Photographer
Wye
Posts: 10811
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
And what gives the people using them the right to use them? Because nobody has copyright. So it's in the public domain.
Copyright is a legal gift from the government/society to the author of a creative work to reward them for creating. In exchange for creating something society gives them a limited time monopoly over that creation after which time the creation falls into the public domain.
In this case there is no human upon which to bestow said gift so the creation goes straight to the public domain.
Photographer
Bobby C
Posts: 2696
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
+ ^^^
In another article, the photographer claims that the pic belongs to him because he set up the camera.
There are photographers that have assistants do a lot of the work, including pressing the shutter. In these instances, the photographer gives express directions as to what the assistant should do in lieu with his/her creative vision. So the copyright belongs to the photographer and not the assistant.
This photographer did nothing to contribute to the photographs except to have his camera snatched from him by the cheeky monkey.
And wiki is not claiming that they own the photograph and making money off of it either. So no case for the photographer.
btw, that handsome monkey has the last laugh while humans quarrel over some stupid shit.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Ambient Art wrote:
That actually does raise a good question. Technically, Wikipedia STILL doesn't have the right to use it as they didn't get permission from the photographer, in which case, is the monkey. There is no copyright at all - and so they do not have to engage in any monkey "business"
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
And what gives the people using them the right to use them? See above
ME_ wrote:
According to posts on Reddit by the editor who uploaded the photo, Wikimedia's position is not, despite the wording in the media, that the monkey owns the copyright. Their position is that nobody does: that non-human animals cannot own copyright and so since the monkey took it without the photographer having set it up, that nobody owns it. I.e., it's in the public domain. They feel the photographer had little or no input into the taking of the photo and so nobody owns the copyright.
Wikimedia has stated their legal team will remove it if a court decides they have to. See: U.S. Copyright Office: Compendium of Office Practices II, section 202.02(b) and section 503.03(a)
503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.
In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable.
Studio36
Photographer
Mike Collins
Posts: 2880
Orlando, Florida, US
The monkey will never own the photo or have the copyright. It can't. Pushing the button in this case has nothing to do with it. Animals do not have the same rights as humans in just about every country I know of.
So it's not a question of whether the the monkey owns the the copyright or not. That will never happen. The question is, does it fall into pubic domain?
Photographer
R.EYE.R
Posts: 3436
Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
The problem is with Slater - - -
Slater tells different stories at different times about what happened. In one version he says the monkey lifted his camera unbidden and ran off with it to show off for his simian mates; the other version he tells is that he practically put the friggen camera in the monkey's hands [paws?] with full and detailed instructions given to the ape on what to shoot and how to shoot it.
He can't have it both ways.
Actually I HAVE seen the UNEDITED, UN-CROPPED, AND UN-STRAIGHTENED shot. If Slater claims to have shot that, or the monkey did it under his supervision, he should be ashamed of himself. LOL
Studio36
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
And what gives the people using them the right to use them? Wye wrote:
Because nobody has copyright. So it's in the public domain.
Copyright is a legal gift from the government/society to the author of a creative work to reward them for creating. In exchange for creating something society gives them a limited time monopoly over that creation after which time the creation falls into the public domain.
In this case there is no human upon which to bestow said gift so the creation goes straight to the public domain. Let's be honest - the mistake here was made by the photographer when he told the world that the "monkey took the photo" (not realizing what that could/would ultimately mean). Without the photographer and his camera (and the settings made to the camera by the photographer - even if all the settings were "auto"), this photo could NOT have been taken. IMHO, to say that the photo is a "selfie" taken by the monkey is LUDICROUS (even though it might be, in one way, "technically" correct).
The monkey could never have downloaded the photo from the camera, nor brought it to the world in any way possible. Without the photographer, the photo would never have come to be - would never have been seen by anyone. (Oh, and did the monkey crop the image and adjust the levels, brightness/contrast or the white balance?)
If the shutter is pushed on a camera - but the resulting image is never "processed", i.e.: downloaded from the camera to be viewed, saved, printed and/or transferred to someone else - is it actually a photo? What if the camera had been a film camera, and the film were never developed nor printed? It's a little like the old saw about "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?".
One other way to look at the situation: is this any different really from a photographer setting up a camera with a interval timer in the forest so that the camera takes a random photo every 2 minutes and one of the random photos happened to be of the monkey right in front of the camera starring straight into it? What if the camera was set up with a trip wire instead of a timer? In all cases, any photos coming from the efforts would only exist after the PHOTOGRAPHER downloaded the image and made them available for viewing or printed them.
The bottom line is that the photographer is ultimately responsible for the photo and should be the owner of the copyright. To say that the copyright is owned by the monkey or that the photo is in the public domain is simply a bunch of BS!
Finally - any of you here trying to defend wikimedia and say that the monkey holds copyright or that the photo is in the public domain...REALLY? If you were the photographer here, if it were your camera, and you were the one who went out into the forest to make the photos happen...YOU would defend wikimedia and say it wasn't YOUR photo? I didn't think so!
Photographer
Wye
Posts: 10811
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Mike Collins wrote:
The monkey will never own the photo or have the copyright. It can't. Pushing the button in this case has nothing to do with it. Animals do not have the same rights as humans in just about every country I know of.
So it's not a question of whether the the monkey owns the the copyright or not. That will never happen. The question is, does it fall into pubic domain? Yes.. of course it does. If there is no human entity to which the copyright belongs then the only other state of being for the photograph is to be in the public domain.
Model
Randal Scott
Posts: 449
Los Angeles, California, US
Read the article online and *knew* what the conversation here would be. And, I Just cant stop laughing...
I can find dozens and dozens and dozens of posts where so many photographers on MM say--over and over--"The minute you click the shutter, you own the copyright" or "You take the photo, you own the copyright," or "The Photographer who took the picture owns it" or some variation thereof. It's absolutely legally clear you say, there's no dispute about that, you say, there are no if's and's or but's, you say.
Only now that a macaque was the one to "snap the shutter," or "was the one who took the picture" and not the photographer, *SUDDENLY* the copyright NOW belongs to the owner of the camera or the photographer, nto the person who clicked the shutter. "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." or some variation, thereof.
Classic hypocrisy. You can't have it both ways (Well, you can if you're a complete hypocrite) Either the 'person' who clicks the shutter is the copyright owner, or he/she's not. So, which is it?
Actually, Wikipedia sided with you photographers, and went with the argument you've consistently been making for years: he who presses the shutter is the copyright owner.
And since in this particular case, the person who pressed the shutter was a 'non person,' copyright reverts to the public domain.
Makes perfect sense. How can there be any dispute?
Photographer
Shadow Dancer
Posts: 9777
Bellingham, Washington, US
Did the monkey sign a release?
It is also the model.
Photographer
Wye
Posts: 10811
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gary Melton wrote:
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
And what gives the people using them the right to use them? Let's be honest - the mistake here was made by the photographer when he told the world that the "monkey took the photo" (not realizing what that could/would ultimately mean). Without the photographer and his camera (and the settings made to the camera by the photographer - even if all the settings were "auto"), this photo could NOT have been taken. IMHO, to say that the photo is a "selfie" taken by the monkey is LUDICROUS (even though it might be, in one way, "technically" correct). It's not just technically correct.. it is correct. The photographer had nothing to do with this photo. He didn't compose it.. he didn't light it.. he didn't direct the monkey as to when to shoot it or where to point it. He did *nothing* to enact the actual taking of this photo.
The monkey could never have downloaded the photo from the camera, nor brought it to the world in any way possible. Without the photographer, the photo would never have come to be - would never have been seen by anyone. (Oh, and did the monkey crop the image and adjust the levels, brightness/contrast or the white balance?)
If the shutter is pushed on a camera - but the resulting image is never "processed", i.e.: downloaded from the camera to be viewed, saved, printed and/or transferred to someone else - is it actually a photo? What if the camera had been a film camera, and the film were never developed nor printed? It's a little like the old saw about "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?". None of these things has anything to do with the actual authorship of the photo.
One other way to look at the situation: is this any different really from a photographer setting up a camera with a interval timer in the forest so that the camera takes a random photo every 2 minutes and one of the random photos happened to be of the monkey right in front of the camera starring straight into it? What if the camera was set up with a trip wire instead of a timer? In all cases, any photos coming from the efforts would only exist after the PHOTOGRAPHER downloaded the image and made them available for viewing or printed them. Yes this case is very different. The photographer set up the camera, he pointed it in a particular direct. He designated when it would shoot or set up machinery whereby it would shoot. All of these things are in the control of the photographer and thus he is the author of such images.
In this case the photographer did *none* of these things. Not a single one. All he did was lose his camera and then find it again.
The bottom line is that the photographer is ultimately responsible for the photo and should be the owner of the copyright. To say that the copyright is owned by the monkey or that the photo is in the public domain is simply a bunch of BS! Nope.. it's the law.
Finally - any of you here trying to defend wikimedia and say that the monkey holds copyright or that the photo is in the public domain...REALLY? If you were the photographer here, if it were your camera, and you were the one who went out into the forest to make the photos happen...YOU would defend wikimedia and say it wasn't YOUR photo? I didn't think so! If the facts of the case were as with this one then.. yes. Of course I would.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Randal Scott wrote:
Makes perfect sense. How can there be any dispute? Where there's money there, too, you will find the lawyers.
Studio36
Model
Randal Scott
Posts: 449
Los Angeles, California, US
studio36uk wrote:
Where there's money there, too, you will find the lawyers.
Studio36 Touche!
Photographer
Bobby C
Posts: 2696
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
"...And to receive copyright protection, a work must be the result of at least some creative effort on the part of its author. ..." - See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fa … epRFc.dpuf The only case the photog can make is, he did post-process work on the photographs so he owns the copyright. Does that mean post-processors have copyrights...? I've never known any post-processors/retouchers to have that right. In this case, an attorney should represent the monkey and sue the photog for stealing his/her (the monkeys ) photograph. 
Photographer
R.EYE.R
Posts: 3436
Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Well, this confirms that photographer is just pushing the button.
Even monkey can do it!
Photographer
E H
Posts: 847
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
studio36uk wrote:
Ambient Art wrote:
That actually does raise a good question. Technically, Wikipedia STILL doesn't have the right to use it as they didn't get permission from the photographer, in which case, is the monkey. There is no copyright at all - and so they do not have to engage in any monkey "business"
See above
See: U.S. Copyright Office: Compendium of Office Practices II, section 202.02(b) and section 503.03(a)
503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.
In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable.
Studio36 Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable.
So the copyright is the photographers because the photgrapher contributed by downloading processed them and uploaded before Wikishitheads stole it,, that would be my take on it,, craving a piece of driftwood is a different thing is it not...
Camera setting where made and set by a human, then processed by that same person, intent was clearly to see what would happen and if something could be gotten,, otherwise there would not have been any batteries or card in the camera...
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
R.EYE.R wrote:
Well, this confirms that photographer is just pushing the button.
Even monkey can do it!
Photographer
Bobby C
Posts: 2696
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Gary Melton wrote:
Let's be honest - the mistake here was made by the photographer when he told the world that the "monkey took the photo" (not realizing what that could/would ultimately mean). Without the photographer and his camera (and the settings made to the camera by the photographer - even if all the settings were "auto"), this photo could NOT have been taken. IMHO, to say that the photo is a "selfie" taken by the monkey is LUDICROUS (even though it might be, in one way, "technically" correct).
The monkey could never have downloaded the photo from the camera, nor brought it to the world in any way possible. Without the photographer, the photo would never have come to be - would never have been seen by anyone. (Oh, and did the monkey crop the image and adjust the levels, brightness/contrast or the white balance?)
If the shutter is pushed on a camera - but the resulting image is never "processed", i.e.: downloaded from the camera to be viewed, saved, printed and/or transferred to someone else - is it actually a photo? What if the camera had been a film camera, and the film were never developed nor printed? It's a little like the old saw about "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?".
One other way to look at the situation: is this any different really from a photographer setting up a camera with a interval timer in the forest so that the camera takes a random photo every 2 minutes and one of the random photos happened to be of the monkey right in front of the camera starring straight into it? What if the camera was set up with a trip wire instead of a timer? In all cases, any photos coming from the efforts would only exist after the PHOTOGRAPHER downloaded the image and made them available for viewing or printed them.
The bottom line is that the photographer is ultimately responsible for the photo and should be the owner of the copyright. To say that the copyright is owned by the monkey or that the photo is in the public domain is simply a bunch of BS!
Finally - any of you here trying to defend wikimedia and say that the monkey holds copyright or that the photo is in the public domain...REALLY? If you were the photographer here, if it were your camera, and you were the one who went out into the forest to make the photos happen...YOU would defend wikimedia and say it wasn't YOUR photo? I didn't think so! The guy in this case was not the photographer. Just because you own the camera does not make you the photographer. He did not do any set up for the monkey's selfies, except have his camera turned on and snatched up by the monkey.
As far as your argument that the if it wasn't for the camera owner, the selfies would not have been seen by anyone goes, one name for you, Vivian Meir. If it wasn't for the people who bought her films and prints, her photographs would not have been seen by anyone. Vivian Meir is long dead. She left no estate or will regarding her works. So the people who own her material found a way to gain copyright. Regardless, Vivian Meir is still credited as the photographer.
In this case monkey took the photographs ( whether knowingly or not ) and as a previous poster has pointed out, non-humans are not granted copyright.
The camera owner can say he did the post-processing and promoted the monkey-selfies. Post processors and promoters do not have copyrights unless the creator of the work gives consent.
Finally, if I went into the forest, looked at the scenery, set up my camera and gear and clicked the shutter, I am the copyright holder of that photograph, even if someone else makes a print of that photograph. If I go into the forest, have my camera stolen, and the thief takes a selfie, then the thief ( if he/she is human ) owns the copyright to that photograph.
If I go into the forest, lose my camera, a monkey comes along and presses the shutter, I find my camera, I download the pics on line stating that a monkey "took" the photograph . The photograph is now public domain.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Gary Melton wrote:
Let's be honest - the mistake here was made by the photographer when he told the world that the "monkey took the photo"... Bobby C wrote:
The guy in this case was not the photographer. Just because you own the camera does not make you the photographer. He did not do any set up for the monkey's selfies, except have his camera turned on and snatched up by the monkey... Well, I think the opening sentence of my post really says it all. If the photographer had told everyone he had taken the photo, he would have the copyright - no questions about that whatsoever. The monkey certainly could not argue that no, he (the monkey) took it.
In fact - let's say you are shooting a model and during the shoot she picks up the camera and takes a "selfie". The truth is, if you said it was your photo - you would have copyright of it. Unlike the monkey, the model COULD argue that no, she took it...but if you and her were the only ones present at the time, the photographer would most likely win the case (unless there was some kind of strong, compelling evidence that proved without a shadow of a doubt that she took it). Even if the photo appears to show the model with her hands situated so that it seems apparent that she is holding the camera herself and pressing the shutter herself - the photographer could easily state that this is how he set the photo up and it is HIS finger that is on the shutter (obviously out of the shot since there is no way the shutter could be included in it - unless it's a mirror shot, in which case we wouldn't be debating about who took the photo...though actually, even with a mirror shot, the photographer could still argue that he set up and directed the shot).
In other words - in the real world, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary - the fact of the matter is that the person who has control of a photo taken is in fact the "owner" of it. So in this particular circumstance - the copyright holder of the photo should actually be the photographer, but unfortunately he himself unwittingly opened the door for the controversy (he himself provided the "clear evidence to the contrary").
Bottom line - I still maintain it is utterly ridiculous to say that the photo copyright is either held by the monkey (certainly preposterous since he is not human) or is in the public domain.
I further state that I cannot fathom why any photographer would defend this case...why any photographer would be happy about a case where a photo he was responsible for is taken away from him by being called "public domain". Any way you look at it - the photo would not exist without the photographer in this case!
[Please note what I have bolded above, so please, don't try to run some scenario of any kind by me wherein the photographer in control of a photo is NOT the de facto copyright holder.]
Photographer
Bobby C
Posts: 2696
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Gary Melton wrote:
Well, I think the opening sentence of my post really says it all. If the photographer had told everyone he had taken the photo, he would have the copyright - no questions about that whatsoever. The monkey certainly could not argue that no, he (the monkey) took it.
In fact - let's say you are shooting a model and during the shoot she picks up the camera and takes a "selfie". The truth is, if you said it was your photo - you would have copyright of it. Unlike the monkey, the model COULD argue that no, she took it...but if you and her were the only ones present at the time, the photographer would most likely win the case (unless there was some kind of strong, compelling evidence that proved without a shadow of a doubt that she took it). Even if the photo appears to show the model with her hands situated so that it seems apparent that she is holding the camera herself and pressing the shutter herself - the photographer could easily state that this is how he set the photo up and it is HIS finger that is on the shutter (obviously out of the shot since there is no way the shutter could be included in it - unless it's a mirror shot, in which case we wouldn't be debating about who took the photo...though actually, even with a mirror shot, the photographer could still argue that he set up and directed the shot).
In other words - in the real world, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary - the fact of the matter is that the person who has control of a photo taken is in fact the "owner" of it. So in this particular circumstance - the copyright holder of the photo should actually be the photographer, but unfortunately he himself unwittingly opened the door for the controversy (he himself provide the "clear evidence to the contrary").
Bottom line - I still maintain it is utterly ridiculous to say that the photo copyright is either held by the monkey (certainly preposterous since he is not human) or is in the public domain.
[Please note what I have bolded above, so please, don't try to run some scenario of any kind by me wherein the photographer in control of a photo is NOT the de facto copyright holder.] The camera owner gave up his copyright when he stated that he did not take the monkey selfies. It is ridiculous for him to claim copyright afterwards.
Since monkeys cannot be granted copyright, the selfies are now in public domain.
Wiki or the monkey is not granted copyright on those selfies. No one or entity, wiki included, holds any copyright to those photographs.
Your photographer/model scenario does not hold water. You are talking about a hypothetical situation. You nor anyone else cannot really tell what the verdict will be in real life.
And in regards to this camera owner-monkey scenario, your model scenario is irrelevant. Because
1) the camera owner has already said that he did not take the photo
2) You are placing human-human situation vs human-non human situation. As has been clarified by other posters, the copyright laws are different in these two situations.
As far as the merit of the selfies go, if the camera owner had said that he took those photos, they would not be as intriguing and popular as they are as monkey-selfies.
Now that the photographs are popular, the camera owner is trying to be opportunistic.
Photographer
Wye
Posts: 10811
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gary Melton wrote:
I further state that I cannot fathom why any photographer would defend this case...why any photographer would be happy about a case where a photo he was responsible for is taken away from him by being called "public domain". Any way you look at it - the photo would not exist without the photographer in this case! You can't fathom why people would defend upholding the law against someone who's lying to take ownership over something that isn't his?
Really?
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Wye wrote:
You can't fathom why people would defend upholding the law against someone who's lying to take ownership over something that isn't his?
Really? I meant every word that I said. Wikimedia is trying to profit from the work produced by another photographer - THEY are the thieves.
I've stated my opinions and I stand by them. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.
Photographer
Wye
Posts: 10811
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gary Melton wrote:
I meant every word that I said. Wikimedia is trying to profit from the work produced by another photographer - THEY are the thieves. Absolutely nothing in the law supports your ridiculous assertion. You can't steal something that someone doesn't own.
The photographer no more has copyright over the photo than someone who gives a monkey a brush and paint owns copyright over the resulting painting. Creative works created by animals cannot be registered for copyright. This photo was created by the monkey and nobody else.
Absolutely *nothing* in the facts of this situation supports the notion that the photographer has copyright. Barring an action of the court this photo is clearly and undeniably in the public domain.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Wye wrote:
Absolutely nothing in the law supports your ridiculous assertion. You can't steal something that someone doesn't own.
The photographer no more has copyright over the photo than someone who gives a monkey a brush and paint owns copyright over the resulting painting. Creative works created by animals cannot be registered for copyright. This photo was created by the monkey and nobody else.
Absolutely *nothing* in the facts of this situation supports the notion that the photographer has copyright. Barring an action of the court this photo is clearly and undeniably in the public domain. Did wikimedia have ANYTHING, WHATSOVER to do with the creation of that photo?
I rest my case. Next!
Photographer
Wye
Posts: 10811
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gary Melton wrote:
Did wikimedia have ANYTHING, WHATSOVER to do with the creation of that photo?
I rest my case. Next! Now you're being ridiculous.
Wikimedia isn't claiming ownership of the photo. They aren't claiming copyright. They are merely asserting their right to post something that is in the public domain. They're not trying to stop anyone from also using the image as they see fit.
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Wye wrote:
Now you're being ridiculous.
Wikimedia isn't claiming ownership of the photo. They aren't claiming copyright. They are merely asserting their right to post something that is in the public domain. They're not trying to stop anyone from also using the image as they see fit. I'm guessing that you're about 17 or 18 because you seem pretty naive. If you're older than that, I apologize because I honestly don't mean it as an insult...it's just my honest observation based on years of dealing with people.
Wikimedia has a reason they want to post the photo - it brings people to their website.
Wikimedia claims the photo is in the public domain so that it does not cost them anything.
Wikimedia had absolutely nothing to do with the photo's creation.
The monkey (a non-human that we all agree had no legal standing in the matter) did not know that when it pressed the protrusion on the metal box it had in its paws an image would be produced. The monkey had no idea what the device was nor what its purpose was. So I think we can all absolutely agree that the monkey bears no ownership of the photo whatsoever...yet...somehow...there IS a photo...and it had to be created somehow. Let's see, we have a human photographer who had a camera, who went to a certain place and by some magic...and some actual purposeful actions by the photographer to download the image from the camera onto a computer, where he mostly likely shaped the photo in some kind of sophisticated photo-editing software and who brought the photo to the attention of others. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that the photo would not exist without the photographer and his camera, or his travel to a particular location, or his efforts to create a photograph started by the movement of one of the limbs of a primate.
All of the above are indisputable facts.
The following is logical and addresses the reality, fairness, ethics and morality of the situation.
Given the status of the monkey - there is no difference between the monkey pressing the shutter - or the photographer dropping his camera by accident, causing the shutter to fire and incidentally capture the given photo.
There is no ethical or moral reason why the photo should be in the public domain, given that in reality and in fairness - the photographer DID in effect create the photo.
Without the photographer...it WOULD NOT EXIST.
End of story.
Model
Victoria Ellis
Posts: 129
San Diego, California, US
Maybe shared copyrights should be a thing? When you can't agree, share? But what do I know about law, I just know about common sense.
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 65617
Danbury, Connecticut, US
Wikimedia had nothing to do with the creation of Vermeer's "Girl with a Pearl Earring," but they can host it anyway, as it is in the public domain. Without Vermeer, the painting would not exist, but Wikimedia has every right to use the image. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: … arring.jpg
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
Gary Melton wrote:
I'm guessing that you're about 17 or 18 because you seem pretty naive. I think he joined back when he was 9.
Photographer
Wye
Posts: 10811
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gary Melton wrote:
I'm guessing that you're about 17 or 18 because you seem pretty naive. If you're older than that, I apologize because I honestly don't mean it as an insult...it's just my honest observation based on years of dealing with people. Your years of experience haven't served you very well.
The monkey (a non-human that we all agree had no legal standing in the matter) did not know that when it pressed the protrusion on the metal box it had in its paws an image would be produced. The monkey had no idea what the device was nor what its purpose was. So I think we can all absolutely agree that the monkey bears no ownership of the photo whatsoever...yet...somehow...there IS a photo...and it had to be created somehow. Let's see, we have a human photographer who had a camera, who went to a certain place and by some magic...and some actual purposeful actions by the photographer to download the image from the camera onto a computer, where he mostly likely shaped the photo in some kind of sophisticated photo-editing software and who brought the photo to the attention of others. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that the photo would not exist without the photographer and his camera, or his travel to a particular location, or his efforts to create a photograph started by the movement of one of the limbs of a primate.
All of the above are indisputable facts. You keep ignoring one really important fact. Namely copyright law:
503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.
In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable. Emphasis mine.
That's the beginning and end of it.
There is no human author for this photo. The photographer in question even admitted this himself! Thus the photo cannot be registered for copyright.
How is that hard to understand?
You can wish and hope and plead for copyright law to be something other than it is.. but that's not going to make it so.
Photographer
Bobby C
Posts: 2696
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Gary Melton wrote:
Without the photographer...it WOULD NOT EXIST.
Without the manufacturer of the camera, the photograph would not exist. So the camera manufacturer should have copyrights. Or maybe the inventor of cameras...?
BTW, your thinly veiled personal attack on the previous poster by saying that the person must be 17 or 18 ( non adult ) is condescending that even a 17 or 18 year old can see right through. You trying to assume a high ground by your apology is laughable at best. Oh aren't you merciful !
You are not fooling anyone, bud.
Photographer
Bobby C
Posts: 2696
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
I think he joined back when he was 9.
Except for old man Melton here, I think we all joined around that age and now we are just teenagers.
Photographer
DOUGLASFOTOS
Posts: 10604
Los Angeles, California, US
It is quite clear, even in a Kangaroo Court, this Monkey swiped a Tourist Camera, and started taking pictures. What should be done, is this Tourist should hire an ambulance chaser Lawyer, go back and find this violating Monkey and make this Monkey sign a Monkey Waiver, that states, I swiped this camera from a Tourist, and I have no legal claims of these pictures I took of myself. That should be the end of this Terror Monkey Deal.
Photographer
r T p
Posts: 3511
Los Angeles, California, US
Gary Melton wrote:
Without the photographer...it WOULD NOT EXIST.
without the monkey ...it would not exist
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
A monkey, a "selfie" photo, and several MM members walk into a bar...the bartender says "what is this - some kind of argument over copyright?"
I'll be here all week...
Oh, and before I forget about it:
"Get out of my yard you young whippersnappers!"
Model
Randal Scott
Posts: 449
Los Angeles, California, US
Bobby C wrote:
Without the manufacturer of the camera, the photograph would not exist. So the camera manufacturer should have copyrights And without the models the photo wouldn't exist. So you always share the copyright with your models, right?
Photographer
r T p
Posts: 3511
Los Angeles, California, US
Randal Scott wrote:
And without the models the photo wouldn't exist. So you always share the copyright with your models, right?
with your models you share the copyleft
Photographer
Bobby C
Posts: 2696
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Randal Scott wrote:
And without the models the photo wouldn't exist. So you always share the copyright with your models, right? This is my complete paragraph.
"Without the manufacturer of the camera, the photograph would not exist. So the camera manufacturer should have copyrights. Or maybe the inventor of cameras...? ..."
No need to get your tights in a wad, Mr. model.
If you had followed the thread, you would have understood that my comment was meant to be sarcastic.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Gary Melton wrote:
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
And what gives the people using them the right to use them? Let's be honest - the mistake here was made by the photographer when he told the world that the "monkey took the photo" (not realizing what that could/would ultimately mean). Without the photographer and his camera (and the settings made to the camera by the photographer - even if all the settings were "auto"), this photo could NOT have been taken. IMHO, to say that the photo is a "selfie" taken by the monkey is LUDICROUS (even though it might be, in one way, "technically" correct).
The monkey could never have downloaded the photo from the camera, nor brought it to the world in any way possible. Without the photographer, the photo would never have come to be - would never have been seen by anyone. (Oh, and did the monkey crop the image and adjust the levels, brightness/contrast or the white balance?)
If the shutter is pushed on a camera - but the resulting image is never "processed", i.e.: downloaded from the camera to be viewed, saved, printed and/or transferred to someone else - is it actually a photo? What if the camera had been a film camera, and the film were never developed nor printed? It's a little like the old saw about "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?".
One other way to look at the situation: is this any different really from a photographer setting up a camera with a interval timer in the forest so that the camera takes a random photo every 2 minutes and one of the random photos happened to be of the monkey right in front of the camera starring straight into it? What if the camera was set up with a trip wire instead of a timer? In all cases, any photos coming from the efforts would only exist after the PHOTOGRAPHER downloaded the image and made them available for viewing or printed them.
The bottom line is that the photographer is ultimately responsible for the photo and should be the owner of the copyright. To say that the copyright is owned by the monkey or that the photo is in the public domain is simply a bunch of BS!
Finally - any of you here trying to defend wikimedia and say that the monkey holds copyright or that the photo is in the public domain...REALLY? If you were the photographer here, if it were your camera, and you were the one who went out into the forest to make the photos happen...YOU would defend wikimedia and say it wasn't YOUR photo? I didn't think so! You've just made the photographer's case - he can claim that his RAW conversion is a derivative work. He's made a copy of the monkey's work and made a creative contribution.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Wye wrote:
Yes.. of course it does. If there is no human entity to which the copyright belongs then the only other state of being for the photograph is to be in the public domain. For the RAW photo, but not for any post work the photographer has done.
|
