10 ms·

Huh. 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

• ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  Slater'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 ago
    I 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 ago
      When he said "did enough", he meant creativity, or easily could mean that.
      • maxlybbert 9y ago
        The 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 ago
  Imagine 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 ago
    So did the camera manufacturer.
    • oba_yozo 9y ago
      The 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      Well, conceivably that could happen in the case where you pick up a rock and change it's shape.
    • vacri 9y ago
      The 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.
      • kbutler 9y ago
        But not the composition of the picture, the timing of the shot, or what was in the shot. The picture did not capture creative expression of the photographer.
• qq66 9y ago
  If 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 ago
    It does have a plan, it rejects as much frivolous arguing as possible on grounds of formality.
• pavon 9y ago
  The 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 ago
    At least PETA felt righteous in spending their money and at leat the lawyers got paid.
• sandworm101 9y ago
  You 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 ago
  To 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 ago
    Well, 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 ago
  On 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.