Who owns this copyright? Public, Monkey or Man?

[Michael Ventura]

This makes for an interesting debate.  Wikimedia thinks the "selfie" taken by a baboon on a photographer's camera should be public domain but the photographer plans to sue.  I would side with the photographer.  The primate is not a human and probably can't hold a copyright, I would say that since it is his camera with his settings, it is like having the camera on any type of remote, such as ones trigger by movement or sound.  I see photos in wildlife magazines where an elusive tiger is photographed by its body tripping a motion sensor or shots/movies made by attaching cameras to animals, such as a dolphin.  Any other thoughts, am I wrong in my way of thinking?

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/monkey-selfie-wikipedia-drives-photographer-bananas-n174251

[ann]

Quite self-serving for Wikimedia to take the position that a photo taken with SOMEONE else's camera, with position that person chose, and settings that person selected and set, is public domain, as if it magically sprang into existence.

 

Wikimedia should simply use the baboon "selfie" taken with the camera THEY positioned and selected settings for...  OH WAIT - that photo doesn't exist!

 

- Ann

[Martin P Wilson]

Otherwise many photographs taken by assistants (subject to contract terms), waiters, tour guides, friends on our cameras will also not be our copyright.

[Craig Yates]

Total nonsense how can a monkey hold the copyright!!

 

Regards

Craig

[Dyn Llun]

Don't know the exact wording of US copyright law but in the UK it states that 'the creator' of the image owns the copyright. Now, if the photographer had set it all up, given the monkey the camera hoping for a lucky shot then maybe the photographer owns it. However, in this case the monkey snatched the camera and took it. So, if it was in the UK I'd side with the monkey!

 

Serves the photographer right for being so sloppy with his gear around animals! 

It could have been worse of course - reminds me of that lovely music hall ditty 'The Lion and Albert'

There's a famous seaside place called Blackpool,
That's noted for fresh-air and fun, 
And Mr and Mrs Ramsbottom 
Went there with young Albert, their son. 

A grand little lad was their Albert
All dressed in his best; quite a swell 
'E'd a stick with an 'orse's 'ead 'andle 
The finest that Woolworth's could sell.

They didn't think much to the ocean
The waves, they was fiddlin' and small 
There was no wrecks... nobody drownded
'Fact, nothing to laugh at, at all. 

So, seeking for further amusement 
They paid and went into the zoo 
Where they'd lions and tigers and cam-els 
And old ale and sandwiches too. 

There were one great big lion called Wallace 
His nose were all covered with scars
He lay in a som-no-lent posture
With the side of his face to the bars.

Now Albert had heard about lions 
How they were ferocious and wild
And to see Wallace lying so peaceful 
Well... it didn't seem right to the child. 

So straight 'way the brave little feller 
Not showing a morsel of fear
Took 'is stick with the'orse's 'ead 'andle 
And pushed it in Wallace's ear! 

You could see that the lion didn't like it
For giving a kind of a roll
He pulled Albert inside the cage with 'im 
And swallowed the little lad... whole! 

Then Pa, who had seen the occurrence 
And didn't know what to do next
Said, "Mother! Yon lions 'et Albert"
And Mother said "Eeh, I am vexed!"

So Mr and Mrs Ramsbottom
Quite rightly, when all's said and done
Complained to the Animal Keeper 
That the lion had eaten their son. 

The keeper was quite nice about it 
He said, "What a nasty mishap 
Are you sure that it's your lad he's eaten?" 
Pa said, "Am I sure? There's his cap!"

So the manager had to be sent for 
He came and he said, "What's to do?" 
Pa said, "Yon lion's 'eaten our Albert 
And 'im in his Sunday clothes, too."

Then Mother said, "Right's right, young feller 
I think it's a shame and a sin 
For a lion to go and eat Albert 
And after we've paid to come in!" 

The manager wanted no trouble 
He took out his purse right away 
And said, "How much to settle the matter?" 
And Pa said "What do you usually pay?" 

But Mother had turned a bit awkward 
When she thought where her Albert had gone
She said, "No! someone's got to be summonsed"
So that were decided upon. 

Round they went to the Police Station 
In front of a Magistrate chap
They told 'im what happened to Albert 
And proved it by showing his cap.

The Magistrate gave his o-pinion
That no-one was really to blame 
He said that he hoped the Ramsbottoms 
Would have further sons to their name.

At that Mother got proper blazing 
"And thank you, sir, kindly," said she
"What waste all our lives raising children

To feed ruddy lions? Not me!"

[NYCat]

Otherwise many photographs taken by assistants (subject to contract terms), waiters, tour guides, friends on our cameras will also not be our copyright.

 

Hmmmm. I have some shots taken of me by a guide that I have assumed I do NOT own the copyright for. In the case of the monkey I side with the photographer.

 

Paulette

[fotoDogue]

Who owns the monkey?

[Ed Rooney]

I'm looking forward to the hairy guy's closing argument. 

[Dyn Llun]

I wonder what apeture he used? 

[Russell Watkins]

*groan*

[Michael Ventura]

I think the big question, at hand (or paw), is that Wikimedia contends that no one owns the copyright since the shutter was pushed by a monkey and therefore it is public domain. I still say that since the photographer was out to photograph the monkeys with his gear and settings, it is no different than setting up a remote triggering device and he retains the copyright. Hmmm, now it gets me thinking about all the photos I have taken of tourists, with their cameras, needing a group photo, I gotta track those down! :-)

[spacecadet]

Reading between the lines he seems wisely to have registered it in the US otherwise he wouldn't get a US lawyer on it.

[Craig Yates]

An interesting thought that a picture taken by a monkey passed QC. .

image (AF1WRH) I did not post the picture in respect of the photographers copyright. Mr Macaque or Mr Slater.

 

Regards

Craig

[Michael Ventura]

An interesting thought that a picture taken by a monkey passed QC. .

image (AF1WRH) I did not post the picture in respect of the photographers copyright. Mr Macaque or Mr Slater.

 

Regards

Craig

 

Pretty cool that Davis Slater is a contributor to Alamy.  I am guessing that the image has been up for sale a while (maybe since 2007 based on the image reference number start with AF).  I wonder if it has sold thru Alamy.

[John Mitchell]

I think the big question, at hand (or paw), is that Wikimedia contends that no one owns the copyright since the shutter was pushed by a monkey and therefore it is public domain. I still say that since the photographer was out to photograph the monkeys with his gear and settings, it is no different than setting up a remote triggering device and he retains the copyright. Hmmm, now it gets me thinking about all the photos I have taken of tourists, with their cameras, needing a group photo, I gotta track those down! :-)

 

I agree, this is similar to an image taken with a remote trigger. However, Wikimedia probably has a good case since there doesn't seem to have been any intent on the part of the photographer to get the monkey to take the picture. If the photographer had taught the monkey how to use the camera (no doubt possible) and then intentionally got him/her to snap photos, things might be different. I guess the moral of the story is don't let anyone monkey around with your camera. 

[spacecadet]

One imagines Wikimedia will back down when they get a whiff of powder.

[Michael Ventura]

Here is another take on all this from Time.com.  In spite of what is said in this article, I feel that since the photographer, who is a professional WILDLIFE photographer, who went out expressly to photograph these monkeys, should get the copyright.  This was not a random accident, such as monkeys breaking into his home and grabbing a camera. I really hope this goes to a trial, I would love to know the outcome!

 

http://lightbox.time.com/2014/08/06/monkey-selfie/#1 

[Doc]

Here is another take on all this from Time.com.  In spite of what is said in this article, I feel that since the photographer, who is a professional WILDLIFE photographer, who went out expressly to photograph these monkeys, should get the copyright.  This was not a random accident, such as monkeys breaking into his home and grabbing a camera. I really hope this goes to a trial, I would love to know the outcome!

 

http://lightbox.time.com/2014/08/06/monkey-selfie/#1 

+1

[John Mitchell]

Here is another take on all this from Time.com.  In spite of what is said in this article, I feel that since the photographer, who is a professional WILDLIFE photographer, who went out expressly to photograph these monkeys, should get the copyright.  This was not a random accident, such as monkeys breaking into his home and grabbing a camera. I really hope this goes to a trial, I would love to know the outcome!

 

http://lightbox.time.com/2014/08/06/monkey-selfie/#1 

 

Yes, it would be interesting to see how the British justice system handles this if the case goes to trial. What is really disconcerting to me is that Wikimedia would want to deny the photographer copyright in the first place. 

[spacecadet]

Wikimedia UK carefully claims no responsibility for content.Apparently  it'll have to be tried in the US.

[John Mitchell]

Wikimedia UK carefully claims no responsibility for content.Apparently  it'll have to be tried in the US.

 

You mean through the same legal system that cleared O. J. Simpson?

[RichardM]

I think it does raise a very interesting legal question and merits further debate. It's certainly an interesting debate regardless of which side you think is in the right. 

 

That said, I have been disappointed by wikimedia's stance. I don't think they give a damn about the wider topic of copyright or care much for respecting the perfectly valid challenge from the photographer. I believe they are simply acting in the way they are because they know damn well they can bully one lone photographer out of taking legal action - I doubt very much they'd pull this sort of nonsense against National Geographic who produce many photographs in a similar fashion. 

[NYCat]

Yes, I keep thinking of the work Steve Winter does with camera traps. it is the animal that sets off the camera.

 

Paulette

[Panthera tigris]

From what I read, Steve Winter is OK because it is his "intellectual creation", he devises the initial set, set-up camera and lighting positions and then uses assistants to check the cameras and replenish batteries and cards. So all camera trappers should be able to breath easily, I hope.

[Phil Robinson]

There is many a studio photographer who gets an assistant to actually press the shutter when the picture is ready to be taken.

If you dictate your book to someone who notes it down in shorthand then types it up, does the copyright belong to the one who spoke the words or the one holding the pencil?