eno789
Regular
- Location
- NoCal, USA
- Name
- Brian
Was the pictures model released?
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
Who owns the rights?
- Thread starter Luke
- Start date
Lightmancer
Legend
- Location
- Sunny Frimley
- Name
- Bill Palmer
It's an animal...
biglouis
Veteran
Probably not. But in any case in the articles I have read it clearly states that the photographer had the idea to allow the monkeys to explore this camera and hopefully trigger it to take their photographs. For that reason I restate that the creative idea was that of the photographer not the monkey, therefore the copyright should lie with the photographer.
LouisB
Boid
All-Pro
- Location
- Bangalore, India
- Name
- Rajiv
I think the monkey is being shortchanged hugely. He should be handed all the royalties from the image. And then we could film him as he sat and ate the money he'd made.
Lightmancer
Legend
- Location
- Sunny Frimley
- Name
- Bill Palmer
I can't help but wonder if the ape chimped each shot...
Jock Elliott
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Troy, NY
That's it, Bill -- your poetic license is hereby revoked.
And I am asking for pun-itive damages.
Cheers, Jock
Djarum
All-Pro
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Name
- Jason
I always find copyright/ownership rights in regards to art an interesting topic. As an engineer, we deal with copyrights in terms of ideas and patents in terms of application, but many Engineers I know are very unhappy with the patent process and what the Patent Office is currently allowing as Patents, but thats a whole 'nother can of worms.
At what point is art public domain?
At what point is art public domain?
Have you seen Planet of the Apes? (We need an alternate primate smilie)
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI USA
- Name
- Luke
This gets at the heart of THIS specific instance I think. So the photog had the IDEA to let the monkey use his camera (still not what I have read in another accounts....it's my understanding that it was accidental) and that entitles the copyright to him? Because he clearly had NOTHING to do with taking the photo. It was his IDEA and nothing more. I think giving him copyright for that is fairly sketchy.
When the law decides it is, whether under local jurisdiction or by international agreement. Copyright in the printed word and music certainly expires after a time, but I'm not sure whether the same pertains to works of visual art
There have been some recent cases in England regarding the work of the the street artist known as Banksy. He generally creates his pieces in public spaces - on the sides of buildings.
Whatever his intent that these are "public pieces", the people who own the walls on which the pieces are painted have taken to removing the piece of wall and putting it up for sale in the private art market. So long as the wall is theirs to do with as they wish, of course.
But the photographs would not have existed in that particular context without his having had the idea and then executed the idea by placing the camera in the hands of the simians.
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI USA
- Name
- Luke
I understand the argument...I just don't buy into it.
This bit from another article about the story seems pertinent....
"under US copyright law, copyright claims cannot vest in to non-human authors (that is, non-human authors can't own copyrights) — and the monkey was the photographer. To claim copyright, the photographer would have had to make substantial contributions to the final image, and even then, they'd only have copyright for those alterations, not the underlying image."
Not sure if handing the camera to the monkey (if, in fact, he handed it to the monkey) counts as a substantial contribution.
This bit from another article about the story seems pertinent....
"under US copyright law, copyright claims cannot vest in to non-human authors (that is, non-human authors can't own copyrights) — and the monkey was the photographer. To claim copyright, the photographer would have had to make substantial contributions to the final image, and even then, they'd only have copyright for those alterations, not the underlying image."
Not sure if handing the camera to the monkey (if, in fact, he handed it to the monkey) counts as a substantial contribution.
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI USA
- Name
- Luke
I just read the photographer's own account (a good read) and now I gotta say that it definitely sounds like he really kind of orchestrated the whole thing and that actually some of the shots I thought the monkey had taken were actually taken from a tripod with a self-timer.
SULAWESI MONKEY photographs by David J Slater
SULAWESI MONKEY photographs by David J Slater
Can you claim copyright for a shot from your security camera? Let's assume the camera has a certain level of AI and is designed to take pictures of what it identifies as people. A few of the pictures are really good. This is similar to the monkey case but is likely to happen more often in the near future.
biglouis
Veteran
From the BBC article on the monkey-selfie:
"Mr Slater said he spent three days in Indonesia shadowing the monkeys in 2011.
"I became accepted as part of the troop, they touched me and groomed me... so I thought they could take their own photograph.
"I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture."
I rest my case.
LouisB
"Mr Slater said he spent three days in Indonesia shadowing the monkeys in 2011.
"I became accepted as part of the troop, they touched me and groomed me... so I thought they could take their own photograph.
"I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture."
I rest my case.
LouisB
Lightmancer
Legend
- Location
- Sunny Frimley
- Name
- Bill Palmer
A rather nice Billingham Hadley Pro, I think.
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI USA
- Name
- Luke
Ripleysbaby
supernatural anesthetist
- Location
- Cumbria UK
- Name
- Garry
The law here in GB says that copyright belongs to the person that created the image.
The photographer may have set everything up (staged) but the monkey created the image when it tripped the shutter.
I would ( if I were a judge) rule that based on the evidence on how the shot was obtained grant copyright to the photographer that set up the shot. But any royalties earned should go to replacement of any photo gear destroyed while getting the shot and the remainder to a good cause. The photographer could have covered himself to start with by employing the monky ;-)
The photographer may have set everything up (staged) but the monkey created the image when it tripped the shutter.
I would ( if I were a judge) rule that based on the evidence on how the shot was obtained grant copyright to the photographer that set up the shot. But any royalties earned should go to replacement of any photo gear destroyed while getting the shot and the remainder to a good cause. The photographer could have covered himself to start with by employing the monky ;-)
