7 ms·

As one commenter points out, it's actually pretty reasonable to give copyright to the owner of the camera— Who owns copyright on the abstract art produced when

by Cushman 15y ago

As one commenter points out, it's actually pretty reasonable to give copyright to the owner of the camera— Who owns copyright on the abstract art produced when my Roomba knocks my paints over on the canvas? Another points out it's not really different from the common practice of wildlife trap photography; the monkey wasn't "trying" to take a picture, it just triggered the mechanism accidentally. Arguing that the owner of the camera shouldn't have copyright because he didn't intend to take the picture seems highly dangerous to me— you're throwing out a lot of photography there.

bluekeybox 15y ago
Correct. Most people who give a camera to a monkey do so with the intent that a picture is taken. Another issue that is often omitted is "selection". Most photographers take thousands of photos and then choose only a few picks. This selection process is every bit as creative (if not more) as pointing a camera at some subject and pressing a button. A picture taken by a monkey is rarely the only picture -- most of the interesting pictures that were not taken by photographers themselves are actually the rare few in long series of misses. The fact that a photographer was smart enough to choose "the one" hit should be rewarded. Finally, the "copyrightability", believe it or not, is subtly determined by who the artist is, as was demonstrated countless times by pop art stars such as Warhol and Lichtenstein. Since we here are gentlemen of precision so to speak, think of it this way: there is an "intent" factor X which is multiplied by the "stature" factory Y (meaning stature of the artist/photographer in the art world -- terribly hard to determine, I know), which results in some "copyrightability" value Z. It is incredibly unfair to the lesser known artists of course, but such is the nature of fame and art. It's a winner-takes-all world.
- icebraining 15y ago
  >Most people who give a camera to a monkey do so with the intent that a picture is taken. Not what happened here: "David Slater has already admitted that the monkeys found a camera he had left out by accident and that he did not have anything to do with setting up the shot." >The fact that a photographer was smart enough to choose "the one" hit should be rewarded. Then, are the other pictures not copyrighted?
  - bluekeybox 15y ago
    > David Slater has already admitted that the monkeys found a camera he had left out by accident But he still picked up the camera. He still decided not to trash the photos. > are the other pictures not copyrighted? It's subtle. They are copyrighted of course. However, if you repurpose someone's work in a way that is completely different from the intended (Andy Baio's case wasn't different enough, btw), you may claim copyright. See Richard Prince's Marlboro man.
    - joeyh 15y ago
      I was swimming in a river and picked up a rock. I like it's shape. I must own its copyright! insanity
      - bluekeybox 15y ago
        Not insanity at all. Look up "found object as art" (Marcel Duchamp's readymades etc.) The whole concept of art in the 20th century was redefined by this idea. Copyrighting ideas is deeply entrenched in contemporary art. As a matter of fact, contemporary art is entirely about ideas as opposed to craft.
        nate_meurer 15y ago
        Good grief. Duchamp didn't just pick things up and put them on display. That's not what Found Art means, and it never has. Duchamp's art depends crucially on his creative modifications. Same goes for his Dada contemporaries and even moreso for later surrealists. How about this: go find yourself a rock, tell some people you own the copyright on its shape, (or better yet, its "idea" as you say) and tell us how they respond. Yes, you are allowed to use family members. > As a matter of fact, contemporary art is entirely about ideas as opposed to craft. Dare I ask you to back this one up?
        bluekeybox 15y ago
        > Duchamp didn't just pick things up and put them on display. The very act of "picking up" is art. As a matter of fact, everything associated with an artist is art. When an artist farts, it could be considered art if the artist intended so. Please, don't tell me that those "modifications" were somehow more important than the very act of recognizing/curating. Important -- yes perhaps -- but more important than "picking up"? No. > Dare I ask you to back this one up? I spent roughly five years studying contemporary art and it is a very general conclusion, a piece of "wisdom" so to speak, that I came to through my experience with contemporary art. I doubt that any single example I bring up will satisfy you (you will then claim that it's anecdotal evidence). Perhaps this piece of "wisdom" has been mentioned somewhere by some art critic, but I don't have any literature at my hand right now, and scouring Google could be too selective (you can usually confirm anything by performing a Google search). Basically, you have to take what I said at face value (or consider how many years you spent studying art and whether to go along with what I said or come up with your own piece of wisdom).
- mnutt 15y ago
  I've never heard of the "artist stature" theory regarding what is copyrightable; the only time I've heard stature come into play is related to derivative works and destroying sculptures. What ruling would apply here?
  - bluekeybox 15y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but from my experience with art, if two people go out for a walk, and one of them is a big-name photographer, and a picture is taken that has some interest, and it is unknown who exactly took it, there is almost no chance in hell that the lesser-known person will be able to successfully claim copyright. The reasoning is as follows: (A) the picture that was taken is interesting in some way, otherwise nobody would fight for copyright to it; (B) everything else being equal, a well-known photographer is much more likely to take an interesting picture than an unknown one. Given (A) and (B), most courts would lean towards the established artist in this case.
    - nate_meurer 15y ago
      Being a gentleman of precision, you might provide an example to support your assertion -- some kind of legal precedent or ruling perhaps.
      - bluekeybox 15y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_%28art%29#Appropriation_art_and_copyrights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_%28art%29#Appropr...
        nate_meurer 15y ago
        This wikipedia article has nothing to do with your vague assertions above, except for the bit that directly contradicts you: "Though he claimed fair use and parody in his defense, Koons lost the case, partially due to the tremendous success he had as an artist."
- kbutler 15y ago
  Selection doesn't matter in (U.S.) copyright, except as a factor in a compilation or derivative work, and then "does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting work." http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html (The photographer in this case gets full copyright for his creative selection of a set of photos - but not a copyright on the preexisting photos themselves). Note also that independent creation is not blocked by copyright, so you're free to select that same photo in your creative selecting. Artist stature doesn't determine copyrightability (though the $ and fame may help in the court case or pre-lawsuit posturing) U.S. copyright protects "original works of authorship" (generally described as the "creative expression") Not "selection", not "my idea", not "artist's right to control", not "effort", not "found art" - "creative expression" kb
tobtoh 15y ago
Quoting from the BB article which itself quotes the US copyright law: "Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable" So if you purposely setup the Roomba to knock over the paint and produce art, then yes my understanding is that is copyrightable. But if the Roomba accidentally knocked it over, then it's not - based that there was no purposable (is that a word?) human contribution to create the art. Similarly, if the photographer had handed the monkey the camera with the intention of getting the monkey to take a photo, then it's copyrightable. If the monkey picked up the camera because the photographer wasn't keeping a close eye on his equipment, then the subsequent photo isn't copyrightable. My understanding of copyright is that 'intent' plays a part in the decision.
- esrauch 15y ago
  I think the word you are looking for is 'purposeful'
- jbrennan 15y ago
  Great points. I wonder though, what if the monkey had intended to take the self-portrait. I'm not saying this was necessarily the case this time, but I wonder what implications this would have. Then again, since the monkey lacks a language with which to communicate to us, it's probably not possible to know one way or the other.
  - illumen 15y ago
    some monkey/human pairs do know ways of communicating with each other. signing, and key boards
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    Does it make any difference what the monkey's intention was though? As far as the law is concerned he has no rights in the matter regardless so surely it's irrelevant.
pvarangot 15y ago
And why not give copyright to the owner of the monkey? Both, the monkey and the camera are "ownable" and took part in creating the picture... I would even go as far as to argue the monkey was more important than the camera. Should we also give copyright to the "owners" of the algorithms that took part in calculating the correct exposure for the photographs the monkey took? And it's not like trap photography in that the monkey framed the picture himself, and framing is in itself a very important part of photography. Some would say even more than exposure that can (and was in this case, as I already pointed out) automated by the camera. EDIT: redaction.
- techiferous 15y ago
  > the owner of the monkey These macaques live on Sulawesi in Tangkoko National Park. No one owns them.
  - robtoo 15y ago
    So the Tangkoko National Park probably owns the monkey.
    - Someone 15y ago
      In many countries, acknowledging ownership implies accepting responsibility. Chances are that they would have to provide the animals shelter in winter, wouldn't be allowed to let them be eaten or die of starvation, would be accountable for damage done by the animals, etc. So, I doubt they will call themselves the owners of the animals.
      - electromagnetic 15y ago
        Plus many of the monkeys and animals in their park are likely transients that move in and out depending on the season. This would be like claiming ownership of cattle that wanders onto your yard.
fabjan 15y ago
If a human stole his camera and took a picture, it would not be his.
ZeroGravitas 15y ago
You've fallen into the trap of assuming things need to have copyright. It was only 1978 (in the US) when things got copyrighted automatically on creation, before that you had to register it to receive monopoly rights from the government.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >You've fallen into the trap of assuming things need to have copyright. It's not a trap. In a capitalist society it's inevitable that copyright protection be required to ensure things run smoothly. Artists, content creators, IMO deserve to earn a living in return for the richness they add to life. Without art and literature my life would certainly be poorer. Of course artistic works (as defined in copyright law) don't necessarily require copyright in order to be made. But what of those who write or paint or sculpt, or what have you, when there is no protection. Yes they can "get a job like the rest of us" but for some this will greatly limit their ability to create (for others the converse may be true I'll accept). But, I hear someone splutter, "a painter will get paid!", "a writer will get paid!" for the work they do ... Suppose as a writer I release a new novel. It took me 2 years to write, many hours of work. The novel takes a slow start but the initial print run sells after a month or two and less editor costs and print costs I'm only slightly in debt for the project. I send for a second run. Thing is the print house gets my order and refuses to print for me. See they're selling my novel now, altered the author, rewrote some of the autobiographical parts to put me off claiming it as my own. Oh well, there goes the house to pay off my debts. The print house of course rings some book sellers to pass on the book, "no thanks we don't want it" they say; next day they're selling the ebook on their website. What loss though? That book is pennies now when it was pounds before. The question is will the author still write? Will they have time to devote to writing without reward. Some will but I think we'll all come out of such a situation worse off. Is copyright perfect? Not by a long shot. Should we ditch it bathwater, baby and all? Definitely not.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Regardless of the 'inevitability of copyright' (which is disputable, but not relevant here), not every single thing must have copyright. There are still exceptions, and this might well be one of them. While IANAL, attributing the copyright to the camera owner seems like attributing copyright over the color patterns of a flower to the guy who watered it. Just because there was human intervention somewhere in the process doesn't mean it's an human creation, especially if there was no intent of creating it.

by Cushman 15y ago

bluekeybox 15y ago

Correct. Most people who give a camera to a monkey do so with the intent that a picture is taken. Another issue that is often omitted is "selection". Most photographers take thousands of photos and then choose only a few picks. This selection process is every bit as creative (if not more) as pointing a camera at some subject and pressing a button. A picture taken by a monkey is rarely the only picture -- most of the interesting pictures that were not taken by photographers themselves are actually the rare few in long series of misses. The fact that a photographer was smart enough to choose "the one" hit should be rewarded. Finally, the "copyrightability", believe it or not, is subtly determined by who the artist is, as was demonstrated countless times by pop art stars such as Warhol and Lichtenstein. Since we here are gentlemen of precision so to speak, think of it this way: there is an "intent" factor X which is multiplied by the "stature" factory Y (meaning stature of the artist/photographer in the art world -- terribly hard to determine, I know), which results in some "copyrightability" value Z. It is incredibly unfair to the lesser known artists of course, but such is the nature of fame and art. It's a winner-takes-all world.

icebraining 15y ago
>Most people who give a camera to a monkey do so with the intent that a picture is taken. Not what happened here: "David Slater has already admitted that the monkeys found a camera he had left out by accident and that he did not have anything to do with setting up the shot." >The fact that a photographer was smart enough to choose "the one" hit should be rewarded. Then, are the other pictures not copyrighted?
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  > David Slater has already admitted that the monkeys found a camera he had left out by accident But he still picked up the camera. He still decided not to trash the photos. > are the other pictures not copyrighted? It's subtle. They are copyrighted of course. However, if you repurpose someone's work in a way that is completely different from the intended (Andy Baio's case wasn't different enough, btw), you may claim copyright. See Richard Prince's Marlboro man.
  - joeyh 15y ago
    I was swimming in a river and picked up a rock. I like it's shape. I must own its copyright! insanity
    - bluekeybox 15y ago
      Not insanity at all. Look up "found object as art" (Marcel Duchamp's readymades etc.) The whole concept of art in the 20th century was redefined by this idea. Copyrighting ideas is deeply entrenched in contemporary art. As a matter of fact, contemporary art is entirely about ideas as opposed to craft.
      - nate_meurer 15y ago
        Good grief. Duchamp didn't just pick things up and put them on display. That's not what Found Art means, and it never has. Duchamp's art depends crucially on his creative modifications. Same goes for his Dada contemporaries and even moreso for later surrealists. How about this: go find yourself a rock, tell some people you own the copyright on its shape, (or better yet, its "idea" as you say) and tell us how they respond. Yes, you are allowed to use family members. > As a matter of fact, contemporary art is entirely about ideas as opposed to craft. Dare I ask you to back this one up?
        bluekeybox 15y ago
        > Duchamp didn't just pick things up and put them on display. The very act of "picking up" is art. As a matter of fact, everything associated with an artist is art. When an artist farts, it could be considered art if the artist intended so. Please, don't tell me that those "modifications" were somehow more important than the very act of recognizing/curating. Important -- yes perhaps -- but more important than "picking up"? No. > Dare I ask you to back this one up? I spent roughly five years studying contemporary art and it is a very general conclusion, a piece of "wisdom" so to speak, that I came to through my experience with contemporary art. I doubt that any single example I bring up will satisfy you (you will then claim that it's anecdotal evidence). Perhaps this piece of "wisdom" has been mentioned somewhere by some art critic, but I don't have any literature at my hand right now, and scouring Google could be too selective (you can usually confirm anything by performing a Google search). Basically, you have to take what I said at face value (or consider how many years you spent studying art and whether to go along with what I said or come up with your own piece of wisdom).
mnutt 15y ago
I've never heard of the "artist stature" theory regarding what is copyrightable; the only time I've heard stature come into play is related to derivative works and destroying sculptures. What ruling would apply here?
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but from my experience with art, if two people go out for a walk, and one of them is a big-name photographer, and a picture is taken that has some interest, and it is unknown who exactly took it, there is almost no chance in hell that the lesser-known person will be able to successfully claim copyright. The reasoning is as follows: (A) the picture that was taken is interesting in some way, otherwise nobody would fight for copyright to it; (B) everything else being equal, a well-known photographer is much more likely to take an interesting picture than an unknown one. Given (A) and (B), most courts would lean towards the established artist in this case.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    Being a gentleman of precision, you might provide an example to support your assertion -- some kind of legal precedent or ruling perhaps.
    - bluekeybox 15y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_%28art%29#Appropriation_art_and_copyrights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_%28art%29#Appropr...
      - nate_meurer 15y ago
        This wikipedia article has nothing to do with your vague assertions above, except for the bit that directly contradicts you: "Though he claimed fair use and parody in his defense, Koons lost the case, partially due to the tremendous success he had as an artist."
kbutler 15y ago
Selection doesn't matter in (U.S.) copyright, except as a factor in a compilation or derivative work, and then "does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting work." http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html (The photographer in this case gets full copyright for his creative selection of a set of photos - but not a copyright on the preexisting photos themselves). Note also that independent creation is not blocked by copyright, so you're free to select that same photo in your creative selecting. Artist stature doesn't determine copyrightability (though the $ and fame may help in the court case or pre-lawsuit posturing) U.S. copyright protects "original works of authorship" (generally described as the "creative expression") Not "selection", not "my idea", not "artist's right to control", not "effort", not "found art" - "creative expression" kb

tobtoh 15y ago

Quoting from the BB article which itself quotes the US copyright law: "Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable" So if you purposely setup the Roomba to knock over the paint and produce art, then yes my understanding is that is copyrightable. But if the Roomba accidentally knocked it over, then it's not - based that there was no purposable (is that a word?) human contribution to create the art. Similarly, if the photographer had handed the monkey the camera with the intention of getting the monkey to take a photo, then it's copyrightable. If the monkey picked up the camera because the photographer wasn't keeping a close eye on his equipment, then the subsequent photo isn't copyrightable. My understanding of copyright is that 'intent' plays a part in the decision.

esrauch 15y ago
I think the word you are looking for is 'purposeful'
jbrennan 15y ago
Great points. I wonder though, what if the monkey had intended to take the self-portrait. I'm not saying this was necessarily the case this time, but I wonder what implications this would have. Then again, since the monkey lacks a language with which to communicate to us, it's probably not possible to know one way or the other.
- illumen 15y ago
  some monkey/human pairs do know ways of communicating with each other. signing, and key boards
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  Does it make any difference what the monkey's intention was though? As far as the law is concerned he has no rights in the matter regardless so surely it's irrelevant.

pvarangot 15y ago

And why not give copyright to the owner of the monkey? Both, the monkey and the camera are "ownable" and took part in creating the picture... I would even go as far as to argue the monkey was more important than the camera. Should we also give copyright to the "owners" of the algorithms that took part in calculating the correct exposure for the photographs the monkey took? And it's not like trap photography in that the monkey framed the picture himself, and framing is in itself a very important part of photography. Some would say even more than exposure that can (and was in this case, as I already pointed out) automated by the camera. EDIT: redaction.

techiferous 15y ago
> the owner of the monkey These macaques live on Sulawesi in Tangkoko National Park. No one owns them.
- robtoo 15y ago
  So the Tangkoko National Park probably owns the monkey.
  - Someone 15y ago
    In many countries, acknowledging ownership implies accepting responsibility. Chances are that they would have to provide the animals shelter in winter, wouldn't be allowed to let them be eaten or die of starvation, would be accountable for damage done by the animals, etc. So, I doubt they will call themselves the owners of the animals.
    - electromagnetic 15y ago
      Plus many of the monkeys and animals in their park are likely transients that move in and out depending on the season. This would be like claiming ownership of cattle that wanders onto your yard.

fabjan 15y ago

If a human stole his camera and took a picture, it would not be his.

ZeroGravitas 15y ago

You've fallen into the trap of assuming things need to have copyright. It was only 1978 (in the US) when things got copyrighted automatically on creation, before that you had to register it to receive monopoly rights from the government.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>You've fallen into the trap of assuming things need to have copyright. It's not a trap. In a capitalist society it's inevitable that copyright protection be required to ensure things run smoothly. Artists, content creators, IMO deserve to earn a living in return for the richness they add to life. Without art and literature my life would certainly be poorer. Of course artistic works (as defined in copyright law) don't necessarily require copyright in order to be made. But what of those who write or paint or sculpt, or what have you, when there is no protection. Yes they can "get a job like the rest of us" but for some this will greatly limit their ability to create (for others the converse may be true I'll accept). But, I hear someone splutter, "a painter will get paid!", "a writer will get paid!" for the work they do ... Suppose as a writer I release a new novel. It took me 2 years to write, many hours of work. The novel takes a slow start but the initial print run sells after a month or two and less editor costs and print costs I'm only slightly in debt for the project. I send for a second run. Thing is the print house gets my order and refuses to print for me. See they're selling my novel now, altered the author, rewrote some of the autobiographical parts to put me off claiming it as my own. Oh well, there goes the house to pay off my debts. The print house of course rings some book sellers to pass on the book, "no thanks we don't want it" they say; next day they're selling the ebook on their website. What loss though? That book is pennies now when it was pounds before. The question is will the author still write? Will they have time to devote to writing without reward. Some will but I think we'll all come out of such a situation worse off. Is copyright perfect? Not by a long shot. Should we ditch it bathwater, baby and all? Definitely not.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Regardless of the 'inevitability of copyright' (which is disputable, but not relevant here), not every single thing must have copyright. There are still exceptions, and this might well be one of them. While IANAL, attributing the copyright to the camera owner seems like attributing copyright over the color patterns of a flower to the guy who watered it. Just because there was human intervention somewhere in the process doesn't mean it's an human creation, especially if there was no intent of creating it.