7 ms·

I can set my Canon to take a picture after a 10 second delay, so that I don't have to be in the presence of my camera to take a picture. Canon does not own the

I can set my Canon to take a picture after a 10 second delay, so that I don't have to be in the presence of my camera to take a picture. Canon does not own the image, simply because it activated the triggering mechanism.

monochromatic 15y ago
That's not really comparable. You yourself would hold copyright under those circumstances.
- Joakal 15y ago
  What if the camera falls out of a ripped bag at an airport by a handler and upon hitting concrete, button-first, it takes a picture that would go on to become incredibly popular? Stakeholders: 1) Owner of bag may claim that it was done on purpose. 2) Owner of camera for the trigger-like aim despite it only happening to camera under severe stress. 3) Baggage handler initiated despite being unaware that the camera took a picture at all until news came out. 4) Baggage company due to contract clause.
danilocampos 15y ago
You activated the triggering mechanism. Its delay is inconsequential, whether it is 10ms or 10 minutes, since you are the proximate cause of the capture. These primates composed and snapped the photos themselves, unaided, on their own initiative. The providence of the camera doesn't make the camera's owner the copyright holder, any more than using a rented camera makes the rental company owner of the resulting images. Composition and shot timing are the two primary creative acts in photography — the monkeys did both.
- Terretta 15y ago
  In further support of this, the photographer didn't "activate the triggering mechanism" by even intentionally leaving the camera in hopes to have them take the photos. I'd argue that a tripwire or any other mechanism of photographer intent to have the animals photograph themselves, would be akin to setting the timer. But, he says it was accidental: > One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy, said Slater, 46.
derobert 15y ago
Copyright (under US law) is for creative acts. The creativity in a photograph is things like setting up the shot, framing it, choice of subjects, lighting, angle, aperture, focus, etc. If there is no creativity, there is no copyright. See Feist. So the delay, and even who presses the button doesn't matter; the only thing that matters is who is responsible for the creative aspects of the photograph. And, in this case, whether a non-human can, as a legal matter, create an "original work of authorship".
- tb 15y ago
  The monkeys took many photos, most of which were out of focus or poorly composed. Could not sorting through the essentially random photos that the monkeys took, and selecting those with most artistic potential, and perhaps cropping them to improve the composition, be considered a creative act?
  - bluedanieru 15y ago
    Ask yourself this question again but forget that monkeys took the photos. Who would own the copyright in that case?
    - tb 15y ago
      The person who took the photos, since that would be the creative act. Sorting through the photos and selecting the good ones is also a creative act, but it is a derivative work because the original images are copyright protected. The difference comes about because monkeys are not capable of owning copyright, and hence are not capable of "creative acts" as far as copyright is concerned.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    Cropping photos I could possibly believe to be a creative act, but I would find it absurd to consider selecting only the in-focus photos to be a "creative" act. I would put that decision on par with alphabetizing the phone book.
    - 15y ago

monochromatic 15y ago

That's not really comparable. You yourself would hold copyright under those circumstances.

Joakal 15y ago
What if the camera falls out of a ripped bag at an airport by a handler and upon hitting concrete, button-first, it takes a picture that would go on to become incredibly popular? Stakeholders: 1) Owner of bag may claim that it was done on purpose. 2) Owner of camera for the trigger-like aim despite it only happening to camera under severe stress. 3) Baggage handler initiated despite being unaware that the camera took a picture at all until news came out. 4) Baggage company due to contract clause.

danilocampos 15y ago

You activated the triggering mechanism. Its delay is inconsequential, whether it is 10ms or 10 minutes, since you are the proximate cause of the capture. These primates composed and snapped the photos themselves, unaided, on their own initiative. The providence of the camera doesn't make the camera's owner the copyright holder, any more than using a rented camera makes the rental company owner of the resulting images. Composition and shot timing are the two primary creative acts in photography — the monkeys did both.

Terretta 15y ago
In further support of this, the photographer didn't "activate the triggering mechanism" by even intentionally leaving the camera in hopes to have them take the photos. I'd argue that a tripwire or any other mechanism of photographer intent to have the animals photograph themselves, would be akin to setting the timer. But, he says it was accidental: > One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy, said Slater, 46.

derobert 15y ago

Copyright (under US law) is for creative acts. The creativity in a photograph is things like setting up the shot, framing it, choice of subjects, lighting, angle, aperture, focus, etc. If there is no creativity, there is no copyright. See Feist. So the delay, and even who presses the button doesn't matter; the only thing that matters is who is responsible for the creative aspects of the photograph. And, in this case, whether a non-human can, as a legal matter, create an "original work of authorship".

tb 15y ago
The monkeys took many photos, most of which were out of focus or poorly composed. Could not sorting through the essentially random photos that the monkeys took, and selecting those with most artistic potential, and perhaps cropping them to improve the composition, be considered a creative act?
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  Ask yourself this question again but forget that monkeys took the photos. Who would own the copyright in that case?
  - tb 15y ago
    The person who took the photos, since that would be the creative act. Sorting through the photos and selecting the good ones is also a creative act, but it is a derivative work because the original images are copyright protected. The difference comes about because monkeys are not capable of owning copyright, and hence are not capable of "creative acts" as far as copyright is concerned.
- Natsu 15y ago
  Cropping photos I could possibly believe to be a creative act, but I would find it absurd to consider selecting only the in-focus photos to be a "creative" act. I would put that decision on par with alphabetizing the phone book.
  - 15y ago