Jump to content

I really do wonder....


Recommended Posts

it's not very likely that a filing in a California court, where litigation is a popular participant sport, has much legal relevance to a British photographer resident here.

This is grandstanding pure and simple. I "sue" you , I have more money and pricier lawyers, so you pay me to go away.

But ownership of the equipment isn't definitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If the monkey owns the copyright, then surely they have the right to sell/pass the copyright on to another being. How would they do that ??

 

Also, who owns the copyright if the shutter is released with a self-timer ?  The camera itself ?!

 

 

... lawyers with too much time on their grubby mits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad thing is that photographers who use remote triggers for animals are also helping to study and preserve those animals. PETA should be supporting those activities. Steve Winter had an experience in India that was unfortunate for tigers. He had set up a lot of camera traps in order to photograph and add to knowledge that would help to protect them. Indian photographers objected to an American being allowed to do that in their wildlife park. He had to remove all the cameras and, alas, no Indian photographer replicated what he had been doing. Wildlife photographers and wildlife tourists do much to help the preservation of the wild habitats that animals require.

 

Paulette

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The case of the monkey seems a nonsense to me, but what caught my attention was the link to the 'Red Bus' case. http://www.taylors.co.uk/news/newsitem119.htm  

 

Although in this particular case the copyright infringement was pretty deliberate, it would not be too difficult to fall into the same trap accidentally. I'm thinking of one of my photos of some red telephone boxes in Cambridge that I did consider a candidate for selective colour treatment! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The case of the monkey seems a nonsense to me, but what caught my attention was the link to the 'Red Bus' case. http://www.taylors.co.uk/news/newsitem119.htm  

 

Although in this particular case the copyright infringement was pretty deliberate, it would not be too difficult to fall into the same trap accidentally. I'm thinking of one of my photos of some red telephone boxes in Cambridge that I did consider a candidate for selective colour treatment! 

 

Don't mention those Keith. They exist in my port too. :)

 

Allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Temple Island v New England Teas was interesting but the parties had already been to court and one of the defendant's designs had been found infringing.

In the instant case he had been trying to get as close to the claimant's design as he could without infringing it but the judge ruled that he had failed.

There had been substantial moving around of the elements of the image. I don't think that fairly 'straight' photographs would be at risk. It's not just the selective colour.

The defendant eventually agreed a licence and royalties.

http://www.templeisland.com/new_english_teas_red_bus_copyright.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What is the monkey going to spend the royalties on, bananas?  

 

Rumour I heard was that someone told the monkey that professional photographers earn peanuts so he wanted some of that!

 

 

And he was also told that photography is so easy these days that even a monkey could do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago PETA wrote a letter to Yasser Arafat. The reason? Evidently, the PLO used a donkey to carry a bomb to an Israeli checkpoint, the result being the donkey and several Israeli soldiers were blown up. In the letter, PETA beseeched Afafat to please leave animals out of it when the PLO intended to blow up people. It led one journalist to write that PETA stands for "People Embarrassing the Tidewater Area," based as they are in Norfolk, Virginia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just caught up with this. If I was a supporter of PETA (I'm not but I do agree with the cause of fighting animal abuse), I would seriously question whether I continue to do so if this is how they spend their time. David Slater is a photographer who clearly cares about animals and the environment and an odd choice of target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a piece on ipkat explaining that he's certainly the owner of the UK copyright if he intended the monkey to take the image because it is his intellectual creation.

PETA are trying to shoot a teddybear here. Jerks and borderline terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.