a copyright ruling have on that which is created by artificial intelligence devices, now and in the future?
Just a question....