Who owns the rights?

I think the monkey should own the copyright. It's a great picture. The money it generates could go to an animal charity.
If it was my camera the monkey used, that's how I would like things to go.
The money would be nice though !
 
I would class this as one of those "only in America" Summer silly-season stories - except that it has serious ramifications for us all. Consider the following:

Scenario 1. A tiger trips a trigger in the jungle - a photo is taken

Scenario 2. An elephant/chimpanzee daubs some paint on a canvas

Scenario 3. A tree waves in the wind. A motion sensor trips a shutter

Scenario 4. Konica used to produce a camera called a Kampai - it would turn to a sound and take a picture

Scenario 5. My portable telephone boasts a "smile priority" mode. It "decides" when to trip the shutter

Who owns copyright in each of the above?

If you read the story, the monkeys played with the photographer's equipment. Hundreds of exposures resulted. The photographer chose to process and show one or two of those images.

In my book the photographer owns the copyright by dint of owning the equipment and selecting and processing the final images - however it is fair to say he did NOT create the image.

Tough one. What I DO know is that a) An animal cannot own copyright b) A company cannot legislate.

The lawyers will win again...
 
Bill,

I agree that, even though the specifics of this particular case are silly (monkeys!), the issue of intellectual property is serious.

As a paid writer whose work sometimes appears on the internet, there have been occasions when people have taken my work without permission, and I have had to deal with that.

So the issue of who owns what and under what conditions is not trivial, but the specifics sure can be goofy.

Cheers, Jock
 
I vote for the choice not listed: IMHO, the Monkey should own the rights, lest we want to trigger the apocalypse that became Planet of the Apes.
 
OK...... if my wife hands me her camera and I take a bunch of shots with it and she selects one and shares on facebook, it's HER image? (I deliberately put myself in the role of the monkey here despite the fact that it is usually her borrowing my camera to take a shot).

My point of view would be that the monkey took the shot. If it belongs to anybody, it belongs to the monkey. SInce it can't belong to the monkey, it is public domain.
 
I go with the photographer.

It was clearly his creative thought and idea that realised the photograph and not the monkey.

This passes the boiler repair test, imho, which is the following:

"If I give you my photograph for free can you please come round and repair my boiler for free?"

In other words have you heard of any other profession where people are expected to give away their product or service for free?

LouisB
 
I go with the photographer.

It was clearly his creative thought and idea that realised the photograph and not the monkey.

Would your opinion change if it was not the photographer's idea? This article just states that he left the camera unattended, not that he handed it to the monkey..... Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?

Also, in the above article it discusses the notion of handing your camera to a tourist to take a photo of you posing with your wife. Technically, the tourist owns the rights...they took the photo.
 
I thought possession was 9/10ths of the law? So, if the photographer has the camera, he has the picture, so it should be his, right? (Keep in mind I find this thing falls under FWP).
 
and for those who believe the shot is the responsibility of the camera owner, if he had left his gun attended and the monkey shot someone dead, would you go after the photographer for murder? (I know I'm getting ridiculous, but it seems like that would be the line of thought).
 
I think what this is coming down to is that the current law(s) on copyright are inadequate. However, again I would observe that it is NOT up to Wikimedia to decide what is right and what is wrong. Given that the photos were taken in Indonesia and the photographer is British, it will be interesting to see what jurisdiction this falls under. Let me put it this way. If the photographer decides to crowdfund his case (as I rather hope he does) I will make a supporting contribution.

Sent from another Galaxy
 
however it is fair to say he did NOT create the image.

I disagree, the photographer DID create the image by putting the camera there and setting it up knowing something (in this case a monkey) may or would likely trigger the shutter. The act of preparing the device (camera/tripod etc) is making the image IMO. Triggering the shutter is not the only aspect. He was there (or had been) and the equipment is his.

I've seen another recent case where a photog had an awesome pic. He only released a very small jpg and the image went viral. If the released image is too small "they" can't do much with it. Itseems to be one way to control an image use,
 
What about those pictures and videos taken on cameras mounted on drones? Who owns the copyright bec a human didn't technically click the shutter?

Especially drone selfies.

With electronic cameras, the shutter can be triggered remotely or by a timer. I wonder how long before the cameras are smart enough to claim their own copyright.
 
Back
Top