Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
Unless the appeals court is stoned or concussed, it will make a Monkey out of PETA and put an end to PETA's monkeyshines.And, we hope, fine PETA for the groundless appeal.

Don't be too sure. It is, after all, the Court of Appeals

Zack Zoll wrote:
PETA is right - the monkey should hold copyright.

Just as soon as he writes and signs a statement that he took the photo.

As an aside, this case in an invaluable lesson for those that say 'my art speaks for itself' and those that insist on telling every back story alike.

If instead of telling everyone and their mother that the monkey took a selfie the photographer said "the monkey posed for my camera"(which is incomplete, but 100% true), there would have been far less scrutiny regarding the details of the image, and he'd almost be guaranteed to keep his copyright.

Having a monkey pose for you is still a really great story.

Would it be unethical? Legally, no - he wouldn't be infringing on any rights. Artistically ... That varies person to person.

But the point is that he lost his right because he couldn't stop running his mouth.

Something to consider when you're talking up your own work.

He hasn't lost his rights. Peta is appealing their loss, that is the judgement that went against them. Maybe you're tired from grading your student's work.

LA StarShooter wrote:

He hasn't lost his rights. Peta is appealing their loss, that is the judgement that went against them. Maybe you're tired from grading your student's work.

Actually it hasn't been ultimately decided whether the photographer owns the copyright or not regardless of the ridiculous PETA lawsuit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie

Instinct Images wrote:

Actually it hasn't been ultimately decided whether the photographer owns the copyright or not regardless of the ridiculous PETA lawsuit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie

There you go.

And my guess is it will take a long time, as(to the best of my knowledge) this is the first case of its kind.

But even if he is ultimately awarded copyright(which I doubt), too much time will have passed for him to make a profit; it's hard to sell images that have been endlessly propagated online in high res version.

On the bright side, he'll be in almost every art history and IP law textbook ever written from here on out. Personally I'd call that a far greater legacy, but to 99.9% of photographers, no paper = failure.

The F-Stop wrote:
put the monkey on the stand.. Id be curious to see what he has to say about it.

did he sign a contract?

Is a contract required for copyright?
I thought it was all about who took the picture and who made the artistic decisions.
The photographer can't claim copyright, he had nothing to do with the image. In some ways, the monkey is akin to an infant child regarding rights.

Jimmy Stoddard wrote:
I understand the desire to say the person that pushed the button owns the photo, but I can think of several instances where that is not the case. Starting with Matt Brady, and a lot of contemporary artists as well like Gregory Crewdson. It's like saying the Cinematographer on the last Avengers movie owns the movie because he operated the camera. Even if a monkey could enter into a contract (which it cannot) the "person who pushed the button" does not necessarily own the image. What about Mike Nichols work with infra-red traps? When the crocodile triggered the trap he technically "pushed the button".
One of the worst things about this case is that the photographer in questions work benefits animals and animal conservation on a much larger scale than the brain trust down at PETA could ever hope to. Winning a case like this would create a chilling effect on his work and the work of a lot of other people who make huge contributions to conservation.

All of your examples are red herrings, meritless strawmen.

In the situation we are really talking about, the monkey was completely in creative control of the image, it chose when to take the picture and pushed the button itself.
I really don't see how this instance will "create a chill" on his work, pretty much you are making a bullshit argument with nothing to back it up.

WR Photographics wrote:
Is a contract required for copyright?
I thought it was all about who took the picture and who made the artistic decisions.
The photographer can't claim copyright, he had nothing to do with the image. In some ways, the monkey is akin to an infant child regarding rights.

if you are employed by me to shoot, you need a contract to declair ownership. does your assistant hold copyrights to a job you are hired to do? if i design a sculpture n farm it out to a welder n metal fabricator... do they hold the copyright for my work? wedding photograhers employ videographers n second n third cameras, do they own the material they shot while under your employ?...

contract!

a monkey cant enter into contract!

The F-Stop wrote:

if you are employed by me to shoot, you need a contract to declair ownership. does your assistant hold copyrights to a job you are hired to do? if i design a sculpture n farm it out to a welder n metal fabricator... do they hold the copyright for my work? wedding photograhers employ videographers n second n third cameras, do they own the material they shot while under your employ?...

contract!

a monkey cant enter into contract!

The suit claims that someone can represent them, as with minors.

Zack Zoll wrote:

The suit claims that someone can represent them, as with minors.

PETA thinks that they will represent the monkey.   

The F-Stop wrote:

if you are employed by me to shoot, you need a contract to declair ownership. does your assistant hold copyrights to a job you are hired to do? if i design a sculpture n farm it out to a welder n metal fabricator... do they hold the copyright for my work? wedding photograhers employ videographers n second n third cameras, do they own the material they shot while under your employ?...

contract!

a monkey cant enter into contract!

Do you have to enter a contract with every picture you make to own copyright?
I thought not.
Your talk of contracts is a deflection. No contract is needed to own copyright, all that is needed is to be in creative control of the creation of the image.
Discuss the subject, not the strawmen you want to inject.

WR Photographics wrote:
Do you have to enter a contract with every picture you make to own copyright?
I thought not.
Your talk of contracts is a deflection. No contract is needed to own copyright, all that is needed is to be in creative control of the creation of the image.
Discuss the subject, not the strawmen you want to inject.

thank you for sounding very convincing but i see you have nothing to offer in this discussion based on any experiance in the business besides just trashing anything anyone says in this conversation.

in the 70s i had jobs i needed a few photographers n hired assistants. they turned on me last minute n claimed they owned the negatives n refused to turn them over saying they created the images and all i can have are single use prints.

we went to court n as a result the defendants hadnt realized the agreement they signed when i hired them, written by my lawyer, absolved them of any claims to the material they created for the job. they felt because they used their creative talents n pushed the button, as YOU think is the critical criterior, those images were theirs. they lost the case.

contract is everything in business.

perhaps if the owner of the monkey signed an agreement with the artist before the shot was taken, there may be a transfer of copyright or useage agreements in their contract.

besides, animals are considered property. cars n animals have no rights other than reasonable maintenance and care.the monkey cant enter into contract and you cant say you represent the monkey after the fact. if you had represented the monkey before the shot... you may have a case.

oh WR, i just realized you are in canada n you may have different copyright laws. perhaps we should also consider that when commenting?

Zack Zoll wrote:

The suit claims that someone can represent them, as with minors.

yes, the owner can represent the monkey at the time of the shoot. but to claim representation after the fact may be a stretch in court. id be curious to see how it plays out.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

Don't be too sure. It is, after all, the Court of Appeals

Ape-eals in this case

Rays Fine Art wrote:
Doesn't matter----PETA's getting their message out in a way that can reach the largest imaginable audience at the least imaginable cost. And at the same time making monkeys out of those of us that spread the story for them.  However wise or otherwise it is from a legal point of view, ya just gotta admire the chutzpah!

right on!

The F-Stop wrote:

thank you for sounding very convincing but i see you have nothing to offer in this discussion based on any experiance in the business besides just trashing anything anyone says in this conversation.

in the 70s i had jobs i needed a few photographers n hired assistants. they turned on me last minute n claimed they owned the negatives n refused to turn them over saying they created the images and all i can have are single use prints.

we went to court n as a result the defendants hadnt realized the agreement they signed when i hired them, written by my lawyer, absolved them of any claims to the material they created for the job. they felt because they used their creative talents n pushed the button, as YOU think is the critical criterior, those images were theirs. they lost the case.

contract is everything in business.

perhaps if the owner of the monkey signed an agreement with the artist before the shot was taken, there may be a transfer of copyright or useage agreements in their contract.

besides, animals are considered property. cars n animals have no rights other than reasonable maintenance and care.the monkey cant enter into contract and you cant say you represent the monkey after the fact. if you had represented the monkey before the shot... you may have a case.

oh WR, i just realized you are in canada n you may have different copyright laws. perhaps we should also consider that when commenting?

Why do you keep deflecting and introducing strawmen and red herrings?
The problem you are having is that you are trying to make this about contract law, when it is, in fact about copyright law.
As you say, the monkey can't enter into a contract, so she can't sign away her copyrights to another party, and this takes away any argument that this is about contract law.
If, and I agree with you, that animals are considered property, who is the owner of the monkey?
It seems to me that the government of Indonesia would be the owner of the monkey, making that body the legal guardian of her, and therefore the copyright owner.

WR Photographics wrote:

Why do you keep deflecting and introducing strawmen and red herrings?
The problem you are having is that you are trying to make this about contract law, when it is, in fact about copyright law.
As you say, the monkey can't enter into a contract, so she can't sign away her copyrights to another party, and this takes away any argument that this is about contract law.
If, and I agree with you, that animals are considered property, who is the owner of the monkey?
It seems to me that the government of Indonesia would be the owner of the monkey, making that body the legal guardian of her, and therefore the copyright owner.

For a guy that keeps calling out straw men, you missed a big one.

Under that ruling, I would own copyright on all photos ever taken of my dog.

Which isn't a big deal ... Unless my dog gets out and someone photographs her ... or she competed in shows ... Or we took a hike and happened to appear in someone's landscape picture.

Zack Zoll wrote:
For a guy that keeps calling out straw men, you missed a big one.

Under that ruling, I would own copyright on all photos ever taken of my dog.

Which isn't a big deal ... Unless my dog gets out and someone photographs her ... or she competed in shows ... Or we took a hike and happened to appear in someone's landscape picture.

Does your dog pick up your camera (or anyone else's camera for that matter) and take pictures with it? I'm not really sure what your point is.

WR Photographics wrote:

Does your dog pick up your camera (or anyone else's camera for that matter) and take pictures with it? I'm not really sure what your point is.

We only know the monkey took the picture because THE PHOTOGRAPHER said so.

By the implied rule that 'lacking provable copyright information, the animal's owner owns the photo', images of animals would not automatically be the copyright of the photographer - the photographer would need to prove they took the photo.

Note that at no point did I ever say that all pet owners would own every image of their pet; I said that such a ruling would be a big deal, and then mentioned several situations where someone could take a photo of my dog that just as easily could have been my photo.

If you've ever had to prove that something you own is really yours, you'll understand the potential hassle of that situation.

Zack Zoll wrote:
We only know the monkey took the picture because THE PHOTOGRAPHER said so.

So we know the monkey took the picture.

Zack Zoll wrote:
By the implied rule that 'lacking provable copyright information, the animal's owner owns the photo', images of animals would not automatically be the copyright of the photographer - the photographer would need to prove they took the photo.

You seem to be making my point for me.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Note that at no point did I ever say that all pet owners would own every image of their pet; I said that such a ruling would be a big deal, and then mentioned several situations where someone could take a photo of my dog that just as easily could have been my photo.

You don't seem to be making a point here.

Zack Zoll wrote:
If you've ever had to prove that something you own is really yours, you'll understand the potential hassle of that situation.

I have, and it's a hassle, I agree. The photographer should never have said anything about the monkey taking the picture. Had he kept his mouth shut, there would be no debate.
However, he didn't, and in doing so put the ownership of the image into question.

AS an aside, the ONLY reason this picture is considered cool is because the monkey took it. If the photographer had kept his mouth shut about who the photographer was, it's really unlikely this image would have been noticed by anyone. It's really just a crooked picture of a monkey.

Shot By Adam wrote:
The point in all of this that is ultimately the most important, and yet seldom included in the conversation about this topic, is that PETA couldn't care less about the copyright portion of this entire matter. As far as they are concerned, it's really irrelevant to the entire issue. They are just using this as leverage to promote their idiotic propaganda that animals have the same rights as humans. That's literally all they care about. If they can get it on the books that a monkey has rights to copyright ownership, it's just one more dig that they can get into the legal system to which their ultimate goal is to do things such as ban zoos, ban pet ownership, etc....all things they have completely said they are in favor of as an organization.

very good point indeed.

WR Photographics wrote:

Zack Zoll wrote:
We only know the monkey took the picture because THE PHOTOGRAPHER said so.

So we know the monkey took the picture.

Zack Zoll wrote:
By the implied rule that 'lacking provable copyright information, the animal's owner owns the photo', images of animals would not automatically be the copyright of the photographer - the photographer would need to prove they took the photo.

You seem to be making my point for me.

You don't seem to be making a point here.

I have, and it's a hassle, I agree. The photographer should never have said anything about the monkey taking the picture. Had he kept his mouth shut, there would be no debate.
However, he didn't, and in doing so put the ownership of the image into question.

AS an aside, the ONLY reason this picture is considered cool is because the monkey took it. If the photographer had kept his mouth shut about who the photographer was, it's really unlikely this image would have been noticed by anyone. It's really just a crooked picture of a monkey.

I don't know what you're arguing with anymore ... But it seems pretty clear that you want to keep arguing, so I'll let it go.

Just let me rephrase a bit so you have something more coherent to argue with ... I posted at the end of a long day yesterday, and I see now that I didn't make as much sense as I thought I did.

Post should have read:

"For a guy that really likes naming bad arguments, you're still making one.

Creating a precedent for all unproven copyright images to belong to the animals' owners will effectively require photographers to prove the copyright they already own. Such a law doesn't exist in other situations; if some one can't prove that they took my photo, that doesn't automatically make it mine.

I would also need to prove I took it, or else it becomes orphaned because "nobody" took it. I can't just claim stuff because their is no provable or visible copyright.

Giving copyright to an owner by default would essentially mean that anyone that photographs animals has to prove their innocence - not the other guy's guilt. And that is the opposite of what our legal system is based on.

It would also give more legal rights to our pets than we enjoy ourselves ... But PETA would love that bit.

We both agree the monkey 'photographer' talked himself out of a win. But a court can find against him without setting the kind of precedent that you describe, and which undermines the spirit of the law."

There. Now it's all in one place, and you can argue at your leisure, without clogging up the thread with piecemeal rebuttals and naming people's arguments.

I'm on to other things.

Zack Zoll wrote:

I don't know what you're arguing with anymore ... But it seems pretty clear that you want to keep arguing, so I'll let it go.

Just let me rephrase a bit so you have something more coherent to argue with ... I posted at the end of a long day yesterday, and I see now that I didn't make as much sense as I thought I did.

Post should have read:

"For a guy that really likes naming bad arguments, you're still making one.

Creating a precedent for all unproven copyright images to belong to the animals' owners will effectively require photographers to prove the copyright they already own. Such a law doesn't exist in other situations; if some one can't prove that they took my photo, that doesn't automatically make it mine.

I would also need to prove I took it, or else it becomes orphaned because "nobody" took it. I can't just claim stuff because their is no provable or visible copyright.

Giving copyright to an owner by default would essentially mean that anyone that photographs animals has to prove their innocence - not the other guy's guilt. And that is the opposite of what our legal system is based on.

It would also give more legal rights to our pets than we enjoy ourselves ... But PETA would love that bit.

We both agree the monkey 'photographer' talked himself out of a win. But a court can find against him without setting the kind of precedent that you describe, and which undermines the spirit of the law."

There. Now it's all in one place, and you can argue at your leisure, without clogging up the thread with piecemeal rebuttals and naming people's arguments.

I'm on to other things.

I don't argue with straw men.
Try harder.

Gary Melton wrote:
Really - we're talking about ownership rights for animals?  This is utterly ridiculous!  If by some crazy, wild happenstance, the monkey "wins" this thing - it will set a really bad precedent.  Where will it all end?

It is ridiculous, but still an interesting thought experiment.
For myself, as soon as the photographer said he hadn't taken the photo, ownership should have reverted either to the public domain or the government of Indonesia, which represents the owners of the animal.

Gary Melton wrote:
Really - we're talking about ownership rights for animals?  This is utterly ridiculous!  If by some crazy, wild happenstance, the monkey "wins" this thing - it will set a really bad precedent.  Where will it all end?

and thats exactly what the court will say.

The F-Stop wrote:
put the monkey on the stand.. Id be curious to see what he has to say about it.
...

He won't say anything. The stress of cross-examination will make him go ape.