6 ms·

The photo would have been unremarkable, worthless were it not taken by a monkey. The value is the novelty, the random act. Not the "setup". I can't blame him f

The photo would have been unremarkable, worthless were it not taken by a monkey. The value is the novelty, the random act. Not the "setup". I can't blame him for trying to make a buck from it, but he's really pushing he boundaries of reason by claiming copyright for a creative work that he did not create.

pcrh 12y ago
How is this picture different from any taken remotely of a natural scene? The monkey did not know she was taking a picture.
- voidlogic 12y ago
  If a human infant took a photo, IMHO the courts would hold they took it... regardless of the fact they did not know they were taking a picture.
  - pcrh 12y ago
    >If a human infant took a photo I'd bet that that idea has already been tested in the courts. I believe that the result is that the guardians of the child hold the rights in trust. A child is still human though, and courts do not yet assign (to my knowledge) property rights to non-human animals.
    - kbenson 12y ago
      Which muddies that particular example, but the spirit of the example is unaddressed. For example, if a human adult with no understanding of what a camera is or what the act of taking a picture entails[1] took the picture by accident, would they not deserve the rights? 1: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140403-brazil-peru-amazon-rainforest-uncontacted-tribes-finai-illegal-logging-world/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140403-brazi...
      - pcrh 12y ago
        The photos taken in your example were taken from overflying aircraft, and the video by Brazilian gov't agents. However, I imagine you meant that if a camera were dropped among these people, would they have the rights to the photos they took? Tricky... but I guess yes, according to the law... (I am not a lawyer).
        voidlogic 12y ago
        >>However, I imagine you meant that if a camera were dropped among these people, would they have the rights to the photos they took? Tricky... but I guess yes, according to the law... (I am not a lawyer). This was the point I was trying to make, animal or no, that matters, but I don't think intent does.
        pcrh 12y ago
        Intent certainly matters in the domain of intellectual property law. For example, imagine that I were to instruct someone to make a device for me, and they made it exactly according to my design, and it performed some novel function that I had predicted it would. Under current law, I would be the inventor, not the person who constructed the device. This is since the "inventive step" was performed by myself. I'm not however sure how this relates to copyright (the issue at hand in the OP)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obvious...
        kbenson 12y ago
        Correct, the link was included only to show that such people recently existed and possibly still do.
        pcrh 12y ago
        There are many situations where the courts will provide "protection" to people who are not perceived to be capable of exercising their rights in the usual manner. Such cases are often referred to as "wards of the court", and include not only children but also adults with diminished capabilities to understand court proceedings. I imagine that people from uncontacted tribes would fall into the same category, due to their lack of experience with the courts. in practice, though, I also imagine that the courts would not be very interested in any appeals they make... In any case, none of the above applies to monkeys.
- chrismcb 12y ago
  And neither did the camera owner.
brk 12y ago
Except that the monkey has no concept of creative licensing, payments, royalties, etc. In this case the monkey is really just a remote shutter release made out of meat. I could see the argument if the monkey were a 9 year-old child, the child might not fully grasp these concepts today, but you could anticipate a point where the child would understand. Much like child actor laws protecting their earnings. I could see the wikipedia logic if there was some expectation that copyright would eventually matter to the monkey. Forget that the monkey is an organic being... If the camera were shot up in the air in a rocket and had a pressure switch to take a series of photos at 5,000 feet (or maybe more directly at some random altitude or point in travel), who would "own" the photos? The rocket? Or the person who put the events together to capture those images in that manner.
- Luc 12y ago
  > just a remote shutter release made out of meat. > Forget that the monkey is an organic being... That's not a very endearing way to make your point. If enough people care about the rights of non-human sentient beings, we can envisage (more, better) laws being made protecting their rights. Think of the good the licensing money from this picture could do in e.g. conserving the habitat of that monkey. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood
  - brk 12y ago
    I appreciate your comment. I made those statements particularly to try and evoke a different perspective, they do not reflect how I view/value the monkey in the grand scheme of things. I think what can happen in arguments like this is that people let personal feelings/compassion cloud their judgement. Where does that slippery scale end? What if it was a dolphin that took the picture? A dog? A reptile? A single-cell organism? Yes, some of those examples are absurd, but they are all non-human organic life forms. Are we saying the more "personable" animals should be extended some human-like copyright rights because we can relate to them in some manner? (the Pulp Fiction conversation about "filthy animals" pops in my head here). You talk about licensing money, but who would set the licensing fee, collect that fee, and then apply it? I could easily see that becoming a method for lawyers to strip human photographers of copyrights in certain cases and then suck up the majority of the licensing fee for "administrative purposes". I think the monkey is "cute". I think this is a very interesting case. I do not think legal precedent is on the side of wikipedia. I do not think this is by any means a common enough problem (or will become so) that we need to have exception cases for photographs where the shutter release was pressed by non-human living organisms.
tzs 12y ago
> The photo would have been unremarkable, worthless were it not taken by a monkey. When I first saw that photo, I had no idea it was taken by a monkey, and I thought it was an excellent photo. The monkey's pose and expression are close to perfect. If I had seen it with no context at all, my guess would have been that it was not a photo, but a still from an upcoming animated movie...that monkey looks like he's about to do something hilarious...and have admired the realistic texturing and the expressiveness of the model.
- pcrh 12y ago
  Agreed. It's an excellent photo regardless of who took it.
yvsong 12y ago
If it's in a court, I would ask for proof that the animal took the photo. Could have been savvy marketing. No one is trustworthy when fighting in a court. If the story is verified, I sympathize with the photographer. Accidents are part of the venture.
vacri 12y ago
It's an excellent photo of a clear, straight-on portrait of a wild monkey. It's both remarkable and worthy, regardless of who took it.

pcrh 12y ago

How is this picture different from any taken remotely of a natural scene? The monkey did not know she was taking a picture.

voidlogic 12y ago
If a human infant took a photo, IMHO the courts would hold they took it... regardless of the fact they did not know they were taking a picture.
- pcrh 12y ago
  >If a human infant took a photo I'd bet that that idea has already been tested in the courts. I believe that the result is that the guardians of the child hold the rights in trust. A child is still human though, and courts do not yet assign (to my knowledge) property rights to non-human animals.
  - kbenson 12y ago
    Which muddies that particular example, but the spirit of the example is unaddressed. For example, if a human adult with no understanding of what a camera is or what the act of taking a picture entails[1] took the picture by accident, would they not deserve the rights? 1: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140403-brazil-peru-amazon-rainforest-uncontacted-tribes-finai-illegal-logging-world/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140403-brazi...
    - pcrh 12y ago
      The photos taken in your example were taken from overflying aircraft, and the video by Brazilian gov't agents. However, I imagine you meant that if a camera were dropped among these people, would they have the rights to the photos they took? Tricky... but I guess yes, according to the law... (I am not a lawyer).
      - voidlogic 12y ago
        >>However, I imagine you meant that if a camera were dropped among these people, would they have the rights to the photos they took? Tricky... but I guess yes, according to the law... (I am not a lawyer). This was the point I was trying to make, animal or no, that matters, but I don't think intent does.
        pcrh 12y ago
        Intent certainly matters in the domain of intellectual property law. For example, imagine that I were to instruct someone to make a device for me, and they made it exactly according to my design, and it performed some novel function that I had predicted it would. Under current law, I would be the inventor, not the person who constructed the device. This is since the "inventive step" was performed by myself. I'm not however sure how this relates to copyright (the issue at hand in the OP)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obvious...
      - kbenson 12y ago
        Correct, the link was included only to show that such people recently existed and possibly still do.
        pcrh 12y ago
        There are many situations where the courts will provide "protection" to people who are not perceived to be capable of exercising their rights in the usual manner. Such cases are often referred to as "wards of the court", and include not only children but also adults with diminished capabilities to understand court proceedings. I imagine that people from uncontacted tribes would fall into the same category, due to their lack of experience with the courts. in practice, though, I also imagine that the courts would not be very interested in any appeals they make... In any case, none of the above applies to monkeys.
chrismcb 12y ago
And neither did the camera owner.

brk 12y ago

Except that the monkey has no concept of creative licensing, payments, royalties, etc. In this case the monkey is really just a remote shutter release made out of meat. I could see the argument if the monkey were a 9 year-old child, the child might not fully grasp these concepts today, but you could anticipate a point where the child would understand. Much like child actor laws protecting their earnings. I could see the wikipedia logic if there was some expectation that copyright would eventually matter to the monkey. Forget that the monkey is an organic being... If the camera were shot up in the air in a rocket and had a pressure switch to take a series of photos at 5,000 feet (or maybe more directly at some random altitude or point in travel), who would "own" the photos? The rocket? Or the person who put the events together to capture those images in that manner.

Luc 12y ago
> just a remote shutter release made out of meat. > Forget that the monkey is an organic being... That's not a very endearing way to make your point. If enough people care about the rights of non-human sentient beings, we can envisage (more, better) laws being made protecting their rights. Think of the good the licensing money from this picture could do in e.g. conserving the habitat of that monkey. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood
- brk 12y ago
  I appreciate your comment. I made those statements particularly to try and evoke a different perspective, they do not reflect how I view/value the monkey in the grand scheme of things. I think what can happen in arguments like this is that people let personal feelings/compassion cloud their judgement. Where does that slippery scale end? What if it was a dolphin that took the picture? A dog? A reptile? A single-cell organism? Yes, some of those examples are absurd, but they are all non-human organic life forms. Are we saying the more "personable" animals should be extended some human-like copyright rights because we can relate to them in some manner? (the Pulp Fiction conversation about "filthy animals" pops in my head here). You talk about licensing money, but who would set the licensing fee, collect that fee, and then apply it? I could easily see that becoming a method for lawyers to strip human photographers of copyrights in certain cases and then suck up the majority of the licensing fee for "administrative purposes". I think the monkey is "cute". I think this is a very interesting case. I do not think legal precedent is on the side of wikipedia. I do not think this is by any means a common enough problem (or will become so) that we need to have exception cases for photographs where the shutter release was pressed by non-human living organisms.

tzs 12y ago

> The photo would have been unremarkable, worthless were it not taken by a monkey. When I first saw that photo, I had no idea it was taken by a monkey, and I thought it was an excellent photo. The monkey's pose and expression are close to perfect. If I had seen it with no context at all, my guess would have been that it was not a photo, but a still from an upcoming animated movie...that monkey looks like he's about to do something hilarious...and have admired the realistic texturing and the expressiveness of the model.

pcrh 12y ago
Agreed. It's an excellent photo regardless of who took it.

yvsong 12y ago

If it's in a court, I would ask for proof that the animal took the photo. Could have been savvy marketing. No one is trustworthy when fighting in a court. If the story is verified, I sympathize with the photographer. Accidents are part of the venture.

vacri 12y ago

It's an excellent photo of a clear, straight-on portrait of a wild monkey. It's both remarkable and worthy, regardless of who took it.