8 ms·

What is "creating the circumstances" ? The airline company that made the trip possible ? The company building the camera ? The upset wife that sent her husband

by thu 12y ago

What is "creating the circumstances" ? The airline company that made the trip possible ? The company building the camera ? The upset wife that sent her husband away (probably not relevant here) ? Would a burglar taken by surveillance camera be creating those circumstances ? Clearly he's not involved in the monkey taking the pictures. He has no right to them.

curiousgeorgio 12y ago
> What is "creating the circumstances" ? I would define it as "exercising the most volition that leads to producing the outcome". Not sure how the law would actually define it. EDIT - Thought experiment: If a photographer spends days constructing all the elements of a shot (including subject, lighting, and camera settings), and, seeing that he/she is about to hit the shutter button, a passerby sneaks up behind the photographer and taps the button before the photographer, would the photo's copyright go to the passerby? What if the photographer had intended to wait a few more seconds before hitting the button? You could argue that the photographer had no intention to take the picture right at that (early) moment, but clearly (to me anyway), the photographer is still the author of the photo because he/she brought together all the elements - not because they simply hit the shutter release button.
- JamesBarney 12y ago
  I think a more apt analogy what be if photographer inadvertently leaves a camera on the ground, and I use it to take selfies. Who owns the copyright to my selfies, me or the owner of the camera?
  - AimHere 12y ago
    You would. But the camera owner owns the equipment and all the physical materials your copyrighted work is embedded in, so he or she owns the only physical copy; you'd find it hard to make yourself rich with it without the photographer's permission. And of course, the act of taking the picture might conceivably constitute some other crime, such as criminal damage (if a film camera, you're rendering good film unusable) or computer misuse (if digital), so in general, this selfie-taking exercise would be even less of a smart move than usual.
- slantyyz 12y ago
  Photographers like to use the term "decisive moment" a lot. The timing of the shot can be as important or more important than the composition itself. So depending on the circumstances, I wouldn't dismiss the claim of the passerby right away.
- chrismcb 12y ago
  If the person's sole input was tapping the button, then no that person doesn't own the copyright. But in this case the camera owner didn't construct any elements of the shit. The lighting is natural, the monkey aimed the camera, and it sounds like auto ficus was used. The camera owner contributed no artistic effort to the shot
Drakim 12y ago
Well, he set up a camera in that location with the intention of taking pictures. Pretty big finger in the pie of circumstance there, if you ask me.

by thu 12y ago

curiousgeorgio 12y ago

> What is "creating the circumstances" ? I would define it as "exercising the most volition that leads to producing the outcome". Not sure how the law would actually define it. EDIT - Thought experiment: If a photographer spends days constructing all the elements of a shot (including subject, lighting, and camera settings), and, seeing that he/she is about to hit the shutter button, a passerby sneaks up behind the photographer and taps the button before the photographer, would the photo's copyright go to the passerby? What if the photographer had intended to wait a few more seconds before hitting the button? You could argue that the photographer had no intention to take the picture right at that (early) moment, but clearly (to me anyway), the photographer is still the author of the photo because he/she brought together all the elements - not because they simply hit the shutter release button.

JamesBarney 12y ago
I think a more apt analogy what be if photographer inadvertently leaves a camera on the ground, and I use it to take selfies. Who owns the copyright to my selfies, me or the owner of the camera?
- AimHere 12y ago
  You would. But the camera owner owns the equipment and all the physical materials your copyrighted work is embedded in, so he or she owns the only physical copy; you'd find it hard to make yourself rich with it without the photographer's permission. And of course, the act of taking the picture might conceivably constitute some other crime, such as criminal damage (if a film camera, you're rendering good film unusable) or computer misuse (if digital), so in general, this selfie-taking exercise would be even less of a smart move than usual.
slantyyz 12y ago
Photographers like to use the term "decisive moment" a lot. The timing of the shot can be as important or more important than the composition itself. So depending on the circumstances, I wouldn't dismiss the claim of the passerby right away.
chrismcb 12y ago
If the person's sole input was tapping the button, then no that person doesn't own the copyright. But in this case the camera owner didn't construct any elements of the shit. The lighting is natural, the monkey aimed the camera, and it sounds like auto ficus was used. The camera owner contributed no artistic effort to the shot

Drakim 12y ago

Well, he set up a camera in that location with the intention of taking pictures. Pretty big finger in the pie of circumstance there, if you ask me.