5 ms·

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 phot

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

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