5 ms·

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, th

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.)

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.)