Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The apes have won.
 
media_xl_7027842.jpg
 
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."

 

 
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."
 
 
wim
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by dustydingo
Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites

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  :P

And a whole bunch of monkeys never wrote Shakespeare either ;)  :lol:  :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

 

 
 

 
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.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 
 

 
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 post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 
 

 
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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.