Images Not taken by humans!!!

[Davey Towers]

I've just seen the image of a Snowy Owl on the news media. The image was taken by a roadside speed camera in the US of A. In conjunction with the toApes1 Photographers 0, Who owns the copyright to that image? (sorry I haven't got a link to view it!)

[spacecadet]

In the UK it would be simple- it belongs to the authority which installed the camera as it could be said to be its intellectual creation.

But apparently the US doesn't recognise that concept, so probably no-one.

[ChrisC]

Also Photographers who use remotes are always the copyright owners, plus the monkey has now lost 

 

http://europe.newsweek.com/monkey-denied-rights-his-world-famous-selfie-412636

[dustydingo]

Also Photographers who use remotes are always the copyright owners, plus the monkey has now lost

 

http://europe.newsweek.com/monkey-denied-rights-his-world-famous-selfie-412636

Ummm . . . well actually, in section 313.2 of the most recent edition of the Compendium of the U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, it appears, in the US at least, that the photographer hasn't won either.

 

Section 313.2 states that “to qualify as a work of ‘authorship’ a work must be created by a human being.” Works “produced by nature, animals, or plants” are not copyrightable and will not be registered by the Copyright Office. Section 313.2 even gives “a photograph taken by a monkey” as a specific example of unprotectable “Works that Lack Human Authorship”.

 

And back OT, as Mark noted, section 313.2 also states “Similarly, the [Copyright] Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.” Again, this is US based.

 

dd

[ChrisC]

 

Also Photographers who use remotes are always the copyright owners, plus the monkey has now lost

 

http://europe.newsweek.com/monkey-denied-rights-his-world-famous-selfie-412636

Ummm . . . well actually, in section 313.2 of the most recent edition of the Compendium of the U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, it appears, in the US at least, that the photographer hasn't won either.

 

Section 313.2 states that “to qualify as a work of ‘authorship’ a work must be created by a human being.” Works “produced by nature, animals, or plants” are not copyrightable and will not be registered by the Copyright Office. Section 313.2 even gives “a photograph taken by a monkey” as a specific example of unprotectable “Works that Lack Human Authorship”.

 

And back OT, as Mark noted, section 313.2 also states “Similarly, the [Copyright] Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.” Again, this is US based.

 

dd

 

I've got no idea, I was just posting the latest news in the supposed case in the link, that said the monkey wasn't the copyright holder (& linking to the owl,) nothing more, nothing less.