3 ms·
It's not an accident - the photographer recognized the opportunity, and allowed the animals to continue. He put himself there to be part of the animal's scene.
by bdamm 12y ago
It's not an accident - the photographer recognized the opportunity, and allowed the animals to continue. He put himself there to be part of the animal's scene. He was there to photograph the animals, and that's what happened.
Ultimately, every photograph is an accident; nothing bad happens in between the photographer's recognition of the correct moment, and the exposure of the medium. That time is non-zero, and bad things can happen in between those times, and when they don't you get the photo you want.
And how many photographers hold down the shutter, while they reel off a dozen pictures, hoping that one of those photos is a good one? Were those photos "accidents" and therefore not copyrightable? I don't think the courts would agree.
- slantyyz 12y ago>> I don't think the courts would agree. I'm actually interested in seeing this go to a decision in the courts. There's clearly a division of opinion in the discussion here, and it would make for an interesting case and precedent.
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoProbably not a lot of 'allowing' going on - don't want to get between a Macaque and its toy. Anyway the idea is, the requirement for copyright is "developed independently by the author" and "some creativity involved". It was not 'by the author. And is it creativity if its an incident totally out of the control of the author? Debatable.
- bdamm 12y agoDo you consider war photography to be creative?