11 ms·
Photographer wins 'monkey selfie' legal fight
- cjbprime 9y agoHuh. I get that the monkey doesn't own the copyright, US law seems pretty straightforward there. But I don't see how that means that the photographer does own it, since neither is he the creator of the photo; yet the article talks about him benefiting from the funds when it's sold. Anyone know what's up with that?
- ringaroundthetx 9y agoSlater's argument, from what I read, was that he did enough to the photo to own the copyright. Looking for the court documents, in any case.
- maxlybbert 9y agoI don't like that argument. In Feist, the Supreme Court said that creativity is what matters, not how much work was involved. And it doesn't have to be much creativity at that.
- ringaroundthetx 9y agoWhen he said "did enough", he meant creativity, or easily could mean that.
- maxlybbert 9y agoThe article says "Mr Slater, of Chepstow, said he put in a lot of effort which was more than enough for him to claim copyright." "A lot of effort" sounds like "sweat of the brow copyright" to me, which was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in the US.
- pavlov 9y agoImagine a wildlife photographer trying to get a picture of a bear at night. Maybe she would set up something to attract the bear, then use a motion sensor to trigger the camera. Clearly she is the author of the photo, even though the bear actually triggered its taking. I feel a similar argument could be made for the monkey selfie: the photographer didn't push the button, but he created the circumstances.
- dokument 9y agoSo did the camera manufacturer.
- oba_yozo 9y agoThe question is how directly. For instance, no reasonable person would argue that the photographer's father deserves the IP rights because he helped create a necessary factor in the circumstances by which the photo got taken (the existence of the son). However, if the father didn't exist then clearly the photo would never have been taken. So the manufacturer is involved, but very indirectly. The manufacturer definitely isn't the author. Edit: Clarified my argument
- Retric 9y agoI strongly disagree, it's like someone picking up a rock and then owning the copyright on it's shape. Copywrite implies creative control and unlike a motion sensor camera the 'artist' did not define anything about the picture.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- brailsafe 9y agoWell, conceivably that could happen in the case where you pick up a rock and change it's shape.
- vacri 9y agoThe artist in this case hiked into a south-east asian jungle for the purpose of taking wildlife pictures, and spent days gaining the monkeys' trust in order to get close to them. Sounds more like the photographer defined a hell of a lot about the picture.
- qq66 9y agoIf the photographer had set the camera to be operated by a remote control, and clicked the switch, or set up a shot with a lightning sensor, or dropped the camera and it landed on a pebble which triggered the shutter release, few would argue that the photographer wouldn't own the copyright. The monkey might be analogous in the situation. Ultimately it's just a place where the judge has to have an opinion because the law doesn't really have a plan for such an improbable situation.
- posterboy 9y agoIt does have a plan, it rejects as much frivolous arguing as possible on grounds of formality.
- pavon 9y agoThe linked article is very poor. The photographer didn't win the case, he and Peta settled: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-monkey-selfie-20170911-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-monkey-selfie-20170... Secondly, AFAIK, the case never ruled on whether Slater held the copyright to the photo, just whether the monkey could. The lower court said animals can't hold copyright, PETA appealed, then later decided to settle. When the US Copyright Office weighed in on the subject a few years ago they declared that the photo was not eligible for copyright: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-cannot-be-copyrighted-us-regulators-say/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-c... As far as I know, no court has overruled that position.
- narrator 9y agoAt least PETA felt righteous in spending their money and at leat the lawyers got paid.
- sandworm101 9y agoYou dont need to own a copyright to profit from it. Those who paid to use this photo lacked the guts to just use this not-copyrighted image. So he made a few bucks from lazy cowards. Id bet good money he sold them a contract, him agreeing to never go after them, rather than actual copyrights since there are no copyrights to be sold.
- simonh 9y agoTo get the picture he had to buy the camera, configure it's settings, select a lens, build trust with the monkeys, create an environment in which the picture could happen, examine all the pictures in the camera, curate those pictures and select ones worth publishing, apply filters, sharpening, etc to the image and then publish it. Basically, there are very good reasons involving a lot of skill and hard work as to why he had that image in his possession and you didn't, and he deserves compensation for those reasons.
- wojt_eu 9y agoWell, the monkey seems to have borrowed the equipment and outsourced technical parts of the process to a specialist and focused on the creative part. Pity the camera owner did not sight a contract, he could have charge a fee for assistance or even negotiate some royalties.
- thinkMOAR 9y agoOn another site, somebody asked the question, Can you then also sue peta when an animal then steals something of you? E.g. if the monkey would have ran away with the cam, theft.
- ringaroundthetx 9y agoLink to the appeal's court ruling? San Francisco court I assume will have it up very quickly, but I'm not sure where to look. Usually people have legal documents posted on Scribd very quickly, but my compulsory search found nothing under "naruto v slater" today
- jsjohnst 9y agoHere you go: https://en.scribd.com/mobile/doc/282396752/Naruto-v-Slater-PETA-s-Monkey-Selfie-copyright-complaint https://en.scribd.com/mobile/doc/282396752/Naruto-v-Slater-P... http://www.loeb.com/~/media/files/publications/2016/2/narutovslater.pdf http://www.loeb.com/~/media/files/publications/2016/2/naruto...
- bdowling 9y agoThose links are to the complaint and the district court's order dismissing the case. Edit: See above for link to LA Times article reporting that a settlement was reached between PETA and Slater, not that the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion.
- ringaroundthetx 9y agoOP's article says > But appeal judges at a court in San Francisco ruled in Mr Slater's favour after a two-year legal fight. but maybe this was just a denial of PETA's motion to dismiss.
- ringaroundthetx 9y agoso we would be looking for something dated September 11th, 2017 not 2015 and 2016
- pavon 9y agoHere is the motion to dismiss (contrary to the BBC article, this was a settlement, not a ruling): https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/narutofinaldeal.pdf https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/narutofin... via arstechnica's coverage: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/well-likely-never-know-if-monkeys-may-copyright-their-selfies/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/well-likely-neve...
- glangdale 9y agoAs a result of this decision most tech employers can rest easier, secure in the knowledge that they also own the copyrights on code written by monkeys.
- curiousgal 9y agoHuh, I am sure Peta's donors are thrilled knowing their funds are used in courts over animal copyrights.
- brailsafe 9y agoHere's hoping they stop donating.
- kuschku 9y agoThe interesting part with all this is that Peta’s argument actually won: The photographer has no rights to the photo, and can not collect any royalties. Because you don’t have any copyright to photos made with your camera, but only to photos made by you.
- Un3qual 9y agoI'd imagine that the photographer just gave up and didn't want to pay the legal costs.
- kuschku 9y agoNo, he actually won at first, but the US agencies responsible for it agreed that PETAs arguments were true. You can not own copyright of something you didn't created, when someone — be it a toddler or an animal — steals your camera and takes a photo, you do not own it. Now the real question is if the animal owns the photo, or if no one does. But US law allows unintuitively that animals can own things, and manage them. As lots of rich people had the idea to set a pet as their heir in their will, precedent was made for that. So the only question is if the court would follow the precedent, or follow the agencies' opinion that the image is public domain. Which led to the settlement, which argues that 25% of the image belongs to the management of the habitat where the ape lives, and the rest to the photographer.
- vilhelm_s 9y agoWhat, no. PETA argued that the monkey should have copyright in the photo. That argument was rejected by the district court, and didn't look super promising in the appeals court oral argument. There was a separate discussion about whether the photographer could have copyright in the photo, in particular the Wikimedia Foundation claimed he should not. That discussion has not been tried in court at all, and it seems far from certain (lots of legal commenters disagreed). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
- mrfusion 9y agoIt's weird this monkey is smarter than a baby but if a baby took a picture it would own the copyright. Seems kind of speciesist to me. It's kind of like the voyager episode where the holographic doctor couldn't own the books he wrote.
- Jun8 9y agoFirst I thought no way, but turns out minors can hold copyright (https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/17320/can-a-minor-copyright-or-trademark https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/17320/can-a-minor-co...). Their rights to sue may be limited in particular states, though, it seems.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- aaron695 9y agoExcept a baby probably shouldn't really hold copyright. Realistically they are not a human just legally they are. It's hard to say when human life begins but we seem to settle on treating it as after they are born. But this is nonsense in any scientific sense.
- pitaj 9y agoBabies are absolutely human, but they may not be persons depending on the definition of personhood. There is no definition of personhood.
- aaron695 9y agoOne hour before birth is it human? If so how far back do you go before it's not human, is a fertilized embryo human? If not, whats the difference post birth? We know many animals are more intelligent than babies. My point is, it's a pointless comparison. Babies don't represent anything human. And as per the monkey (in this case) can't create. It's the situation they are put in that can create the art. They are just the tool.
- 9y ago
- xupybd 9y agoDon't PETA have better things to focus on?
- King-Aaron 9y agoYeah, euthanising animals en masse generally.
- jbreckmckye 9y agoI think PETA see outrageous behaviour as a good way to raise their profile. Whether that actually helps them achieve their goals, though, I'm not that certain.
- shmerl 9y agoPeta were surely way off. But photographer himself also incorrectly claimed copyright on the photo, which is wrong, since he didn't take it. In short, the photo is in public domain.
- wantonnoodle 9y agoThe author could have avoided this whole mess and just lied and said that he took the photo "Yeah I made up the story of the monkey taking the selfie, I actually took it myself" It's not like the monkey can refute that story....
- MichaelGG 9y agoThen it's just another picture of a monkey's face, hardly worth paying much for. And anyone that had paid would feel defrauded.
- Marazan 9y agoThis has been an absolutely horrendous case that has put the photographer through hell. I have total and complete sympathy with him and support him absolutely. Twunts trying to deny him copyright on the photo (often based on ficticious versions of how the photo was taken) are screaming arses.
- AliAdams 9y agoIf I put a camera inside a tumble dryer and the motion causes the camera to trigger and capture a photo, I think I should still own the rights to the image. The monkey isn't acting with any real understanding of the creative situation so is just an agent of randomness, like the tumble dryer.
- coldtea 9y agoEven if the monkey did it consciously, it did it with stolen equipment, on a mission somebody paid good money to go and setup. And of course the photographer set the camera's settings too -- pressing the button is the easiest part. In fact, lots of nature photographers use "camera traps" with automatic trigger sensor when an animal walks nearby -- which is the same as the "animal pushing the trigger" and nobody seriously suggests those are photos the animals took.
- belorn 9y agoLet say you unintentionally put it in the tumble dryer. Would there be an artistic expression in the picture, or would it merely be functional? Threshold of originality is a complex gray zone.
- 482794793792894 9y ago> The monkey isn't acting with any real understanding of the creative situation so is just an agent of randomness, like the tumble dryer. One of the pictures shows the monkey perfectly centered with a friendly smile on his lips. In my opinion a clear indication that he did have an understanding of the creative situation, that he did not just randomly click the button.
- coldtea 9y agoThe photographer probably feels like this person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1tsGGz-Qw0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1tsGGz-Qw0 And PETA and those ruling against him are jerks of the "friend"'s in the clip caliber.
- gadders 9y agoLet's not forget Wikipedia/Media's role in this as well: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedi...
- jimothyhalpert7 9y agoThis was used as an example to question artistic intentionality in aesthetics, in Crash Course Philosophy: https://youtu.be/gDL4Zf2yEa4?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&t=216 https://youtu.be/gDL4Zf2yEa4?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNk...
- davidhog 9y agoWell, it's quite interesting stuff!
- Floatablecat 9y agoI think its strange that there isn't more discussion about the impact on the photographer and the consequences this lawsuit has had on his life, he is pretty much broke and it seems to have destroyed his career not to mention put him and his family through what I would imagine to be pretty harsh emotional distress over the last couple of years. This article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/monkey-selfie-macaque-copyright-court-david-slater https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/monkey-s... basically says a couple of months ago he was broke, couldn't afford to replace his equipment or pay his attorney. I hope this result will change his situation but even so this is a huge impact on someone over an issue that realistically is fairly niche. Questions like this are important to be answered, but surely there should also be discussion about was there a better way to do this than ruining someones life over a picture that could never have existed without his direct intervention and creation of the circumstances needed for the monkey to come into contact with the camera.