A-M-P wrote:
I feel is a cheap shot at stealing the work from this photographer just because the monkey took the selfie doesn't means is free for all. The image wouldn't have been possible if it wasn't for the help of the photographer.

Look up Indonesia's work for hire laws. Was there a banana exchange or a employment contract? Maybe a internship arrangement?

A-M-P wrote:
The image wouldn't have been possible if it wasn't for the help of the photographer.

Or the camera manufacturer. Maybe they should own it.

Nicholas Luke wrote:
Which leads me this question, if I want to be in the picture with a model, I set up the shot with my camera, but  have someone else press The button, do I own it or the person who clicked the camera

I think that has come up and the answer is the person who pushed the button

A-M-P wrote:
Wikimedia refuses to remove animal selfie because monkey ‘owns’ the photo

http://myfox8.com/2014/08/06/wikimedia- … copyright/


I feel is a cheap shot at stealing the work from this photographer just because the monkey took the selfie doesn't means is free for all. The image wouldn't have been possible if it wasn't for the photographer. He created the scenario that was possible for this animal to take a photo. If the photo would have been done via a trip wire would they say the same thing?

This is frustratingly stupid.

If I drop a camera and trip the shutter, does that make it an orphaned photo because no one took the picture?

When NatGeo setups up trigger traps for wild animals to get some rare footage, is that photo free for anyone?  They didn't press a button, but they engaged by their presence the sensors to trip the shutter.  Why should that be any different than someone setting up a camera and some monkey happen to press the button and fired their own shot?

Seriously...this is so frustratingly stupid that those all involved with this at Wikimedia need to be punched in the face.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

I think that has come up and the answer is the person who pushed the button

I think that depends.  If someone sets up the composition (such as on a tripod) then it's not the person that presses the shutter release.  But if you hand someone your camera and they are left to their own devices to setup the composition for the shot, then they can claim it.

I still have issues with that.  Unless a camera is being rented or borrowed, I think it should belong to whoever owns the camera.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I think that depends.  If someone sets up the composition (such as on a tripod) then it's not the person that presses the shutter release.  But if you hand someone your camera and they are left to their own devices to setup the composition for the shot, then they can claim it.

I still have issues with that.  Unless a camera is being rented or borrowed, I think it should belong to whoever owns the camera.

Might be wrong , but ONLY if the photographer PAID the person to push the button

Other than that , the person pushing the button chose that specific instant , therefore was the artist that created an image ....

No , really , I have no idea
.. pretty sure it has nothing to do with who owns the equipment though !

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
I think that has come up and the answer is the person who pushed the button

Nonsense.  That's no more true than a claim that copyright on a book would belong to the typist if the author dictated the text.

In the U.S., copyright statutes makes it very clear that copyright arises "in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" (17 USC 102 (a)); in particular, the "fixed in tangible medium" bit is defined in 17 USC 101 as the work being recorded "by or under the authority of the author".  Statutory law describes authors somewhat abstractly (in terms addressing all types of work, not photographers in particular), but the proper interpretation is somebody who conceives the creative expression and fixes it in a tangible medium (see the earlier definition).

Button pushing doesn't come into it.  If a photograph is your idea, and you tell me to press a button releasing the shutter, then barring unusual circumstances, you conceived the creative expression and it was fixed under your authority and you are the author.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

This is frustratingly stupid.

If I drop a camera and trip the shutter, does that make it an orphaned photo because no one took the picture?

When NatGeo setups up trigger traps for wild animals to get some rare footage, is that photo free for anyone?  They didn't press a button, but they engaged by their presence the sensors to trip the shutter.  Why should that be any different than someone setting up a camera and some monkey happen to press the button and fired their own shot?

Seriously...this is so frustratingly stupid that those all involved with this at Wikimedia need to be punched in the face.

Put a person from Wikimedia and the wild .. say panther in a room and let them work it out alone ... no need for lawyers

As for the tripped photo ... would'nt it come down to say copyright metadata and the first person to post the image or register it ??

What if someone stole the game camera and posted images off it , then they would be owners of the photos  even if they are charged in the camera theft ??

Catchlight Portraits wrote:
Nonsense.  That's no more true than a claim that copyright on a book would belong to the typist if the author dictated the text.

In the U.S., copyright statutes makes it very clear that copyright arises "in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" (17 USC 102 (a)); in particular, the "fixed in tangible medium" bit is defined in 17 USC 101 as the work being recorded "by or under the authority of the author".  Statutory law describes authors somewhat abstractly (in terms addressing all types of work, not photographers in particular), but the proper interpretation is somebody who conceives the creative expression and fixes it in a tangible medium (see the earlier definition).

Button pushing doesn't come into it.  If a photograph is your idea, and you tell me to press a button releasing the shutter, then barring unusual circumstances, you conceived the creative expression and it was fixed under your authority and you are the author.

You just proved yourself wrong here ...
--  INSTANT OF CREATION   ---
that is the EXACT moment when the button pusher ACTUALLY decided to push the button down ... therefore he/she is the creator

edit : the photographer did NOT tell the monkey to push the button anyway
SO even if you are right ... it does not apply to original post

Catchlight Portraits wrote:
Nonsense.  That's no more true than a claim that copyright on a book would belong to the typist if the author dictated the text.

It seems Ellen Degeneres gave the AP the rights to send the image down the wire—but were they even hers to give? Because it turns out, copyright in this situation is actually extremely confusing. Generally speaking, the copyright for an image belongs to whoever pushes the shutter button—it doesn't matter whose camera it is. So, in this case, seeing as it was Bradley Cooper who held the phone and hit the button, the copyright might belong to him.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/20 … car-selfie

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Generally speaking, the copyright for an image belongs to whoever pushes the shutter button—it doesn't matter whose camera it is.

Fine...

Title 17, Chapter 1 (reflecting the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended) says that the author is whoever conceives the creative expression and under whose authority the work is fixed in a tangible medium.

Some random blog post, concluding with "Of course, this is all said in jest", says that copyright belongs to a button pusher.

I'll let you choose which (if either) to believe.

studio36uk wrote:
Try this - - -

Because the monkey is obviously not human; and the image was not obtained through a skilfully and artfully [by the photographer] placed trap; then it is, by Wikipedia's analysis, public domain from it's very instant of creation and very likely did not and can not attract any copyright protection at all.

Studio36

I think it'll be a pretty open and shut case. Wikipedia quotes the US definition that the work of art 'is created by nature.' The image would not exist if the photographer had not been there; therefore, it cannot be 100% created by nature. Compare that to something like a termite hive, which was 100% created by nature. If I picked up a termite hive(carefully!) and put it in a museum, I can't claim a copyright on that, since it was built entirely without me.

Since you can't split royalties with the abstract concept of 'nature', and the monkey has no legal status, the only real question is whether or not the photographer would be required to share copyright and royalties with the nature preserve, which may not even be in the same country or jurisdiction. At the very least, this guy owns at least some of the copyright.

Catchlight Portraits wrote:
Title 17, Chapter 1 (reflecting the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended) says that the author is whoever conceives the creative expression and under whose authority the work is fixed in a tangible medium.

Can you link to this section of this law in a proper way because so far whenever I search for a string of any of these words you've written above nothing comes up.

No results found for " whoever conceives the creative expression".

No results found for "under whose authority the work is fixed".

No results found for "reflecting the Copyright Act of 1976".

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Can you link to this section of this law in a proper way

Sure:

    http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

because so far whenever I search for a string of any of these words you've written above nothing comes up.

The text I enclosed in quotation marks a couple of messages back was extracted directly from the statute.  The text outside quotes is my own work giving a summary of the law.

Catchlight Portraits wrote:

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Can you link to this section of this law in a proper way

Sure:

    http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html


The text I enclosed in quotation marks a couple of messages back was extracted directly from the statute.  The text outside quotes is my own work giving a summary of the law.

The only text you enclosed in quotation marks is "Of course, this is all said in jest"

Catchlight Portraits wrote:
"by or under the authority of the author"

Are you saying the monkey was aware and following orders? They had a deal? Maybe he can be a second shooter at weddings.

Wye wrote:
I can't see how the photographer has any sensible claim to copyright. He had nothing to do with those photos aside from being the owner of the camera. He didn't conceive them. He didn't compose them. He didn't style them. He didn't capture them. Nothing about those specific photos has anything to do with him at all.

More so he didn't even know they were being created.  He had no expectation that after his camera went missing it was being used for anything.  It's unclear if he knew it was stolen or simply fell out of his bags (in the stories I read, maybe others know more) let alone by something capable of using it.

If the monkey stole a gun and used it is he a murder?  I realize that is a extreme example but the point is the same.  Simply by virtue of shopping at a bestbuy one doesn't obtain rights.  Now if the court decides it defaults to the finder then I could see a case, but not claiming he had any artistic input as the creator.

Additionally I don't see how it's hurting his business, I don't think any clients are going to hire someone base on a monkeys selfie.  He could perhaps claim losses for selling that image or would it be considered newsworthy for the sources that have used it???

Wye wrote:
I can't see how the photographer has any sensible claim to copyright. He had nothing to do with those photos aside from being the owner of the camera. He didn't conceive them. He didn't compose them. He didn't style them. He didn't capture them. Nothing about those specific photos has anything to do with him at all.

And what gives the people using them the right to use them?

AJScalzitti wrote:

If the monkey stole a gun and used it is he a murder?

If the monkey was able to steal the gun because the owner had not properly secured it, he might be charged with negligent homicide.

A-M-P wrote:
Wikimedia refuses to remove animal selfie because monkey ‘owns’ the photo

http://myfox8.com/2014/08/06/wikimedia- … copyright/


I feel is a cheap shot at stealing the work from this photographer just because the monkey took the selfie doesn't means is free for all. The image wouldn't have been possible if it wasn't for the photographer. He created the scenario that was possible for this animal to take a photo. If the photo would have been done via a trip wire would they say the same thing?

My question is if the monkey 'OWNS'  the photo, shouldn't they,Wikimedia, have to to still get the release from the owner just like any other on the wire. Second they may have been a Verbalized waiver of all rights to the photographer for a dozen of bananas,, possible, who to say it didnt happen, we wheren't there... AND I AGREE, cheap shot at stealing the work and should be reported for doing so. Or photo everyone that works there shoot them in public, photoshop them and run them all over the web.
   I am betting there was a verbalized waiver for all rights for a dozen bananas which makes all the images the photographers....  if you know what I'm sayin. Cus he did know enough monkey to step away from the camera gear, the monkey must of told him he wanted to use his gear.
   Yes, I would like to see a big law suit the photographer, animal rights whoever and Wikimedia GONE...