3 ms·
The burden of that argument is that you'd never be able to 'own' photos of strangers or anybody who doesn't sign a release, or stranger's pets, or any piece of
by marianminds 12y ago
The burden of that argument is that you'd never be able to 'own' photos of strangers or anybody who doesn't sign a release, or stranger's pets, or any piece of art or architecture, because the scene or object that gives the photos its essence was actually created largely by other people. You have to tie photo ownership to the physical act of taking them, and this one was not taken by him. He hadn't even intended to give the monkey his camera or tried to arrange for it - it was pure fluke, unless you count the agency of the monkey. Which here almost seems more legitimate.
- sosuke 12y agoFor clarity This is public domain footage now, because the bird stole the camera: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/bird-steals-camera-video_n_4371165.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/bird-steals-camera-... This is copyright, because the photographer strapped cameras to the bird: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_photography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_photography "A photograph of Schlosshotel Kronberg (then called Schloss Friedrichshof after its owner Kaiserin Friedrich) became famous due to its accidental inclusion of the photographer's wing tips. In a breach of copyright it was shown in German cinemas as part of the weekly newsreel in 1929.[16]"
- javert 12y agoNonsense. Whoever owns the camera has a good common-sense claim to copyright. By your logic, supposedly Slater could sue the monkey for illicit use of his camera.