Apologies if this is well-known or posted here before, but it's a very interesting case indeed!
 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 12
Apologies if this is well-known or posted here before, but it's a very interesting case indeed!
Last edited by ameerat42; 07-08-2014 at 5:40pm.
--
Nikon D90
Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II, Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G
Nikon SB-700 Speedlight
RRS BH-55 Ballhead & B2 AS II Clamp
(no legs yet)
Interesting discussion. In Australia the photographer who presses the shutter button owns copyright (except for some cases involving commercial/domestic agreement etc).
But what is the definition of photographer? Does it have to be a human? If the law stated the PERSON who presses the shutter then it opens up another can of worms, but our law states, the 'photographer'. As far as I can understand it does not state the photographer has to be a human being. So based strictly on our laws, my interpretation is that the monkey does indeed own copyright.
Will be interesting to see where this case goes.
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
Nikon, etc!
RICK
My Photography
It's a very interesting scenario. I'd personally say that Wikipedia are using it to their advantage as opposed to doing what's right. If Wikipedia do intend say that the picture is in the public domain, it begs the question on where they retrieved it from, did they seek permission from the author (monkey), what rights do they have to use the photo in the absence of the authors permission etc. (I'm guessing, I don't know the law).
I'd say in the absence of a human, the camera owner should rightfully be the one who owns the photo, but what's right and the law don't necessarily correspond. It also shows how outdated the law actually is. I.e. if you use a motion trigger shutter release, who owns the picture?
The second question that is raised is what right does the owner have to the photo or the proceeds of the photo given the monkey used the camera without his permission?
Last edited by MissionMan; 07-08-2014 at 3:32pm.
I think you could easily argue that the monkey was the photographer, but since monkeys have no rights under our law (just ask a monkey in a pharmaceutical lab what rights it has) she cannot claim copyright.
I think the owner of the photographer may subsequently argue that while the monkey is the 'copyright holder' of the original file .. the copyright of the processed file belongs to himself.
If the image is not a jpg straight out of the camera(least likely scenario) .. then the guy how uploaded the image to where ever it was ripped from should have some rights over the image.
He should be allowed to own copyright of any derivative works.
(I reckon it'd be a foregone conclusion that the monkey didn't also process the image)
Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
{Nikon}; -> 50/1.2 : 500/8 : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8 ais : 105mm f/1.8 ais : 24mm/2 ais
{Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
{Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC
{Yongnuo}; -> YN35/2N : YN50/1.8N
If a person took the photo you wouldn't have any rights even if you did process it, but since it's a monkey you may get away with it. As I said, monkeys have no rights so they can't hold copyright. So a judge would have to decide if the photo reverted to the camera owner or to nobody? I certainly wouldn't be the monkey, more's the pity.
Having read this brief article and noting the similarities, there may be serious implication for Mongos. Well, at least Wikipedia will honour and defend Mongo's copyright.
Now, about the article. It is absurd for the human in this case to claim to be the photographer or owner of the copyright. Looking at this critically, he did no more than reluctantly ( indeed, without his consent) provide equipment which another creature used to take the photo. To claim to be the photographer in such as case is as absurd and baseless as Mongo saying he is the photographer and copyright owner of some photos that Sar may have taken if Mongo had lent him Mongo's camera in order for Sar to be able to take the photos. (Truth be told, Mongo is always borrowing Sar's equipment and not vice versa). it would be equally absurd for Mongo to claim to be the author/owner of a Van Gogh because Mongo gave him some paint and brushes at the time.
all of that only speaks to who may be the "photographer". Who owns or can enforce the "copyright " is probably another question in this case. If the human cannot claim it, then, it probably belongs the the author I.e. Mongo's relative. However, if Mongo's relo was a wild animal with no "owner", it is possible that the copyright resides in a creature that cannot legally enforce it. The likely end result is that virtually anyone can use the image as there appears to be no one who has an enforceable right to stop them - be it the human who provided the equipment or Mongo's relo who took the photo
Mongo is now sure that humans are just good at complicating things
Last edited by mongo; 07-08-2014 at 7:37pm.
Nikon and Pentax user
And your relo who ripped of a camera didn't help complicate things?Originally Posted by mongo
If the photog hadn't told the full story to start with, no one would question his copyright.
He also wouldn't have got so much publicity from being honest and telling an interesting story.
Regardless of the law, if it wasn't for him, these photos wouldn't have been taken. gives him some rights to them I think.
"Enjoy what you can do rather than being frustrated at what you can't." bobt
Canon 80D, 60D, Canon 28-105, Sigma 150-600S.
An animal can't be a legal entity. A person, partnership, association or a company are legal entities.
So my take is the camera owner is the (c) owner
regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff
Apish to think that if a [non-human primate species] triggers a selfie, then some [human concept of] copyright applies.
Bring on the planet of the Yapes.
(Oh, so we're already there?)
What next? If you go into the woods today...
(Who could bear it?)
CC, Image editing OK.
There could be an argument that if the Indonesians do not give legal status to animals (there have been steps taken in the US to have this done) and the animal was wild, no owner, the photo could be considered public domain. Either than or the copyright owner is the Indonesian government which might explain the sudden increase in fake monkeys being sold for only 5000 rupiah in Bali to tourists.
This made the nightly news on the TV down here this evening
Threadstarter
My take (IANAL) is that since the photographer is not a legal entity under the law, then no-one holds the copyright (and the photo can be freely used).
I don't see why the copyright should revert to anyone else.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in court. I could be a benchmark ruling
From another perspective ----- http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily...atement-monkey
AndrewNikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.
And now a few years later..it gets into the news again: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/rea...-1227544354589
You'd think PETA would have better things to do with their time & money.
It's simply idiotic!
I'm hoping that it costs them heaps and that they have a massive payout pending to the photography gear's owner.
It's the only way that we as a society are going to stamp out stupidity! .. make the stupid pay(heaps!)
Why is it "idiotic", Arthur. Unlikely to succeed, I agree, but some chimps (or interested parties of the chimps) managed to get legal entity status in NY, so it may be worth a try. I can't say that I agree, but it's no more idiotic than many things that are tried out legally. And some succeed.
PETA need a name change to PITA
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Add To Bookmarks
