Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Conversion from RAW sensor data is major.

If someone makes a poster of a painting that's public domain, they will make as little change as possible from the original, but that doesn't make it legal to make copies of the poster.

Not in US law and practice. Bridgeman v. Corel = no copyright would subsist in the poster that is a mere slavish copy of the original public domain work..

QOTD
It's deja vu all over again
- - - Yogi Berra

Studio36

TouchofEleganceStudios wrote:
This could be a major issue for wildlife photographers who set up their cameras on a tri pod with motion activated sensors, wire trips and so on. What happens when the perfect picture is taken of a lion attacking a gorilla and it is assumed that the actions of the two tripped the camera sensor only to find out later that a baby elephant passing by tripped the sensor at the perfect moment.

One thing to keep in mind is of them only the photographer could turn on the camera, set the settings and hmmm, remove the lens cover.

No problem as you describe it. Photographer owns the rights. The monkey image is quite different in so much as the photographer [Slater] did NOT set up the circumstances so that the ape could merely trip the shutter. At least that's one of the stories the photographer has told.

Studio36

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

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.

no. I've already addressed this. The derivative work must be an original work all on its own. That is not the case with raw conversion (or cropping or color correcting or spot removal or other such "sweat of the brow" changes)

There Is a high standard for originality for derivative works. Much higher than for original works.

https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resourc … ments.html

Wye wrote:
no. I've already addressed this...

I'm just curious - since you seem to believe that you are THE expert in this case...what are your qualifications that make you such an expert?

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.

Careful what you wish for.
If this were the case clients would simply buy a camera and then have photographers use their camera so they could own the pictures.

Gary Melton wrote:

I'm just curious - since you seem to believe that you are THE expert in this case...what are your qualifications that make you such an expert?

I addressed it by posting the opinion of copyright lawyers working for probably the largest repository of public domain material. If anyone has a vested interest in understanding what is and isn't copyrightable it would be them.

Unlike you and others here, I actually find legal opinions to back up what I'm saying rather than just yammering on about how things should be. The law is very clear here. You guys just want to continue to live in the fantasy land of your own misunderstanding.

(Ps. Has your years of experience managed to get you any closer to my real age? Simple logic and 3 seconds of research would have told you how stupid your earlier guess was.)

Wye wrote:
............


(Ps. Has your years of experience managed to get you any closer to my real age? Simple logic and 3 seconds of research would have told you how stupid your earlier guess was.)

First, you are a 17 or 18 year old, now he wants to know your "expert" credentials, what next ? Your birth certificate ?

Bobby C wrote:

First, you are a 17 or 18 year old, now he wants to know your "expert" credentials, what next ? Your birth certificate ?

Psst.  It's a secret.  I'm actually Barack Obama.. I don't even *have* a birth certificate!

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.

I'm only presenting how I feel about this kind of issue.  I am not discussing the legal merits.

Let's pretend I'm at a park taking some family portraits.  Someone's dog runs by its leash catches my tripod and pulls the camera down.  Now, this is a BIG dog...so he's strong and keeps running and my gear is tangled up and dragged behind him.  During this time the shutter keeps getting hit and firing photos.  Out of all that crap, there just happens to be this awesome photo of the sun's light rays through leaves and tree branches.

The very idea, that I cannot own this photo because of how this image ultimately was captured is beyond offensive.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I'm only presenting how I feel about this kind of issue.  I am not discussing the legal merits.

Let's pretend I'm at a park taking some family portraits.  Someone's dog runs by its leash catches my tripod and pulls the camera down.  Now, this is a BIG dog...so he's strong and keeps running and my gear is tangled up and dragged behind him.  During this time the shutter keeps getting hit and firing photos.  Out of all that crap, there just happens to be this awesome photo of the sun's light rays through leaves and tree branches.

The very idea, that I cannot own this photo because of how this image ultimately was captured is beyond offensive.

You have to look at it the right way.

Copyright is a legal construct, not a natural one.  It is a gift from society for your act of creation/creativity.  To reward you for creating something original you are given a monopoly over the use of that creation -- for a limited time.  After that time your work passes into the public domain.

Your creativity had nothing to do with the images created by the accident of the dog's running.  You do not deserve the gift of copyright.

To put it another way.. I am not suggesting that copyright be taken away from you because of the manner of these photos' creation.  I'm suggesting that you were never deserving of copyright in the first place.

Jules NYC wrote:
No one bothered to reply on Koko.

Koko is a gorilla that is still of the living that can sign.
I'm sure if she were asked to take a photo of herself, she could... not as a trained seal for food as 'reward' but actually intellectualize it.

She could even talk about if she liked it.

Does that make a difference?

Koko has no need for money as a gorilla, but I highly doubt she'd argue who gets the money.

With that said, the human not owning copyright is a shitty/sneaky way for Wikipedia/media to keep the photos up.

If koko took a photo then it would be in the public domain just like this one is. Copyright is only conferred upon human authors. Since no human author would exist there would be no copyright. If there's no copyright then it's in the public domain.

Exactly like the photos taken by the macaque.

As for wikimedia being shitty. That makes no sense. They post content that is in the public domain. Since this image is in the public domain they (and anyone else, don't forget) can post and use that image as they see fit. Nothing shitty about it.

Wye wrote:

If koko took a photo then it would be in the public domain just like this one is. Copyright is only conferred upon human authors. Since no human author would exist there would be no copyright. If there's no copyright then it's in the public domain.

Exactly like the photos taken by the macaque.

As for wikimedia being shitty. That makes no sense. They post content that is in the public domain. Since this image is in the public domain they (and anyone else, don't forget) can post and use that image as they see fit. Nothing shitty about it.

I simply don't agree with the law.

Wye wrote:
As for wikimedia being shitty. That makes no sense. They post content that is in the public domain. Since this image is in the public domain they (and anyone else, don't forget) can post and use that image as they see fit. Nothing shitty about it.

And works in the public domain have no copyright. So Wiki is not depriving anyone of anything.

Studio36

Garry k wrote:
I think it's a sad irony that a monkey can "own " a photo but not his own personal freedom

might have something to do with

monkey not being... a person

r T p wrote:

Garry k wrote:
I think it's a sad irony that a monkey can "own " a photo but not his own personal freedom

might have something to do with

monkey not being... a person

There is even legal precedent for that. In Austria, in 2007, a case attempting to obtain "personhood" for a chimp named Hiasl ended with the chimp being denied that status.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Not in US law and practice. Bridgeman v. Corel = no copyright would subsist in the poster that is a mere slavish copy of the original public domain work..

QOTD
It's deja vu all over again
- - - Yogi Berra

Studio36

So I can go to a museum's gift shop, buy a poster, scan it and sell copies?

Wye wrote:

no. I've already addressed this. The derivative work must be an original work all on its own. That is not the case with raw conversion (or cropping or color correcting or spot removal or other such "sweat of the brow" changes)

There Is a high standard for originality for derivative works. Much higher than for original works.

https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resourc … ments.html

You're citing a software case. It's not the same.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
Not in US law and practice. Bridgeman v. Corel = no copyright would subsist in the poster that is a mere slavish copy of the original public domain work..

QOTD
It's deja vu all over again
- - - Yogi Berra

Studio36

So I can go to a museum's gift shop, buy a poster, scan it and sell copies?

As a practical matter it appears that [at least in the US] you might be able to do just that, IF, the original work is out of copyright and the poster is a mere copy. Beyond that museum gift shops might also sell transparencies of such art works as well which will make better scans than a printed poster.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is originality.

Studio36

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

So I can go to a museum's gift shop, buy a poster, scan it and sell copies?

Maybe. Maybe not. Getting paid or distrubuting implies liscencing, and some of that is s still tightly controlled. Plus there is a copyright on the poster itself. But if you're not giving them out on a large scale, or charging for anything other than the cost of printing, and you have access to the digital file or negative, you may be able to do that.

For instance, you can go to the Library of Congress site, download Migrant Mother, and make all the copies you wish. You may not be able to do that with other art, as it may require duplicating someone else's print.

Zack Zoll wrote:

Maybe. Maybe not. Getting paid or distrubuting implies liscencing, and some of that is s still tightly controlled. Plus there is a copyright on the poster itself. But if you're not giving them out on a large scale, or charging for anything other than the cost of printing, and you have access to the digital file or negative, you may be able to do that.

For instance, you can go to the Library of Congress site, download Migrant Mother, and make all the copies you wish. You may not be able to do that with other art, as it may require duplicating someone else's print.

Bolded part. According to the decision in Bridgeman there is NO copyright in the poster itself.

Studio36

Randal Scott wrote:
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?

I am not a hypocrite.  It is just my opinion that in lieu of a person taking the photo, the copyright should belong to whoever legally possessed the device at the time of capture.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
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.

I would have bought that argument until I read this:

There's a guy who sells paintings that his dog makes.  Saw him on Conan.  What a shame that would be if someone bought one, scanned it, then started selling posters.

Zack Zoll wrote:
There's the issue, right there.  The photographer has the right to be consulted for use, as he is at least partial copyright holder.  At least one homo sapiens was involved in the creation of the image by selecting it over others and altering it(thus preventing it from being 'random selection', as noted above), so he gets at least a partial copyright credit.  Whether or not he needs to share with the preserve or anybody else, I have no idea.

This is all educational.

if this ever happens to me, the images I upload will have my name plastered all over it.  that way at least I have ownership of the actual file that is worth anything.

So sad...

Michael Lohr  wrote:

Careful what you wish for.
If this were the case clients would simply buy a camera and then have photographers use their camera so they could own the pictures.

that wouldn't bother me.  As long as I am paid what I feel I should be paid...maybe in that scenario, I ask for more.  Or knowing that as soon as we're done, I don't have to worry about that client ever again, maybe I'd ask for less.

Wye wrote:

You have to look at it the right way.

Copyright is a legal construct, not a natural one.  It is a gift from society for your act of creation/creativity.  To reward you for creating something original you are given a monopoly over the use of that creation -- for a limited time.  After that time your work passes into the public domain.

Your creativity had nothing to do with the images created by the accident of the dog's running.  You do not deserve the gift of copyright.

To put it another way.. I am not suggesting that copyright be taken away from you because of the manner of these photos' creation.  I'm suggesting that you were never deserving of copyright in the first place.

I understand that. And it bothers me.  I feel our laws should be adjusted accordingly.

Mike Collins wrote:
Well.  If anything.  We know the monkey doesn't own squat so the title of this thread is wrong.  The rest is up to the courts to decide.

indeed. The idea of the monkey owning anything was the photographers straw man. He used it to make wikimedias position sound ridiculous when in fact it is correct

studio36uk wrote:
It seems a LOT of you folks are having difficulty understanding and, it seems, even believing that a contemporary or recent piece of work [something that is not clearly antique, and not old enough on the face of it for the/a copyright to have expired] can exist in the public domain simply because there is no copyright and never has been since it's creation.

Someone else noted above, and correctly, that works can only exist in one of two legal status' - in copyright, or, not in copyright and therefore in the public domain. There is no middle ground.

Studio36

Is anyone suggesting a middle ground?  Some may be misunderstanding the law while others (such as myself) am capable of understanding it and then rejecting it in favor of having it changed to reflect certain conditions.

The very idea of me perhaps leaving my camera sitting in the backyard and miraculously bird lands on the shutter causing my camera to fire a shot just as a hawk swoops down and carries off a trespassing cat, cannot have the copyright attributed to me as the rightful owner/operator of the camera is a huge shame.

The current settings on the camera were set by me.  The situation that allowed for this amazing incident to have occurred was setup by me forgetting my camera in the backyard.

That very idea that I cannot own the rights to that image...well...damn that's just all kinds of bullshit IMO.

if I had a film camera and took it to have it developed at the local shop, they could make as many copies as they want and freely distribute them because I can't own the copyright?  Right...

Christopher Hartman wrote:
if I had a film camera and took it to have it developed at the local shop, they could make as many copies as they want and freely distribute them because I can't own the copyright?  Right...

Or if you posted it on the Internet and then, like Slater, bragged about how it came to be.

In some respects Slater is the author of his own misfortune.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Or if you posted it on the Internet and then, like Slater, bragged about how it came to be.

In some respects Slater is the author of his own misfortune.

Studio36

bragged or told a cool story?

I think the story is great.  What's happened afterward is a mess...

Christopher Hartman wrote:
I am not a hypocrite.  It is just my opinion that in lieu of a person taking the photo, the copyright should belong to whoever legally possessed the device at the time of capture.

...I'm with you Christopher...

studio36uk wrote:
...Someone else noted above, and correctly, that works can only exist in one of two legal status' - in copyright, or, not in copyright and therefore in the public domain. There is no middle ground.

Studio36

Yes, and all a photographer has to do to establish copyright is mark a photo with his copyright (in the US at least).  Officially registering the copyright makes court cases easier to prove, plus makes any court cases eligible for higher awards...but it is NOT a requirement to establish copyright.

In this case, then, I'm assuming that the photographer had at least marked his photo with his copyright...and for all we know, he may have additionally had it officially registered with the copyright office.  If either or both actions occurred, then it is essentially HIS copyright until and unless an appropriate court says it isn't.

Since Wikimedia is not a court - they don't actually have the right to say it isn't his copyright and in the public domain.  If the photographer says it is his copyright, then it IS his until a COURT rules that it is not.  Wikimedia does NOT have the right or jurisdiction to declare it in the public domain.


Edit: In fact, if you stop and think about it, that Wikimedia is declaring the photo to be in the public domain is pretty outrageous.  No one can just look at a photo, hear a story and declare "your copyright is not valid, therefore your photo is in the public domain".  No one outside the courts can make that decision.

Gary Melton wrote:
Yes, and all a photographer has to do to establish copyright is mark a photo with his copyright (in the US at least).

Wait.. so I can establish copyright on a photo not taken by me and mark it with "© My Real Name" and that's it?

Is that what you are suggesting?

Because Mr Slater didn't take these photos (he said so himself).. he has no right to mark them with his copyright any more than I have the right to mark one of yours with mine.

Wye wrote:

indeed. The idea of the monkey owning anything was the photographers straw man. He used it to make wikimedias position sound ridiculous when in fact it is correct

I'm not in complete agreement with anyone at this point.  I do believe the photographer still does have some right to the image.  If not for him this image would have never seen the light of day.   And the monkey surly cannot benefit anything from it.  I'm not sure how it will play out.  It will be interesting. 

And I do have to applaud the photographer for fighting for his rights as a photographer and to just not let anyone say ""We say" it's public domain so we can do it."  "Oh, because "you said" it was public domain makes it so?  I don't think so."

It may well be.  But no one has decided that yet.  Besides Wikipedia.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

So I can go to a museum's gift shop, buy a poster, scan it and sell copies?

If that poster is an exact copy of a work that is in the public domain (say the Mona Lisa) then yes.. you can scan that poster and sell copies all you want.

The poster does not constitute a derivative work and thus enjoys no copyright of its own.

Mike Collins wrote:
I'm not in complete agreement with anyone at this point.  I do believe the photographer still does have some right to the image.  If not for him this image would have never seen the light of day.

Doesn't matter.  That has nothing to do with the *creation* of the image.. which is the moment at which copyright is conferred.

Gary Melton wrote:
Since Wikimedia is not a court - they don't actually have the right to say it isn't his copyright and in the public domain.  If the photographer says it is his copyright, then it IS his until a COURT rules that it is not.  Wikimedia does NOT have the right or jurisdiction to declare it in the public domain.

No. That's not the way it works.

If party A feels that party B has infringed upon their copyright then *party A* must prove that they hold a valid copyright as a basis for suing for infringement.  It is not beholden on party B to prove that no copyright exists.

Wye wrote:

Wait.. so I can establish copyright on a photo not taken by me and mark it with "© My Real Name" and that's it?

Is that what you are suggesting?

Because Mr Slater didn't take these photos (he said so himself).. he has no right to mark them with his copyright any more than I have the right to mark one of yours with mine.

The image was in his camera, if he says he took it, the monkey is in no position to say that he didn't.  It does work that way - any photo I take, I mark it with my copyright so that makes it mine.  It would be up to a court to prove that some monkey took my photo instead of me.