4 ms·

"... the monkey had taken the photo, and was therefore the real copyright owner." The fact that non-human primates can now supposedly hold copyrights is my big

"... the monkey had taken the photo, and was therefore the real copyright owner." The fact that non-human primates can now supposedly hold copyrights is my big take-away from this.

zingermc 12y ago
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072081/quotes?item=qt0332024 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072081/quotes?item=qt0332024 Reminds me of Inspector Clouseau's encounter with an organ grinder. "I am a musician and the monkey is a businessman. He doesn't tell me what to play, and I don't tell him what to do with his money."
ghaff 12y ago
What totally floors me about this one is that I can barely but not really see an argument for public domain; i.e. no one took the photo. But would this be any different from using automatic triggers and the like? No, not really, if the monkey isn't a person. But, assuming for purposes of argument, that something neither a person nor a legal entity can somehow copyright a photo, I'm willing to bet that said monkey didn't release that photo under an appropriate license for Wikimedia to use. So if the monkey does own the copyright, Wikimedia still doesn't have the right to use it.
- yincrash 12y ago
  Automatic triggers are still set by human beings, and the framing is still done by a human. Neither is the case in this situation. The monkey can't release the copyright if it does not have copyright (which it doesn't in the US since it's not a human, see prev. comment), so it is in the public domain.
- breadbox 12y ago
  It differs from an automatic trigger in that the photographer is still the one exercising the decision to take a photograph. In the case under consideration, the monkeys stole the camera while the photographer was distracted. (Perhaps it's also worth noting that the monkeys weren't "taking selfies" per se; they were simply fiddling with the camera and noticed that pressing a button made a sound.) It's really a fascinating corner case. On the one hand, I agree that the photo almost has to be considered to be in the public domain. On the other hand, the photographer did exercise effort and choice in retrieving his camera, finding the one (hilariously adorable) image in the several that the monkeys inadvertently took, and making it available as a photograph. (Not to mention cropping and rotating the raw photo to properly frame the monkey. But one could ignore that by focusing on the original image, which isn't shown in the article but is floating around the web.) I suspect that if this exact situation had happened forty years, back when photos still had to be chemically developed, nobody would think for a second that the photographer didn't have full copyright ownership. He may not have exercised intent, but without his efforts there would be no photograph. It's only now, when the process of turning a camera's image into a viewable artifact has become relatively transparent, that it becomes less clear what the human photographer has contributed.
  - ghaff 12y ago
    It is an interesting corner case. We'll increasingly have the ability to setup cameras that can be algorithmically controlled, perhaps using machine learning approaches to take photos based on autonomous evaluation carried by robotic vehicles. I think most would argue that the deployer of the camera is still the photographer. However, how is that really different if--in this case--the photographer had deliberately given a bunch of monkeys cameras that they could fool around with and take pictures of each other or whatnot? In both cases, you're essentially creating the opportunity for autonomous entities to take photos under only somewhat understood conditions. And how different is that really from this case? Levels of abstraction and indirection in the creative process. Do you draw a line somewhere? (Mind you, in this case, IMO there's a pretty clear presumption that the human photographer owns the copyright and Wikimedia is playing with fiddly legalisms that aren't appropriate in this context.)
drdeadringer 12y ago
I'm not sure if I should face-palm over the copyright, or to give an affirming nod regarding acknowledging non-human primates.
bishnu 12y ago
This is not true, per US Copyright Compendium 202.02(b) http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#202.02(b) http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#202.02(b) "The term "authorship" implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable."
- evv 12y ago
  So the question remains: is there a copyright at all? Was the photo really produced "solely" by the animal? No. You couldn't exactly say that a monkey with a camera lives in a natural environment. The real talent here was preparing the camera for primate use, giving the camera to the monkey, somehow getting it back, and developing the photo. The work absolutely owes its origin to a human being. This is an unambiguous case: the man owns the copyright.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Huh. I'm thinking, the law actually could be pretty specific about who pushed the shutter button. IT wasn't the man. Laws aren't generally written in some context-agnostic way, like a philosophy class works out after a bull session. Its lawyers writing about what's at issue at the time.
  - brigade 12y ago
    Techdirt did a good bit of analysis back when the camera owner was issuing takedowns and concluded that it's almost certainly public domain under US, UK, and international law - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110713/11244515079/can-we-subpoena-monkey-why-monkey-self-portraits-are-likely-public-domain.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110713/11244515079/can-w... With an aside that if it's not public domain, the Indonesian government is actually the most likely copyright holder
  - cma 12y ago
    Yet the man could do all the same creative stuff, giving the camera to a child instead, and the copyright wouldn't be his.
kens 12y ago
I've been thinking about an analogous real-life situation: I'm on vacation and ask a random stranger, "Please take a picture of me in front of this landmark." Who owns the copyright in this case? Does it depend on who has creative control over the photo? (i.e. if I set up the photo and they just push the button vs they compose the photo and tell me where to stand.) I've thought this over, and I see reasonable arguments on both sides.
- ghaff 12y ago
  I'm guessing, in theory, they do. In practice, well, it's not an issue. And if there were situations where this were commercially important, you'd want to make clear that copyright was explicitly assigned.
davidgerard 12y ago
This is a BBC addition. There's no copyright in the photo, as the creation of a non-human animal it's not copyrightable. This is clear US copyright law, and is also true in pretty much all countries that have a copyright law (copyright is pretty uniform).
falcor84 12y ago
Just saw that the telegraph did a piece on the issue: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedi... They also put a poll there for people to vote on who owns the copyright and the monkey is currently leading, but it's close.

"... the monkey had taken the photo, and was therefore the real copyright owner." The fact that non-human primates can now supposedly hold copyrights is my big take-away from this.

zingermc 12y ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072081/quotes?item=qt0332024 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072081/quotes?item=qt0332024 Reminds me of Inspector Clouseau's encounter with an organ grinder. "I am a musician and the monkey is a businessman. He doesn't tell me what to play, and I don't tell him what to do with his money."

ghaff 12y ago

What totally floors me about this one is that I can barely but not really see an argument for public domain; i.e. no one took the photo. But would this be any different from using automatic triggers and the like? No, not really, if the monkey isn't a person. But, assuming for purposes of argument, that something neither a person nor a legal entity can somehow copyright a photo, I'm willing to bet that said monkey didn't release that photo under an appropriate license for Wikimedia to use. So if the monkey does own the copyright, Wikimedia still doesn't have the right to use it.

yincrash 12y ago
Automatic triggers are still set by human beings, and the framing is still done by a human. Neither is the case in this situation. The monkey can't release the copyright if it does not have copyright (which it doesn't in the US since it's not a human, see prev. comment), so it is in the public domain.
breadbox 12y ago
It differs from an automatic trigger in that the photographer is still the one exercising the decision to take a photograph. In the case under consideration, the monkeys stole the camera while the photographer was distracted. (Perhaps it's also worth noting that the monkeys weren't "taking selfies" per se; they were simply fiddling with the camera and noticed that pressing a button made a sound.) It's really a fascinating corner case. On the one hand, I agree that the photo almost has to be considered to be in the public domain. On the other hand, the photographer did exercise effort and choice in retrieving his camera, finding the one (hilariously adorable) image in the several that the monkeys inadvertently took, and making it available as a photograph. (Not to mention cropping and rotating the raw photo to properly frame the monkey. But one could ignore that by focusing on the original image, which isn't shown in the article but is floating around the web.) I suspect that if this exact situation had happened forty years, back when photos still had to be chemically developed, nobody would think for a second that the photographer didn't have full copyright ownership. He may not have exercised intent, but without his efforts there would be no photograph. It's only now, when the process of turning a camera's image into a viewable artifact has become relatively transparent, that it becomes less clear what the human photographer has contributed.
- ghaff 12y ago
  It is an interesting corner case. We'll increasingly have the ability to setup cameras that can be algorithmically controlled, perhaps using machine learning approaches to take photos based on autonomous evaluation carried by robotic vehicles. I think most would argue that the deployer of the camera is still the photographer. However, how is that really different if--in this case--the photographer had deliberately given a bunch of monkeys cameras that they could fool around with and take pictures of each other or whatnot? In both cases, you're essentially creating the opportunity for autonomous entities to take photos under only somewhat understood conditions. And how different is that really from this case? Levels of abstraction and indirection in the creative process. Do you draw a line somewhere? (Mind you, in this case, IMO there's a pretty clear presumption that the human photographer owns the copyright and Wikimedia is playing with fiddly legalisms that aren't appropriate in this context.)

drdeadringer 12y ago

I'm not sure if I should face-palm over the copyright, or to give an affirming nod regarding acknowledging non-human primates.

bishnu 12y ago

This is not true, per US Copyright Compendium 202.02(b) http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#202.02(b) http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#202.02(b) "The term "authorship" implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable."

evv 12y ago
So the question remains: is there a copyright at all? Was the photo really produced "solely" by the animal? No. You couldn't exactly say that a monkey with a camera lives in a natural environment. The real talent here was preparing the camera for primate use, giving the camera to the monkey, somehow getting it back, and developing the photo. The work absolutely owes its origin to a human being. This is an unambiguous case: the man owns the copyright.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Huh. I'm thinking, the law actually could be pretty specific about who pushed the shutter button. IT wasn't the man. Laws aren't generally written in some context-agnostic way, like a philosophy class works out after a bull session. Its lawyers writing about what's at issue at the time.
- brigade 12y ago
  Techdirt did a good bit of analysis back when the camera owner was issuing takedowns and concluded that it's almost certainly public domain under US, UK, and international law - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110713/11244515079/can-we-subpoena-monkey-why-monkey-self-portraits-are-likely-public-domain.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110713/11244515079/can-w... With an aside that if it's not public domain, the Indonesian government is actually the most likely copyright holder
- cma 12y ago
  Yet the man could do all the same creative stuff, giving the camera to a child instead, and the copyright wouldn't be his.

kens 12y ago

I've been thinking about an analogous real-life situation: I'm on vacation and ask a random stranger, "Please take a picture of me in front of this landmark." Who owns the copyright in this case? Does it depend on who has creative control over the photo? (i.e. if I set up the photo and they just push the button vs they compose the photo and tell me where to stand.) I've thought this over, and I see reasonable arguments on both sides.

ghaff 12y ago
I'm guessing, in theory, they do. In practice, well, it's not an issue. And if there were situations where this were commercially important, you'd want to make clear that copyright was explicitly assigned.

davidgerard 12y ago

This is a BBC addition. There's no copyright in the photo, as the creation of a non-human animal it's not copyrightable. This is clear US copyright law, and is also true in pretty much all countries that have a copyright law (copyright is pretty uniform).

falcor84 12y ago

Just saw that the telegraph did a piece on the issue: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedi... They also put a poll there for people to vote on who owns the copyright and the monkey is currently leading, but it's close.