3 ms·
What, 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
by vilhelm_s 9y ago
What, 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...
- posterboy 9y agoHe could've deleted the photo. Instead he had the right to copy the photo and as exclusive owner that was his exclusive copyright. At which point would that have been lost?
- kuschku 9y agoCopyright protection only applies if you, personally, had a major share in creating something. A good example are music remixes, you need to actually contribute a lot yourself to have copyright. If your camera gets stolen by someone, and they take a picture, without you having any influence in that, you do not own the picture. You can not force people who want to use it to pay.
- posterboy 9y agomusic is an analogy and not informative. A camera thieve shouldn't profit from a misdeed, and the picture shouldn't be in the public domain by default. So, the photo has to be deleted because noone can claim copyright?