4 ms·

What's the copyright situation of rat selfies?

simiones 3y ago
I think it's established that photos taken by animals are not copyrightable works, so you can do anything you want with them, at least in the USA.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  That currently applies to photos with animals deliberately triggering the shutter. I would hesistate to say "it's established" without more than one precedent in US case law. However, candid nature photographs taken with camera traps are copyrighted, and Wikimedia Commons has tolerated this status since 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_trap https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_taken_with_camera_traps https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_taken_wit...
chmod775 3y ago
Surprisingly (or unsurprisingly?) it's not the first time that question has come up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... Note that this also may have implications for AI-generated work. Here's how, ignoring the many legal theories, it's handled in practice in the US right now: > On 21 August 2014 the United States Copyright Office published an opinion [..] to clarify that "only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention". However note that whether it's "copyright free" will depend on the jurisdiction and also that the article is talking about a french artist. While copyright law is very same-ish across the globe (and countries recognize each other's copyright), it often varies in the fine details.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  > Here's how, [...] it's handled in practice in the US right now: Forgive my ignorance of the nuances of US copyright enforcement, but in what form is the opinion of the US Copyright Office important? The US joined the Berne Convention in 1989, which includes automatic copyright protection without the need to register anything. And if you believe somebody violated your copyright you take them to court, which also doesn't involve the US Copyright Office. Unless they release actual regulation I don't believe their opinion on how to interpret existing regulation really matters, or am I missing something?
  - lainga 3y ago
    In the very ultimate limit, because it falls under the same jurisdiction as the USS Nimitz.
  - chmod775 3y ago
    > Unless they release actual regulation I don't believe their opinion on how to interpret existing regulation really matters, or am I missing something? To us their opinion only matters insofar that they are experts on the matter, but I don't think you are really missing anything. Courts are free to decide otherwise. I believe the US copyright office's opinions are based on precedent set in court and on their own expert understanding of the relevant laws, so you should not read that as them setting policy, but rather as them explaining and summarizing. However note that the copyright office runs a small claims tribunal for disputes under $30k. If one chooses to make use of that, their opinion do start to matter a bit more.

I think it's established that photos taken by animals are not copyrightable works, so you can do anything you want with them, at least in the USA.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
That currently applies to photos with animals deliberately triggering the shutter. I would hesistate to say "it's established" without more than one precedent in US case law. However, candid nature photographs taken with camera traps are copyrighted, and Wikimedia Commons has tolerated this status since 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_trap https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_taken_with_camera_traps https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_taken_wit...

chmod775 3y ago

Surprisingly (or unsurprisingly?) it's not the first time that question has come up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... Note that this also may have implications for AI-generated work. Here's how, ignoring the many legal theories, it's handled in practice in the US right now: > On 21 August 2014 the United States Copyright Office published an opinion [..] to clarify that "only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention". However note that whether it's "copyright free" will depend on the jurisdiction and also that the article is talking about a french artist. While copyright law is very same-ish across the globe (and countries recognize each other's copyright), it often varies in the fine details.

wongarsu 3y ago
> Here's how, [...] it's handled in practice in the US right now: Forgive my ignorance of the nuances of US copyright enforcement, but in what form is the opinion of the US Copyright Office important? The US joined the Berne Convention in 1989, which includes automatic copyright protection without the need to register anything. And if you believe somebody violated your copyright you take them to court, which also doesn't involve the US Copyright Office. Unless they release actual regulation I don't believe their opinion on how to interpret existing regulation really matters, or am I missing something?
- lainga 3y ago
  In the very ultimate limit, because it falls under the same jurisdiction as the USS Nimitz.
- chmod775 3y ago
  > Unless they release actual regulation I don't believe their opinion on how to interpret existing regulation really matters, or am I missing something? To us their opinion only matters insofar that they are experts on the matter, but I don't think you are really missing anything. Courts are free to decide otherwise. I believe the US copyright office's opinions are based on precedent set in court and on their own expert understanding of the relevant laws, so you should not read that as them setting policy, but rather as them explaining and summarizing. However note that the copyright office runs a small claims tribunal for disputes under $30k. If one chooses to make use of that, their opinion do start to matter a bit more.