wiskerke Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 The apes have won. The US Copyright Office, in a 1,222-page report discussing federal copyright law, said that a "photograph taken by a monkey" is unprotected intellectual property."The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. Likewise, the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit," said the draft report, "Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition." http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-full.pdf Under UK federal law, however, Slater could claim the intellectual property rights to the picture—even if he didn't press the shutter—if the image is part of his "intellectual creation." However, The Telegraph said "such a case has never been tried in court." -via ars technica wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Are you sure that monkey isn't really Jack Nicholson? He's got the same manic grin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ventura Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Crazy. I get that the copyright can't go to the monkey but it should go to Slater! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!! Slap in the face for all wildlife photographers! Cheers, Philippe I couldn't say, I don't know any wildlife photographers well enough to be able to tell if they're monkeys, or divine / supernatural beings, or in the habit of handing their camera over to assorted animals to use (and are therefore affected by this ruling) . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DHill Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 So where does that leave photographers who set up cameras to be triggered by movement, eg of an animal? Hmmm .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 I got the impression that it had been registered. He simply registered it as his own. That's how he has a US lawyer on contingency. Presumably that report predates this matter (the site is down for maintenance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 So the monkey has been submitting it and collecting fees? Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 The moral of the story is... never say the monkey took it, the photographer took it via a remote shutter release!!! He's hardly in a position to dispute it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Crean Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 The moral of the story is... never say the monkey took it, the photographer took it via a remote shutter release!!! He's hardly in a position to dispute it And a whole bunch of monkeys never wrote Shakespeare either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 I'd say it's now Apes 0, Naked Apes 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panthera tigris Posted August 24, 2014 Share Posted August 24, 2014 Its not an ape, its a monkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted August 25, 2014 Author Share Posted August 25, 2014 Its not an ape, its a monkey. Ah yes of course: it's called Black Ape (macaca nigra), but it is a monkey. Right. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Looks like this is going to rumble on and on…... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3388623/We-ll-definitely-APE-peal-Monkey-selfie-legal-team-vow-fight-judge-rules-animal-t-copyright-famous-photograph.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panthera tigris Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I think the most strange thing in this is that the law (in this particular country) recognises "created by divine ........ beings" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Monkey? Ape? Isn't that the guy I was having a few beers with over the Holidays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted January 7, 2016 Author Share Posted January 7, 2016 As long as it's not the face in the mirror I wouldn't care. ;-) Maybe he did have to come to town to cash his checks? wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Under UK federal law, It's escaped them that the UK is not a federation, apparently. One wonders how the US can be in compliance with the Berne Convention. However PETA's case has also been thrown out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Under UK federal law, It's escaped them that the UK is not a federation, apparently. One wonders how the US can be in compliance with the Berne Convention. However PETA's case has also been thrown out. Worse than that, there is not such thing as "UK law" (for our non-UK cousins, Scotland has separate law and legal system from England and Wales - in contracts and other legal documents it would be "English Law") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Towers Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Ah! Did the monkey..ape....whatever....sign a model release form???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Under UK federal law, It's escaped them that the UK is not a federation, apparently. One wonders how the US can be in compliance with the Berne Convention. However PETA's case has also been thrown out. Worse than that, there is not such thing as "UK law" (for our non-UK cousins, Scotland has separate law and legal system from England and Wales - in contracts and other legal documents it would be "English Law") Now that's just too much. Even I use the shorthand. But I do prefer dealing with English infringements. The Scottish small claims system is a bit arcane and AFAIK doesn't cover IP yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoDogue Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Seems the courts have changed their minds http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/business/media/monkey-has-no-rights-to-its-selfie-federal-judge-says.html?ref=business&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&smtyp=cur&referer Shame on Peta and Wikipedia. If this is how they use their donations, to fight over monkey copyright, they won't be seeing any money from me. Better to give to people and organizations who work to improve the lives of animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Seems the courts have changed their minds http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/business/media/monkey-has-no-rights-to-its-selfie-federal-judge-says.html?ref=business&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&smtyp=cur&referer Shame on Peta and Wikipedia. If this is how they use their donations, to fight over monkey copyright, they won't be seeing any money from me. Better to give to people and organizations who work to improve the lives of animals. +1 When they say they're fighting for animal rights. What they mean (in this instance) , "We're fighting for the right to grab a hold of someone else's money". PETA's weekly board meeting - We could grab some of that hard working guys money as the monkey took the shot....Oh, right, the monkey isn't subject to our laws, damit..... never mind, we'll waste $m's of dollars (of other peoples money) fighting a lost cause with the vain hope we may get even more money for us....errr..... I mean for the monkey of course! Next thing we'll hear is the monkey is up in court for theft of the camera! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.