5 ms·

> In creating the circumstances for the monkey to hit the shutter release button, the photographer did in fact make the most substantial contributions to the fi

> In creating the circumstances for the monkey to hit the shutter release button, the photographer did in fact make the most substantial contributions to the final image. That argument works just as well for camera rental companies. Because that's all he did in the end - lend the camera to a different kind of ape.

notahacker 12y ago
David J Slater isn't a camera-rental company though: he's someone that earns a living from travelling to exotic locations and pointing his camera at wildlife in compelling situations and then processing the image before selling it as his creative output. The difference being, in this case, the wildlife participated a little more than usual in that creative process by pressing the shutter button. The situation is a lot more analogous to a celebrity inadvertently taking a selfie in a scuffle with a paparazzo; the celebrity is the intended object of interest and inadvertently triggers a composition far more interesting than the paparazzo's original concept, but the paparazzo was there with the intent of making a creative work. I'm not sure whether any sort of legal precedent exists for that, but I'd be surprised if legal arguments the paparazzo was too creatively uninvolved to have any say in the image distribution rights were positively received.
- soperj 12y ago
  It probably wouldn't be as famous though if the monkey hadn't taken the image.
  - danieltillett 12y ago
    Exactly. The only reason the image is worth anything is the monkey took the photo. The owner of the photographic gear seems to be arguing both that it is his photo and not his photo.
    - tripzilch 12y ago
      Really? Because it's a pretty great picture just by itself, IMHO.
      - soperj 12y ago
        I agree that it's a good picture. But "I took a great picture of a monkey" doesn't sell nearly as well as "This monkey took a great picture of himself". "I took a great picture of a monkey" doesn't get you articles about that picture, "This monkey took a great picture of himself" definitely does.
      - danieltillett 12y ago
        Yes it is a great picture, but it would not be not worth anything (I mean economically, not artistically) if it was not taken by the monkey.
- chrismcb 12y ago
  The fact that he is a professional and intended to take pictures of monkeys is not relevant.
Alupis 12y ago
I think we need to ask: Who would own the copyright had it been another human who pressed the button? - One human sets up the camera -- another frames the shot and takes the shot. I would say the second human who framed and shot the image is the copyright holder... meaning the monkey would own the copyright had the monkey been human... but since the monkey is not human (and copyright only applies to humans), then it's public domain.
- curiousgeorgio 12y ago
  If the second human didn't know a camera was involved (or what a camera even is), but had instead found a wireless remote control shutter release in his/her possession, and, not knowing what it was, proceeded to inadvertently take photos because the remote made a fun sound (as in the case with the monkey), then I think it'd be safe to say the second human had no involvement with the resulting photos. We're not talking about a monkey (or human) framing and taking photos. We're talking about a monkey pressing a button because it makes an interesting sound. There is no authorship there.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    > There is no authorship there. Then why are we assigning authorship to a human? Just because he happened to be there? (Also, I can make a song on a guitar without knowing what it is nor how to play it -- I still hold copyright over my work).
  - ASneakyFox 12y ago
    In that case I claim ownership. As far as I can tell I did the same level of creative input as mr batteries. So I should be just as entitled to the work.
- davidgerard 12y ago
  Legal precedent is clear: it's who frames the shot and presses the button. Since the entity framing the shot and pressing the button is the monkey, but non-human animals can't own a copyright, no copyright is generated. It routinely explodes people's heads that copyright law works like it actually works, not like people wish it did.
jessedhillon 12y ago
No. He scouted a location, planned and financed the expedition, and spent his time waiting and searching for the right conditions in which great nature photos could arise. He was much more than a rental company, the least for not having ever rented out his camera

notahacker 12y ago

David J Slater isn't a camera-rental company though: he's someone that earns a living from travelling to exotic locations and pointing his camera at wildlife in compelling situations and then processing the image before selling it as his creative output. The difference being, in this case, the wildlife participated a little more than usual in that creative process by pressing the shutter button. The situation is a lot more analogous to a celebrity inadvertently taking a selfie in a scuffle with a paparazzo; the celebrity is the intended object of interest and inadvertently triggers a composition far more interesting than the paparazzo's original concept, but the paparazzo was there with the intent of making a creative work. I'm not sure whether any sort of legal precedent exists for that, but I'd be surprised if legal arguments the paparazzo was too creatively uninvolved to have any say in the image distribution rights were positively received.

soperj 12y ago
It probably wouldn't be as famous though if the monkey hadn't taken the image.
- danieltillett 12y ago
  Exactly. The only reason the image is worth anything is the monkey took the photo. The owner of the photographic gear seems to be arguing both that it is his photo and not his photo.
  - tripzilch 12y ago
    Really? Because it's a pretty great picture just by itself, IMHO.
    - soperj 12y ago
      I agree that it's a good picture. But "I took a great picture of a monkey" doesn't sell nearly as well as "This monkey took a great picture of himself". "I took a great picture of a monkey" doesn't get you articles about that picture, "This monkey took a great picture of himself" definitely does.
    - danieltillett 12y ago
      Yes it is a great picture, but it would not be not worth anything (I mean economically, not artistically) if it was not taken by the monkey.
chrismcb 12y ago
The fact that he is a professional and intended to take pictures of monkeys is not relevant.

Alupis 12y ago

I think we need to ask: Who would own the copyright had it been another human who pressed the button? - One human sets up the camera -- another frames the shot and takes the shot. I would say the second human who framed and shot the image is the copyright holder... meaning the monkey would own the copyright had the monkey been human... but since the monkey is not human (and copyright only applies to humans), then it's public domain.

curiousgeorgio 12y ago
If the second human didn't know a camera was involved (or what a camera even is), but had instead found a wireless remote control shutter release in his/her possession, and, not knowing what it was, proceeded to inadvertently take photos because the remote made a fun sound (as in the case with the monkey), then I think it'd be safe to say the second human had no involvement with the resulting photos. We're not talking about a monkey (or human) framing and taking photos. We're talking about a monkey pressing a button because it makes an interesting sound. There is no authorship there.
- Alupis 12y ago
  > There is no authorship there. Then why are we assigning authorship to a human? Just because he happened to be there? (Also, I can make a song on a guitar without knowing what it is nor how to play it -- I still hold copyright over my work).
- ASneakyFox 12y ago
  In that case I claim ownership. As far as I can tell I did the same level of creative input as mr batteries. So I should be just as entitled to the work.
davidgerard 12y ago
Legal precedent is clear: it's who frames the shot and presses the button. Since the entity framing the shot and pressing the button is the monkey, but non-human animals can't own a copyright, no copyright is generated. It routinely explodes people's heads that copyright law works like it actually works, not like people wish it did.

jessedhillon 12y ago

No. He scouted a location, planned and financed the expedition, and spent his time waiting and searching for the right conditions in which great nature photos could arise. He was much more than a rental company, the least for not having ever rented out his camera