3 ms·

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 "

• 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.