4 ms·
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 pos
by 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 agoIn 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.