3 ms·

> This came up when a gorilla grabbed a camera and took a selfie. As I recall, it was deemed no human was involved so the picture was not copyrightable. No. No

by ummonk 5y ago

> This came up when a gorilla grabbed a camera and took a selfie. As I recall, it was deemed no human was involved so the picture was not copyrightable. No. Nothing was deemed because the photographer didn’t sue Wikimedia for copyright infringement. Had he done so, he very likely would have won, as setting up the conditions to ensure that the monkeys would take selfies with his camera is almost certainly sufficient human involvement.

chrismcb 5y ago
He works have lost. The argument was over the past production in the photo. Seeing the camera settings isn't though. Otherwise every photo that used auto settings would be owned by the camera company
- ummonk 5y ago
  > He works have lost. The argument was over the past production in the photo. Seeing the camera settings isn't though. Are you saying that a photographer doesn't own the copyright on a photo he takes with a delay timer? How about a camera he sets up with a motion sensor? > Otherwise every photo that used auto settings would be owned by the camera company No, it's about the camera operator owning the copyright, not the camera company
  - staticman2 5y ago
    I don't know if the camera operator set things up in such a way he can be said to have taken the gorilla selfie picture. Maybe he did or didn't. Maybe nobody knows since it hasn't gone to court and a judge hasn't made up new case law yet and the facts are unique. I'm not clear on what happened, I mentioned it as an anecdote related to a general point about the law. But we can say for sure if the camera owner had not set up the shot and a monkey just grabbed the camera from him and took a selfie, to the camera owner's surprise, the photo would not be copyrightable "The U.S. Copyright Office, since the dispute began, has specifically listed 'a photograph taken by a monkey' as an example of an item that cannot be copyrighted." (That also extends to artworks by elephants.) " https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/12/550417823/-animal-rights-advocates-photographer-compromise-over-ownership-of-monkey-selfie https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/12/550417823...

by ummonk 5y ago

chrismcb 5y ago

He works have lost. The argument was over the past production in the photo. Seeing the camera settings isn't though. Otherwise every photo that used auto settings would be owned by the camera company

ummonk 5y ago
> He works have lost. The argument was over the past production in the photo. Seeing the camera settings isn't though. Are you saying that a photographer doesn't own the copyright on a photo he takes with a delay timer? How about a camera he sets up with a motion sensor? > Otherwise every photo that used auto settings would be owned by the camera company No, it's about the camera operator owning the copyright, not the camera company
- staticman2 5y ago
  I don't know if the camera operator set things up in such a way he can be said to have taken the gorilla selfie picture. Maybe he did or didn't. Maybe nobody knows since it hasn't gone to court and a judge hasn't made up new case law yet and the facts are unique. I'm not clear on what happened, I mentioned it as an anecdote related to a general point about the law. But we can say for sure if the camera owner had not set up the shot and a monkey just grabbed the camera from him and took a selfie, to the camera owner's surprise, the photo would not be copyrightable "The U.S. Copyright Office, since the dispute began, has specifically listed 'a photograph taken by a monkey' as an example of an item that cannot be copyrighted." (That also extends to artworks by elephants.) " https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/12/550417823/-animal-rights-advocates-photographer-compromise-over-ownership-of-monkey-selfie https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/12/550417823...