Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain
from the do-monkeys-believe-in-the-public-domain dept
So our post concerning the takedown request from Caters News Agency over the monkey self-portraits has stirred up quite a lot of interest and discussion around the globe. I wanted to revisit the issue a little more focused on the legal side, and why it seems quite likely that these images are very much in the public domain (which would also suggest that an actual takedown notice (rather than a simple request, as happened here) would represent copyfraud.First up, I've seen many people insisting that the camera owner gets the copyright on any photo taken with their camera. If you read the comments on various other news stories that have covered this, people say this so confidently. They're almost certainly wrong. There may be some exceptional cases where that's true, but for the most part it's not true. The confusion here is between ownership of the photo itself and the copyright on the photo. This is an issue that confuses many people who don't deal much with copyright law, but the photo and the copyright on the photo are two separate things.
Under US law (we'll deal with elsewhere soon), you have to have made the creative contributions (the copyrightable aspects) to the image to have it qualify for any copyright protection (and then, it's only the creative aspects that get the copyright). Thus, you could argue that if the photographer had set up the camera, framed the shot, and simply let the monkey click the shutter, perhaps there is some copyright there (though, even then it would likely be limited to some of the framing, and not much else). But David Slater has already admitted that the monkeys found a camera he had left out by accident and that he did not have anything to do with setting up the shot. He's stated that the monkeys were playing with the shiny objects and when one pushed the shutter, the noise interested them and they kept it up. It would be difficult to argue he made any sort of creative contribution here to warrant copyright.
Can the monkeys get the copyright? No. As Justin Levine kindly pointed out, according to the rules published by the US Copyright Office:
503.03 Works not capable of supporting a copyright claim.That seems pretty cut and dried. The works are not subject to copyright at all. That would make them public domain.
Claims to copyright in the following works cannot be registered in the Copyright Office:
503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.
In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable
But that's all under US law. Could there be international claims? Aurelia J. Schultz has the best review of the relevant international law that I've seen, and it, too, concludes that the photos are almost certainly public domain. There are two countries where the law may matter: Indonesia and the UK. Schultz first looks at Indonesian law:
Under Indonesian copyright law an author is “a person or some persons.” Miss Monkey is ruled out right there I’m afraid.Sorry, Monkey. UK law?
Since it’s a British company claiming copyright, any suit is likely to be brought in the UK. Indonesia is a member of Berne and TRIPs, so the photos should be treated the same as UK works under UK copyright law. Unfortunately for the monkey, The UK copyright law also defines author as “the person.” Sorry monkey, it’s not you.Monkey see, monkey do, but monkey don't get no copyrights. Okay, but does David Slater and/or Caters News have any copyright interest in the photos under international law? Again, the answer is almost certainly no. Under Indonesian law, if anyone can claim the right to the image, it might be the Indonesian government:
There is a clause in Article 7 of the Indonesian copyright law that specifies if a work is designed by one person and worked out by another, then the one who designed the work gets the copyright. If the photographer had set up the shot and the monkey had just taken the photo, the photographer would likely have the copyright. But the photographer didn’t design anything here. He just left his camera. The monkey did all the designing in the photos, so this article shouldn’t apply.Okay, but Caters said they represented Slater, not the Indonesian government. What about under UK law? There, too, it appears that the image is almost certainly public domain:
Perhaps more useful here is Article 9, “If a legal entity announces that a work has originated from it without mentioning a person as the author, then the legal entity shall be deemed to be the author, unless proven otherwise.” The monkey took the photos in an Indonesian national park. The Indonesian government presumably owns that park and is a legal entity. It would seem that if the Indonesian government claimed it was the copyright owner, then it would be. Except for that “unless proven otherwise bit.” But this leads us to another question, does the park own the monkey?
If not having an author as defined under the copyright law is the same as having an unknown author, then Indonesia owns the copyright under Article 10A of the Indonesian copyright law.
Under Section 153, the work only qualifies for copyright protection if it meets requirements in several different areas including the area of author. Section 154 outlines the requirements the author must meet in order for the work to receive copyright protection.So, it's looking like the image is in the public domain in both the UK and the US.So it appears under UK law, the photos are in the public domain.
- Option one, a British citizen. Pretty sure the Indonesian monkey is not a British citizen.
- Option two, an individual domiciled or resident in the UK. Monkey lives in Indonesia.
- Option three, an individual domiciled or resident in another country to which the relevant provisions of this Part extend. This seems to include any countries to which the UK must extend national treatment with respect to copyright. Since Indonesia is a member of Berne and TRIPS, Indonesia would be one of these countries. It might seem like we need to know if the monkey is an individual, or if it can be domiciled or resident. But, that doesn’t matter because the first part of Section 154 says “if the author was at the material time a qualifying person.” (emphasis added)
Of course, given Caters initial response to this whole thing: "Michael, regardless of the issue of who does and doesn't own the copyright - it is 100% clear that the copyright owner is not yourself," it suggests that Caters doesn't wish to recognize a public domain or the value that it provides. I find this to be yet another depressing statement on the state of copyright law today, where people can't even fathom the idea that such a photo might actually belong in the public domain, where it can be used legitimately to enrich the lives of everyone.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, david slater, indonesia, monkeys, public domain, uk, us
Companies: caters news agency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, anything that I see that has "unknown author" I will claim to be done by monkeys, and declare it public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like it or not, he did plenty of things that contributed to the end image.
What I think funny is that you are making such a cause out of a silly, rather rare circumstance. It's like you are, once again, attempting to kill all of copyright based on a single extreme case.
Let me ask you a simple question: Did you get permission to use the image on your site? No? Are you sure of the copyright holder? You are not. Are all images copyright at the time of creation?
I would say that while there may be some margin merit to your arguments, it doesn't make your use of the image any more correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not a matter of how 'much' he allegedly contributed to the taking of those pictures, it's a matter of whether the law grants him copy protection privileges or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What I think is funny is how photographers love copyright law when it works in their favor but bash anyone who points out when it does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Scientists and primate handlers often give primates paints and paper. The primates then paint pictures using those tools the handlers prepared and left around.
The copyrights of those paintings are no more owned by the handlers than this picture is of the photographer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I could have told you that much based on your original comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, I love these kinds of discussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Whats the difference between a monkey and a camera self-timer. Would he beable to claim copyright to pictures where he set up a camera self-timer and then threw it in the air at the appropriate time? After selecting and editing the pictures would he not own the copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The photog said it was an accident. He didn't give it to them. So, in this case, no.
"selecting and editing pictures that they took creative?"
Maybe, but here the same selection is not copied. In other words, if he chose 15 pics as the best and arranged them in a certain order, he might have a copyright on that compilation. But Techdirt only used one or two, so it didn't copy that same selection/arrangement/coordination.
As far as editing the single image, *maybe* theirs enough original creativity going into that process to warrant copyright protection.
That brings us to fair use...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable"
seems just like most law its somewhat ambiguous and contradictory i would interpret it to mean that throwing a camera in the air with a self timer would not be copy right-able but it does seem to indicate if a human author contributes to the mechanical or random procees then it is copyrightable. really it makes me just want to throw the whole of copyright out the window
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. Which is Mike's point here. Learn something about these laws if you want to argue about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Commentards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the reason why this case has become important is because it showcases how copyright is outdated. When the first copyright laws were drawn up, no one ever imagined this could happen, so there was nothing included regarding it. Which is why we're arguing. It would be nice if copyright could be revamped to deal with the modern world instead of being constantly patched and repatched to try to plug up the issues that have risen over the years.
If the images are public domain, why would permission be needed to use them? If, somehow, they do deserve a copyright, would it not be fair use to post them as the story was reporting on the pictures, making them newsworthy? If that's the case, again, why is permission needed?
I'd think there's every right to use the photos here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But what about lemurs? Or a hybrid between a lemur and a boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is however a perfect case of people not understanding how the copyright laws works, and think that because you own the picture you automatically own the copyright.
And the comment you answered was also a perfect example of someone not understanding that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But copyright law doesn't recognize "contributed to". If I lend you my camera and you take a picture, the copyright on that picture would be yours. Not mine. And not the maker of the camera or the batteries or the memory card or anyone else who may have "contributed to" but did not actually take the picture.
What I think funny is that you are making such a cause out of a silly, rather rare circumstance.
This particular case might be rare, but its worthy discussion because it highlights the broader problems caused by a lack of understanding of the true purpose of copyright.
It's like you are, once again, attempting to kill all of copyright based on a single extreme case.
Hypberbole much?
Let me ask you a simple question: Did you get permission to use the image on your site?
It's covered by fair use, so permission is not required.
Are you sure of the copyright holder?
You might want to read the article posted above these comments. It clearly answers your question. Hint: there is no copyright holder.
Are all images copyright at the time of creation?
No, as explained in the original post. Here's a suggestion for you. If you want to argue against a position, it's usually a good idea to demonstrate that you actually understand that position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, the settings only contribute to certain facets of a photo, but have no barring on the ownership. It's all about who framed the picture and triggered the shutter. (Or at least the shutter, but that might be debatable) It's that person's choice of subject and framing that primary defines the "artistic expression" of a photograph. Think of it this way, what if you setup an easel, canvas, pallet, paints and brushes? Event though your personal choice in the type of brushes, paints, and colors have an impact on the painting, the copyright still goes to whoever applies the paint.
So, in your example, you would own the picture because YOU framed the shot and set the timer to activate the shutter. Your choice of settings, regardless of how they effect the final picture, is entirely moot.
In the case of the monkey photos, since it appears it was the monkey that framed the shot (however clumsily it may have been) and took the picture, the monkey would technically own it. However, since it seems that a monkey cannot claim copyright ownership, then it belongs to NO ONE by default!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is however irrelevant in this case, since the owner of the camera explicitly said that he had nothing to do with setting up the shoot whatsoever.
Had it been a human who accidentally took the pictures the way the monkey did (i.e. a toddler playing with a camera), then that human could potentially argue ownership of the copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That argument would also give a copyright interest to the camera manufacturer, the airline that transported Mr Slater to Indonesia and the power company that supplied the electricity to charge the batteries.
What I think funny is that you are making such a cause out of a silly, rather rare circumstance. It's like you are, once again, attempting to kill all of copyright based on a single extreme case.
No he's just pointing out that in this (admittedly unusual case) there is no copyright. This obviously has no effect on the vast majority of situations.
Let me ask you a simple question: Did you get permission to use the image on your site?
If there is no copyright there is no need to ask permission. You don't need to ask permission for everything. Did you ask permission to get out of bed this morning?
Are all images copyright at the time of creation?
NO - and that seems to be the point you have difficulty accepting.
I would say that while there may be some margin merit to your arguments, it doesn't make your use of the image any more correct.
to paraphrase "you might be right - but I'll just ignore it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If there is no copyright there is no need to ask permission. You don't need to ask permission for everything. Did you ask permission to get out of bed this morning?
Nope...and now his mom is pissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Are all images copyright at the time of creation?"
No. At least not under U.S. law. An image that does not include any original authorship under the law is not protected by copyright. There is a strong argument to be made that these images contain no original authorship under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> Are you sure of the copyright holder?
> Are all images copyright at the time of creation?
What you are ignoring is that the way the image was used is almost certainly fair use. In that case, who the copyright owner is doesn't matter. Whoever that owner may be (if any!) would have to sue for infringement, and then fair use would be raised as a defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're misconstruing the general concept of publicity rights, which also don't exist.
Do you own a location? you came there, you brought your air, chose your clothes. Oh right, the answer is no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, the analysis of a rare circumstance is often very valuable to debate and to learning in general thus leading to original thought (or orignal creations).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the canvas maker did not make the canvas, ther would be no painting. Does the canvas maker get copyright's to a painters work? The answer is no. The images are in the Public Domain and are covered by fair use, no permissions needed. Besides, he was not infringing upon nor was he profiting from the publishing a news article featuring the pics. Caters was out of line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, that's true. Unfortunately, none of those things are relevant to copyright.
If they were, the equipment guy that carries the photog's things and helps setup sessions would have at least a partial claim toward the copyright on millions of photos.
What I think funny is that you are making such a cause out of a silly, rather rare circumstance. It's like you are, once again, attempting to kill all of copyright based on a single extreme case.
Yes, because by discussing this particular case, he's obviously making a case for the abolishment of all copyright.
Wait, what?
Let me ask you a simple question: Did you get permission to use the image on your site?
Yes, because the public is the copyright holder and he is part of the public.
Are you sure of the copyright holder?
Yes, as he's repeatedly stated, the law is fairly clear. Non-humans cannot hold a copyright, therefore the photo is in the public domain.
You are not.
Yes, he is.
Are all images copyright at the time of creation?
All images created by a human being, but not images created by non-humans.
I would say that while there may be some margin merit to your arguments, it doesn't make your use of the image any more correct.
I would say that his argument, including the bit about fair use which makes any copyright irrelevant, is meritable indeed, making his use of the image entirely correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually if you have ever experienced monkeys and things left laying about the answer to that is no he did nothing substantive to add the monkeys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a butterfly did not flap its wings in China, his plane would have crashed, and there would be no image. Clearly, the picture is the property of the butterflies.
Let me ask you a simple question: Did you get permission to use the image on your site? No? Are you sure of the copyright holder? You are not. Are all images copyright at the time of creation?
None of this makes his use of the image unlawful, of course. You only need to ask permission if it's not fair use, and you're infringing on one of the specific 106 rights. In certain cases (e.g. statutory royalties), you don't have to ask permission at all.
More to the point: Are you the copyright holder? No? Then you have no right to ask anyone to take it down.
it doesn't make your use of the image any more correct.
That's true. His use would be entirely correct even if Slater did hold the copyright.
Uses like this are why copyright law exists in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
- None of that is "creative" and that's they copyrightable part.
Let me ask you a simple question: Did you get permission to use the image on your site? No? Are you sure of the copyright holder? You are not. Are all images copyright at the time of creation?
- Well if according to US copyright law only people could have copyright then no, not all images ave copyright at the time of creation. *Hint read the article before asking questions.
I would say that while there may be some margin merit to your arguments, it doesn't make your use of the image any more correct.
- The image was used in conjunction with a "news story" so the use of the image falls under fair use. So his use was "correct".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The arguments do make the use of the image more correct if it is established that the image is in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow. By following your line of logic, we could go all the way back to the battery makers, the lens makers, the camera body makers..... When do we stop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It isn't at all the same as a battery maker, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He didn't take the picture. It really isn't that hard to see.
Some of us may think that for ease of use, giving him the copyright in this case wouldn't be too far a stretch.
But then some of us think that a lot of copyright holders aren't interested in anyone else's ease of use.
Like Mike's completely justified fair use of the photo's in his article, a normal person would not ask him to take them down. A normal easy going person, even if they did genuinely have the exact letter of the law guaranteeing them copyright would not say words to the effect of, it doesn't matter who holds copyright, because you don't.
It's a fun, interesting situation and while you are determined to say screw you, everyone has to pay for anything anyone chooses to lay claim to, you are a minority both here and in the real world full of normal people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Typical bully response.
"It doesn't matter if you're right or not. We have more money and lawyers than you, so unless you do what we say, we'll bankrupt you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if there were a copyright on the pictures (and there's not), Mike's use is fair. He isn't going to "go broke" unless sending the words "LOL! No." back to Caters is somehow prohibitively expensive now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, if someone brings a lawsuit against you for copyright infringement, even if the lawsuit is totally baseless, you can't just write back with "LOL no". You're going to have to provide SOME sort of legal defense and file some documents with the court, and chances are you're going to want a lawyer's help with that. And that's going to cost money.
This is why so many lawsuits settle. Sometimes winning is more expensive than settling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What Mike is saying here isn't that his use is fair because of general fair use rules in the US, bur rather that he feels there is no copyright on the image. That would be something that almost certainly would end up in a prolonged court case, because Mike would have to show why there is no copyright, on the basis of the laws of 3 different countries. I am not even entirely sure that he could do it in the US courts alone.
So it's really this question: If these guys push the issue, is Mike willing to put his money on the table for his beliefs, or will he just take down the image?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) File for summary judgement on the grounds that they are not actually the copyright holder
2) If that is rejected, file for summary judgement on the grounds that it is obvious fair use
3) If that is rejected, they might face a tough decision.
I can see (1) being rejected. I can't see (2) being rejected though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) You just spent a pile of money.
2) You just spent another pile of money
3) You wonder why you just spent two piles of money for nothing.
In your list, I can see 1 rejected easily. If the copyright is claimed in the UK, example, the US courts would have to respect that claim until it is proven to be false. That claim would have to be made in the jurisidiction that the copyright is claimed in, because it's subject to the copyright laws of that country. So it is unlikely the judge will just toss it out, because it isn't a fact of law yet.
2 is slightly better, but still is a bit of a chase. Mike has made it clear repeatedly that he isn't a journalist, just a guy running a blog, and that blog is run for profit. So journalistic fair use likely wouldn't apply, so you would have to ask which aspect of fair use would apply here.
By the time you get to 3, you have already spent probably 40 - 50 hours of lawyer time, letters, filings, appearances, pleadings, etc. It's already a piss pot full of money to end up pretty much where you started.
I don't think the other side will press the issue. But if they do, Mike will have some serious thinking to do before starting down the road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But more importantly, I'm not sure why you are celebrating this, other than childishness. One of the main points made against IP law is that it can be used as a form of extortion since fighting is so expensive. You seem to be admitting that this is a major problem with the law - you are just reveling in it because it is happening to someone you don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I"m sorry, but this looks like nonsense to me. It is a plaintiff's initial burden to show ownership of a valid copyright. Why would Mike have to prove no copyright? Also, what is a "fact of law?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's saying both, actually.
Also, it would not be Mike's burden to show that there is no copyright ownership. Rather, it would be the plaintiff's burden to show ownership of a valid copyright (at least that's how it works in the U.S., where I assume any suit would be filed).
I'm not sure if anybody could actually file a suit in good faith here, given the facts indicating that there is likely no copyright in the original image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep dreaming, skintube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
At first, anyway, they just asked relatively politely to take the image down, although their second response was a bit testier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is not the basis for copyright ownership under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually following arguments to their logical conclusion is often necessary to reveal their innate contradictions. Mathematicians call this "reducio ad absurdum" and it is one of the most powerful tools of mathematical proof. Without it we would likely still be in the dark ages - if not the stone age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It isn't at all the same as a battery maker, is it?
No, that sounds like the equipment guy to me. You know, the one who follows the photographer around with the extra equipment and preps the cameras?
By your logic, the equipment guy would get at least a partial copyright on photos taken by the actual photographer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copy. Stop.
So, given the logic in question--the copyright is owned by Planet Earth. So, can we all agree that copyright owned by Planet Earth and 'public domain' are the same thing, or must we argue about those as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copy. Stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copy. Stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copy. Stop.
;D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copy. Stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copy. Stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copy. Stop.
Heh, only if it happened the life of the former star's life plus 75 years. Or under US law, life plus 95 years.
Something that happened 4.5 billion years ago probably exceeds the time period established by statue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlehkm94ato
That'll stand up in a court of public opinion much better than Caters' claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious troll is not only obvious, but is getting boring now.
"Did you get permission to use the image on your site?"
Permission from whom? The monkey? Do you remotely understand what the words PUBLIC DOMAIN even mean?
"Are all images copyright at the time of creation?"
As Mike clearly demonstrated, the answer is a definite no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, pop quiz time - let's say that he did every single one of those things and then hands the camera to his friend to shoot the picture. Who owns the copyright on that picture? Him, or his friend?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you then upload that photo to a social networking or photo sharing site that in their TOS claims ownership of the copyright - could it possibly be a legal claim as it was not yours to give away? These sites (and the uploading user?)could then be openning themselves to some serious legal disputes if they choose to use one of these photos for publicity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, here's an article discussing the issue and showing how it's really not well-established in U.S. law one way or the other. It seems no actual court cases have dealt with the issue as of the time this guy wrote the article (or he didn't find them anyway).
http://www.danejohnsonlaw.com/images/danejohnson-statuteofanneimals.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brings up an interesting parallel question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brings up an interesting parallel question...
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brings up an interesting parallel question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brings up an interesting parallel question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brings up an interesting parallel question...
This is a valid question. I am pretty sure I have seen copyright claims on video surveillance. The Lindsey Lohan jewelry store shoplifting thing comes to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brings up an interesting parallel question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
um, here...
please someone get me a banana.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: um, here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
You can't get a monkey to take the same picture again, can you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
monkey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: monkey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: monkey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: monkey
To be fair, they were working on Hamlet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, looking back through the analyses I can see no possible wording in the laws of any of the possibly applicable countries where this would make him the "author".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Office rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright Office rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you give them too much credit. The more likely explanation is that they simply don't know what "public domain" means. They probably just assume (like most people today) that EVERYTHING is copyrighted by someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
computer generated works analogy
Now Whitford J defined the role of the computer as instrumental, saying “The computer was no more than a tool” and rejected the defence argument stating “it would be to suggest that, if you write your work with a pen, it is the pen which is the author of the work rather than the person who drives the pen.” In the ruling the author of the work was adjudged to be the programmer – but under work for hire blar blar.
There is a colourable augment that the circumstance set up by the photographer is sufficient to pass the notional instrument test established in the above case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: computer generated works analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The camera company should use it in a commercial... "If a button-mashing monkey can take a photo this good with our camera, you should too!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TOOL
Have to say your a fucking tool and it's douches like you that are looking for grey areas and screwing up the photo business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOOL
Regardless critter cam pics are not the same--they are set up specifically by a human and set to trigger based on conditions specified (or configured by a human). Critter cams have intent behind them (but even so, may not be covered by copyright). The owner of the camera explicitly stated the monkey pictures were an accident.
And finally, Mr. Pot, you might want to consider that you are doing the same thing you accuse the blog author of: looking for grey areas. By implying that copyright should cover this and critter cams you yourself are looking for grey areas to extend copyright.
If you actually wish to educate yourself, I would invite you to read the part in the blog post about what is NOT covered by copyright--this is not a grey area it is the actual wording of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOOL
Damn those ambiguous adjectives!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"almost certainly"
Mike has created a new legal construct of the burden of proof.
We now have:
Balance of probabilities
proponderance of the evidence
beyond resonable doubt
and now (wait for it).............. 'da da dah'
ALMOST CERTANLY
In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship
Did the monday make, buy or other acquire the camera, Mike you stated it yourself, that these photos are not the 'product' of the money either, he was just playing with a shiny thing that made noises..
Therefore he was not engaging in the product of a 'work'.
The only person who was engaged with the work is the person who by good luck or whatever left his camera there.
And the company that pays him for the works he creates, and yes the photographer can hold 'ownership' of the image, but that does not mean he automatically owns the copyright of that image, owernship of the image and of the copyright for that image are two seperate entities.
Mike what justification do you have for making the claim that you are 'almost sure' it is in the public domain ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "almost certainly"
Mike what justification do you have for making the claim that you are 'almost sure' it is in the public domain ???
Maybe the detailed analysis quoted in the post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "almost certainly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "almost certainly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Publicity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"almost certainly"
Mike has created a new legal construct of the burden of proof.
We now have:
Balance of probabilities
proponderance of the evidence
beyond resonable doubt
and now (wait for it).............. 'da da dah'
ALMOST CERTANLY
In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship
Did the monday make, buy or other acquire the camera, Mike you stated it yourself, that these photos are not the 'product' of the money either, he was just playing with a shiny thing that made noises..
Therefore he was not engaging in the product of a 'work'.
The only person who was engaged with the work is the person who by good luck or whatever left his camera there.
And the company that pays him for the works he creates, and yes the photographer can hold 'ownership' of the image, but that does not mean he automatically owns the copyright of that image, owernship of the image and of the copyright for that image are two seperate entities.
Mike what justification do you have for making the claim that you are 'almost sure' it is in the public domain ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "almost certainly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "almost certainly"
Suppose I am walking along the beach and I see a camera on a towel. I pick it up and snap some photos, one of which is this amazing shot of a shark leaping into the air and catching a pelican in its teeth. It's a great shot.
Since the camera belonged to some guy who was swimming (and silly enough to leave the equipment unguarded) does he get the copyright on a work that he did not do? If so, could to reference the law where that is stated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "almost certainly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "almost certainly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "almost certainly"
Well in defence of darryl, he is at least using his own name, as well as being consistently odd!
What would be odd is if his oddness did not happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "almost certainly"
It was his other brother, darryl. Obviously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "almost certainly"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Wait Till PETA Hears Of This ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Righthaven Monkeys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My mind could be melting...
I understand from the main blogs on this monkey see, do, sue thing that the monkey (which is not a person, almost certainly a minor, etc, etc)has no rights of ownership or copyright?
If this is the case does the chap that owns the camera now own the image?
If he owns the image can he apply for a copyright on that image?
Again, I'm only wanting to clarify this in my own head before I reply with something REALLY stupid... or maybe I'm too late (re-read above)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My mind could be melting...
If I were to print out this picture, then I would own that printout (overlooking the fact that I can't find the cable to the printer of course ;-)), but not the copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My mind could be melting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My mind could be melting...
10 different people can own copies of the picture, but they don't all own the copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My mind could be melting...
Correct. Only humans can hold copyright over creative works in current copyright law both US and international.
If this is the case does the chap that owns the camera now own the image?
The chap who owns the camera owns a physical (digital) copy of the image. That does not make it "his" image, it means he has a copy of it... just like if you own a magazine, you own a copy of a bunch of images, but you don't own those images.
If he owns the image can he apply for a copyright on that image?
If you think this one through I'm pretty sure you'll understand the answer. Of course not. Just because you walk down the street and pick up the newspaper does not mean you can clip out the photos and apply for a registered copyright on the images in the newspaper. Even if you say, gave an elephant a canvas and paintbrush, you can not apply for copyright over the final work because you didn't paint it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My mind could be melting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My mind could be melting...
Again, not arguing, just trying to make it clear in my head.
Thanks for the replies so far btw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My mind could be melting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My mind could be melting...
Copyright belongs exclusively to the creator of a work, or to someone to whom they legally transfer it. Copyright never stems from simply possessing an original. Always authorship, never ownership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My mind could be melting...
Your point of confusion seems to be that you believe *someone* must hold the copyright, and if it's not the monkeys, then Slater is the next logical person in line. You are starting from a mistaken assumption that there must be a copyright.
If the the "author" of the image cannot hold the copyright under law (as is the case here) then the works are public domain, and there is no copyright at all.
It's not like "title" on a piece of land where someone has to hold it. Works in the public domain can be used by anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My mind could be melting...
Did anyone else hear the penny drop?
Thanks for re-solidifying my mind to those that were patient enough to stay with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And your point is? Regardless, the bigger issue here is copyright is outdated, out of control, it has been used to suppress freedom of speech and technological advancement and it needs to be rewriten from scratch. See? That's a point. Yours is just monkey feces from your IP asshat stringmaster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal behavior?
Time to call your local Federal District Attorney?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminal behavior?
This is a very lively and useful discussion about copyright in the US and UK. I have enjoyed most of the posts.
Cheers,
DW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think everyone's missing something here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is clear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
since copyright is essentially a proprietary right in nature, can it then be said that upon creating said right, it was never capable of ownership by the maker. much like how we cannot today say the rocks and trees found in nature today are the property of 'God'. by extension, that would mean that whoever claims this proprietary right first becomes its legit owner? in that case it would be the photographer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just as any monkey can press a shutter, any imbecile can form an opinion--existence is in no way equivalent to merit. The macaque's photographs do not meet the requirements for copyright protection; and your abject failure to comprehend fundamental principles makes you incompetent to render a legitimate verdict.
If you're going to exercise your right to an opinion--in public--you might at least try to make it valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]