Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
from the want-to-try-that-again dept
Oh boy. The "Monkey Selfie" is back.
For reasons unknown, earlier this week, Slater suddenly decided to send Siy and Public Knowledge an ill-informed, poorly reasoned legal threat about that post. The letter Slater sends is fairly incredible, both in its reasoning and in its target. Not only do the claims in the letter misrepresent the law, but they misrepresent Siy's post and the use of the image. Here is Slater's letter:
From: David SlaterAnd here is Siy's -- quite even-handed -- response:
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:10 PM
Subject: Infringement notice
To: pk@publicknowledge.org
Dear Public Knowledge,
I am writing to inform you that I have read your blog post authored by Sherwin Siy:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/nobody-cant-hold-a-copyright-which-means-sometimes-nobody-holds-a-copyright
It is factually incorrect and damaging to me. It encourages the public to infringe my copyright of the monkey images. The text, in my opinion, is willfully damaging and disrespectful to me. This accords with your mission statement.
The exclusion of any proper accreditation to the image, or even mention of my name in relation to the image, infringes upon my moral rights to the image and is contrary to any Fair Use dealing. Furthermore, it affects the commercial value of the image to me. It is also being used to benefit Public Knowledge and your mission at the expense of my own. This is contrary to fair use and also your mission which claims to uphold the fair use doctrine.
The article is unbalanced and unfair and is infringing my publicity rights and rights to commercialize the image/s.
I do not believe you made any attempt to contact me, preferring instead to cherry pick sources that you know to be biased and encouraging theft of my images and destruction of my reputation and personality rights.
The image is registered with the USCO and is a part of a registered Image Rights under Guernsey Ordinance 2012.
Your site acknowledges it's core mission is to protect fair use and the public domain. Your site, in my opinion, is abusing fair use and damaging the concept of public domain.
A public domain image is one in which a living author has voluntarily relinquished rights to the image. Any debate claiming acts of nature were resonsible for the image MUST be resolved in a court, and only AFTER judgement shall an image be qualified as public domain.
Public Knowledge nor Sherwin Siy nor Wikimedia have the right to decide. Any action attempting to wilfully infringe copyright to make a claim for public domain, including textual references that encourage others to infringe, shall be liable for prosecution under the legal jurisdiction of my choice.
Public domain is NOT a place such as Wikimedia's Creative Commons or the internet.
You have cherry picked sources of information from Buzzfeed, Techdirt and the 1709blog, that simply agree with your mission to remove property rights from professional artists like myself using ridicule, poorly sourced material and unfounded reasoning.
In so far as your contributor's claim that it is myself who claims Wikipedia is the source of the monkey owning copyright, please state your reasoning. Note that Wikipedia states the author of the images is the monkey itself, with blatant removal of the true author's copyright watermarks. Authors are entitled to copyright.
I wish to see any evidence you have of any license you have purchased for the use of my image.
If you have purchased a license I will still require some amendment to the article.
I am willing to overlook your infringement if you rectify the article with another article that reports the facts of the story. I will work with you to do this and you will grant me the ability to comment on the article in draft form prior to publication. Publication should be within the calendar month of this e-mail.
I will await your acceptance for 24 hours in which to agree to rewrite the article. I will take your absence of any reply and acceptance of my terms as your acceptance of guilt and will forward your details to my lawyers in the US and UK..
Sincerely,
David J Slater
Siy's response, of course, covers all of the important stuff. However, I wanted to further comment on Slater's troubling belief that the public domain only applies to works that someone has proactively relinquished into the public domain. This goes right back to the point of Siy's original article: the troubling belief by some that everything must be owned in some form or another. This implicit belief is not only not the law, but it's immensely problematic. Culture works by openness and sharing. The history of culture is one in which people reused, reshared and remixed the works of others. The massive increase in locking down works via copyright laws has certainly limited that ability over the past hundred years or so, but it has not taken away the concept of the public domain entirely, as Slater seems to believe.From: Sherwin Siy <ssiy@publicknowledge.org>
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: Infringement notice
To: David SlaterDear Mr. Slater:
Thank you for your email of December 10, regarding my August 6th blog post about the macaque photos taken with your camera.
To be brief, we have not purchased any license for the use of the photograph, and do not plan on doing so. We will also not be removing or substantively amending the post. We do not have any plans to allow you to publish your thoughts on this matter on our website. We may be commenting upon this matter, including this correspondence, on the site in the near future.
As you can tell from the post, I do not believe that you hold a valid copyright in that particular image. This allows us to reproduce the image without first seeking your permission, or listing you as a contributing factor to its creation.
You say that the photo has been registered with the “USCO;” I take this to mean the United States Copyright Office. In August, not long after I published my blog post, the Copyright Office issued an updated draft of its Compendium of Copyright Practices (http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-full.pdf), the manual for its internal practices, including registration. Of particular note is its commentary on the “human authorship” requirement in section 306 (page 54 of the linked .pdf), which says that the Office will refuse to register a claim of copyright if a human being did not create the work. Lest you think I am stretching their point, their first specific examples of a non-human authored work (among other examples such as elephant murals, wave-shaped driftwood, or the natural appearance of animal skin) is
· A photograph taken by a monkey.
Even beyond the question of whether you have a valid copyright in that image is my, and my employer’s, exercise of our fair use rights. You will note that our use of the photograph was in the context of discussing that photograph. News reporting, commentary, and criticism are all quintessential examples of fair use, and this clearly falls within them. Whether or not our use of the image “benefits our mission” is largely irrelevant to that determination, too. If uses of copyrighted works were only fair when they were useless to the user, it would be a singularly useless doctrine.
You say
A public domain image is one in which a living author has voluntarily relinquished rights to the image. Any debate claiming acts of nature were resonsible for the image MUST be resolved in a court, and only AFTER judgement shall an image be qualified as public domain.
This is not true. It would be absurd for every instance of the use of public domain works to be litigated. The fact that certain works have no copyright holder (because the term of copyright has expired, because the work is not the creation of a human author, or because the work was not sufficiently fixed or sufficiently creative) means that there would be no one to definitively contest the usage in court. Publishers reprinting copies of The Murders in the Rue Morgue should not, and need not, wait for a court to grant them permission; users of creative works authored by the federal government of the United States do not have to go to court for permission each time they wish to use those images. If a particular person believes that a work is not in the public domain and that their rights have been infringed by a use, they are, of course, free to raise that question in court.
You also say this:
In so far as your contributor's claim that it is myself who claims Wikipedia is the source of the monkey owning copyright, please state your reasoning.
I confess to being a bit confused by this; I presume this comes from my statement in the blog post that
Basically, there’s a bit of a red herring going around, saying that Wikimedia claims that the monkey owns the copyright.
For the simple sake of avoiding any further confusion, let me clarify this by saying that I simply meant that a number of commentators (not you) were incorrectly following a tempting possibility that the monkey might hold a copyright. I certainly did not intend to imply that you were one of those commentators, or a red herring.
Having dealt with the legal questions, I would also like to discuss some of your other, non-legal complaints. You say that my blog post was “willfully damaging and disrespectful” to you. It was not. While we clearly disagree on the scope and applicability of the law, I never insulted you or mocked you. You might note that, at the bottom of the post, I, in the interest of being even-handed, even say you have a “colorable” argument for copyrightability—more credit than many of my learned colleagues have given you. The point of the post was to articulate a legal distinction that many missed—that the question was not whether or not a macaque could hold a copyright, but whether or not you could have a photograph in which no one held a copyright. Your actions and character were not disparaged, or even mentioned, because they were not relevant to that discussion.
I will note, however, that whether I was disrespectful or not has no bearing on any legal matters at hand here. While I believe I was more than fair in my treatment of your reputation in that post, I did then, and do now, have every right in the world to be disrespectful of you in public.
I hope that this letter resolves any dispute we might have. If it does not, we may be reached for service of process at the mailing address below. I eagerly await your reply.
Best regards,
Sherwin Siy
Vice President of Legal Affairs
202-861-0020 |@SherwinPK
Public Knowledge |@publicknowledge |www.publicknowledge.org
1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036
Slater can't seem to fathom that the photograph doesn't belong to him, no matter how many legal experts have explained it to him. Even worse, he can't seem to fathom that things like the public domain and fair use are not only important, but are also part of what's made him be able to do what he does. Those who dismiss or misunderstand things like fair use and the public domain are ignoring the cultural body of work that made them who they are today.
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, mean people, monkey, monkey selfie, public domain, sherwin siy
Reader Comments
The First Word
“ILCP sadly supports Slater
As someone who is passionate about (and in fact works in the field of) wildlife conservation, it saddens me to see the International League of Conservation Photographers (ILCP) they support Slater in his misguided campaign to assert copyright where none exists.That particular document is of interest to me because it raises the issue of camera traps: weatherproof digital cameras placed outdoors where a motion detector triggers the camera to record a picture or video. One could argue that—while a human is going through all of the set up—the actual photo was triggered by the motion detector. Therefore there is no human authorship.
Yet there are currently camera trap photography contests—such as this one sponsored by the BBC—where a requirement of submission is “The photos must have been taken in the past three years and be your own original work. You—or your organisation—must be the owner of the copyright of all photos entered.”
These traps are becoming more common and the quality of the photos is getting better and better to the point where this ambiguous legal issue will ultimately be decided in court.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ugly in all its forms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forced obtuseness?
It wouldn't surprise me after all if he'd managed to get at least some people to pay up for a 'license' by throwing random legal words at them as a scare tactic(as he seemed to be doing here), and suggesting that they had to pay him, and if at any time in the future he admits that no, in fact people don't need to pay him, because the picture isn't his, I don't think it would be long until he found himself with some rather angry people threatening legal actions for his trickery and lies in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forced obtuseness?
This means that if I obtained his permission to borrow his camera, then took a picture and entered it into some kind of contest or wanted to sell it, he would claim the copyright on it, along with any monies due.
Don't get me started on how wrong that is. As Violynne says, he's got a giant sense of entitlemnt and that is the root of the problem.
"...the troubling belief by some that everything must be owned in some form or another."
The imposition of property rights onto monopoly privileges has got to be the biggest con job in history. That so many of us have fallen for it can only make things worse. Thank God for those people who take the time to educate people and tell them the truth: it's not property. It's a monopoly, and was only ever meant to be temporary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ILCP sadly supports Slater
That particular document is of interest to me because it raises the issue of camera traps: weatherproof digital cameras placed outdoors where a motion detector triggers the camera to record a picture or video. One could argue that—while a human is going through all of the set up—the actual photo was triggered by the motion detector. Therefore there is no human authorship.
Yet there are currently camera trap photography contests—such as this one sponsored by the BBC—where a requirement of submission is “The photos must have been taken in the past three years and be your own original work. You—or your organisation—must be the owner of the copyright of all photos entered.”
These traps are becoming more common and the quality of the photos is getting better and better to the point where this ambiguous legal issue will ultimately be decided in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
It's not even remotely ambiguous. It's clear as day. If you didn't take the photo, you don't have copyright on it.
what's not clear is why people want to obfuscate the truth and claim the exact opposite as being true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
So calling it clear as day simplifies an extremely complex issue.
In the case of Slater, the camera was used without his consent by a non-human, and so that clearly falls in the public domain. But for camera traps, the wildlife is not walking into the frame with the purpose of taking a selfie; they're just moving around in their habitat, and a carefully constructed method to capture an image takes place, guided by a human.
So... did they take the photo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
This guy got his camera stolen by a monkey, as he himself stated. He didn't give it to the monkey, or intend that to occur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
I would argue that authorship includes the process of designing and setting up a camera trap for the purpose of collecting capture photos. The photographer setting up such a trap is designing a system which dictates when the photo will be taken.
In contrast, the "monkey photo" was framed and taken by the monkey, not by the design of a camera trap.
However, in counter I could argue that there is no real authorship in the camera trap. After all, you are not deciding exactly when the photo is to be taken, or the exact framing of the picture. Instead, you are letting the whims and chances of fate decide.
Even so, I think this argument will fail and the other argument will win. There is authorship in the setup and design of a camera trap. There is not authorship in the monkey photo. (Well, not human authorship.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
If I throw hops, grain, water and yeast into a pot, I have made beer. Or have I? Yeast is a living organism, and it is the fact that yeast eat sugars and excrete alcohol that makes my soup into beer. It can easily be argued that the yeast made the beer, since I lack any ability to turn sugar into alcohol.
Likewise, I can set up a camera trap to take a picture of wildlife, but it's the animal that technically pressed the shutter button by tripping the motion detection sensor. If an animal presses the shutter button, the picture won't be mine. To avoid the problem of the animal being the one to trigger the camera, I'd either have to have a very long duration video camera that I press record on, or remotely monitor the trap and remotely activate the button to take the picture.
There's no obfuscation needed to note the fact that people all over the world make their living off copyrights that are arguably not theirs at all if an animal activating a camera results in an uncopyrightable image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
There's really not that much difference from a human authorship standpoint between a camera left running in the wilderness, and a camera left running in a store. Both can even be set up to be activated by a motion sensor so that they'll only record when something is actually happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (surveillance camera footage)
Not to mention that 99% of every business' video isn't worth distributing in the first place, even for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
Trap cameras are set up intentionally (the monkey photo was an accident). You not only select a location, but you mount the camera facing a specific direction, possibly clear branches for lighting, etc. None of that happened with the monkey picture.
I do, however, have trap camera photos from during and after a bear attacking my camera. These, I would suppose, would not have a copyright since all of my "artistic" input was removed by a bear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
Instead of putting my camera back, I make an artistic decision to leave it where it is. While I did not actively set up the camera, I have now passively accepted the positioning of the camera. I wonder where I would be at with copyright.
The only thing I am sure of is that the bear is still screwed out of his royalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
Ah... but here you're assuming that someone must own the rights to the images.
Copyright is a fabrication created by humans to encourage the production of creative works by humans. This is why animals are exempt -- their works stay in the public domain. By this definition, work created by a non-human is de-facto public domain unless we craft some misguided law to say otherwise.
This of course also means that DNA in general is not copyrightable, as any Intelligent Being is not human, and therefore its works fall in the public domain. Controlling the expression of DNA *might* be copyrightable, if that method of expression was created by a human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
How would it be any different to claim the bear's work than to copy an oil painting and sign your name to it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
Monkey Selfie brings to mind a video I've seen that was 'taken' by a large bird (seagull?) that grabbed a recording iPhone off of someone and took it for a flight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
Take it a step further and instead of an animal, another human ends up being the subject in a photo from a camera trap. If the subject was completely unaware their picture was about to be taken, would they still own the copyright according to your theory?
As I said above - interesting point and not one that I'm even remotely qualified to answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
No, the person or persons who get a copyright in a photo are those who determine what the photo will be, basically. Camera settings, the decision of when to open and close the shutter, but also the composition and pose of the subject, choice of background, lighting, etc. are part of it.
Look up the Burrow-Giles case for more on this. But what doesn't matter is merely whether your finger was on the button.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
It's a shame that they've aligned themselves with someone who, at least in my opinion, is so clearly wrong in his claims of ownership. He contributed the camera, that was it, the situation is vastly different than people who go through all the trouble to set up camera-traps, and I really wish they had put enough thought into the matter to realize it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
It seems pretty clear to me that in the case of the camera trap (or for that matter, a self-portrait taken using a timer), copyright would apply. However, in the case of an animal wandering over and messing with your stuff, copyright would not apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
The camera trap is intentionally set up by the photographer to capture the image it gets, even if, much like a wildlife photographer manually taking a picture, it can't control the composition of the living, moving elements that ultimately get captured in the final image.
By his own admission, Slater didn't intend on the picture getting taken and didn't intentionally set up the situation in which the monkey took the picture.
A more interesting discussion might be about the difference between a photograph and a video. If a monkey picks up a camera and takes a single shot you weren't planning, you arguably can't claim copyright on that image (despite Slater's fantasy).
But what about if you have a video camera (or your smart phone, i.e. same thing) and start recording a video, but then drop it and a monkey picks it up and points it at stuff and then drops it and you pick it up and point it at stuff. You started and ended the video with human authorship and control, but what about the middle part where the monkey (unintentionally on your part) shot some footage? I doubt many would argue that you only have copyright over the beginning and end, but not the middle of the video since it's seen as a single video. Is there a percentage of human authorship necessary to claim copyright on a work that may be argued to be a collaborative effort between a human and a non-human?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
For that matter, what about if you start shooting a video, then pass your device off to a friend so you can get in the shot, then s/he passes it back? Who owns the copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
This reminds me a bit of Halakha, where Jews are forbidden from doing "work" on Shabbat which includes turning electrical devices on and off. Some Jews get around this by employing a switch with "Halakhic uncertainty" so that even though the performed an action that eventually results in an outcome, the outcome is unpredictable and indirect.
Personally I feel that unless the human is directly triggering the shutter, then they don't own the copyright. Of course that brings up further edge cases: if they just hit record on a video and let it go for the whole day, can they pull a frame out of that and claim copyright? It gets back to the video surveillance issue.
I think this discussion is great; thanks to all for participating. And it is indicative that there is no clear answer here and further solidifies my believe that this will ultimately have to be litigated to create case law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
My sense is a bit more nuanced than this. Actually pressing the shutter is not where the creative requirement for copyright comes in -- that's in the framing, lighting, etc. If a photographer arranged all of that, set the camera up, and let someone else press the button, I think the copyright would still properly belong to the photographer.
However, that's a world apart from the monkey photo, where the photographer did none of those things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
Taking this reasoning further, could you argue that Canon or Nikon has a legitimate claim to copyright on photos taken with their equipment? After all they "set it up" by designing and manufacturing the equipment. They just happened to "let someone else press the button".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
There will always be a fuzzy line of one sort or another. That's why there are courts.
"Taking this reasoning further, could you argue that Canon or Nikon has a legitimate claim to copyright on photos taken with their equipment? After all they "set it up" by designing and manufacturing the equipment. "
I disagree. Manufacturing the equipment used isn't even remotely close to setting up a shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
He killed himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
"
That link is extraordinary. Sometimes the stupidity of religion doctrines makes me want to bang my head against a wall...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: monkeys, camera traps, and other non-human shutter triggers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
You mean besides the fact that humans manufactured the camera, charged the battery, inserted and formatted a memory card, configured the settings, carted it into the jungle, turned it on, set the parameters, and left it out for a monkey to pick up. Besides that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
Really? David Slater deliberately left a camera out for a monkey to pick up, even going so far as to encourage the creature to do so? Because I distinctly remember him saying otherwise before others started copying the image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
Perhaps you remember The Daily Mail saying otherwise, but Mr Slater told the whole story on his own website back in 2011, well before he got dragged into this disgraceful mess. Hope that helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G25_tpxUc9c
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything must be owned.
It is like claiming one owns the Sun. I want to see them plant a flag on its surface.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything must be owned.
In other words, it's just lying around in public available for anyone to use for anything [legal that is].
The everything must be owned mentality is the reason some groups don't allow public domain works on their sites. Since everything must be owned by someone they require permission of the copyright holder before allowing things to be uploaded (posted). Public Domain items, by definition don't have an owner, hence no one can give permission [none is needed].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Everything must be owned.
I haven't read the most recent USCO paper on the issues in general; it is possible that it addresses this directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Everything must be owned.
Put simply, copyright property rights are a creation of the law, so they only exist if the law says that they exist. If there is no copyright there isn't anything for anyone - the public, the author, whoever - to own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Everything must be owned.
If you own something, then it follows that you can exert control over it, and it's use. I can give someone a paperback I own for example, or sell it, or destroy it, or any number of other things, therefor I could be said to own it.
When it comes to a licensed ebook on the other hand, I can not do these things. I cannot sell it, I cannot loan it(without permission or without breaking the law), I cannot do any number of things regard it, therefor it would be safe to say that I do not own it, but have merely purchased some temporary rights to it.
Applying this to the public domain, works that fall under that cannot be said to be controlled by any given person. Person A cannot prohibit Person B from doing whatever they please with a given public domain work, and vice versa. As such, with no-one having control over public domain works, I think it makes sense to say that no-one owns the public domain, rather than everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Everything must be owned.
I don't see the effective difference between those two things. Something owned by everybody is the same as something owned by nobody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything must be owned.
There is a difference between the two though. Something owned by everybody means everybody has a right to it. You even have the EPA to enforce it, wrt pollution. Something owned by nobody means no-one may exert control over it nor accept responsibility for it. Insurance companies disclaim acts of "the big guy."
I think it's sad that certain organizations insist someone must claim copyright for them to recognize it, but that's legal CYA stuff, and probably necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything must be owned.
In the end, the concept of ownership only has any meaning at all if it's exclusive, if there are people who don't own it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything must be owned.
...then Nobody will send you a demand letter. If you don't pay, Nobody will sue. If you don't answer the complaint, Nobody will get a default judgment. And then Nobody will take everything you have. Eventually, Nobody will sue everybody, Nobody will own everything, and everyone will have to get a license from Nobody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything must be owned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Everything must be owned.
Take the real estate example: Pre-Europeans, nobody owned the land. Post-europeans, land not owned by an individual was owned by the government, meaning everybody owned the land. Look at how those two methods impacted land use and the movement of wild game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything must be owned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still have problems with both side's arguments
Now this delegates remarkably more of the creative work to the hands of the photographer than handing the camera to an ape (or in this case it sounds more like the camera being stolen by the ape) involves.
If we argue that a phototrap photograph is not copyrightable by the one setting up the camera, what about self-timer photographs? Again, ultimately a mechanism started by the photographer is responsible for the exact trigger point of time.
Is it markedly different to trigger a photograph by a timer than it is by triggering it from an anticipated external event?
With regard to setting up the photo trap contest, I believe a better argument concerning a substantial copyright-permissable amount of creative work for setting up a photograph may be attributed, as opposed to the act of handing the camera to an ape: in the case of this photograph it is pretty obvious that the motive was not to any degree chosen by the photographer, and even camera settings like exposure and distance were rather likely made automatically rather than manually.
I once made a rapid-motion film of the blossoming of a Queen of the Night cactus. Here every single exposure was triggered by a timer I had built myself. Would that short film not be copyrightable since the trigger was not automatic but rather done by a process of nature (the periodic charging of a capacitor)?
That would seem like a strangely overbroad definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I still have problems with both side's arguments
And, I think I can live with that, but I suppose there's other issues. What if I train a monkey to take pictures? What if that trained monkey is no longer in my custody/care but he takes a picture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not accurate seeing as the "public" "owns" a lot of things not just any member of the public can make free use of, or that the "public" can sell of to a private entity. Still, it may be a jumping off point to explain things to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The idea behind the public domain is that no-one owns it, claiming that it instead means everyone owns it would just be further reinforcing the incorrect idea that everything must be owned by someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When the Europeans arrived, they started fencing it off and assigning owners, and calling the land "real estate". When a named owner of the land died or abandoned the property, ownership of the land reverted to "the crown" because Europeans could not fathom land belonging to nobody. They figured if the parent country didn't own it, someone else would claim it.
This viewpoint has migrated wholesale to the realm of Intellectual Property, even though the estate is surreal, people often project the European view of Real Estate onto it.
That might help understanding the hurdles that need to be overcome to help people understand what Public Domain is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That was the noble savage fairy tale, but I never bought it. Natives certainly did exert ownership over tribal lands. Any specific native may not have owned it, but it was considered owned by the tribe communally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It might help some, but it would still be a bad idea because you're trying to educate someone with incorrect info. If it's in the public domain it simply has no copyright, either because it's expired or it never existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which monkey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which monkey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which monkey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reference to Guernsey's Image Rights
The idea was that lots of famous people would pay to get their images registered so they could try to enforce these rights everywhere else. A quick check in the Image Rights Register (you have to register to see it) shows that they have managed to achieve an impressive ... 51 registrations, including the monkey one.
It seems the monkey image is one of three images registered in the name of Wildlife Personalities Limited (the company David Slater is the director of). One of them has "Wildlife Personalities" and the monkey photo, another is just the monkey photo, and the third is a second monkey photo.
What I find interesting is that based on a quick check of the relevant law I'm not even sure if the latter two are valid registrations, or that use of the image (in this or other articles) would be an infringement.
Specifically I think the images fail to be distinctive under 28(2) (i.e. widely associated with the company), nor do I think that the monkey photos are actually "images" within the definition of 3(1), as they show a picture of the monkey, not the company - and it is the company that is a 'personnage' and has potential image rights, not the monkey. Plus there's a specific "fair dealing for the purposes of news reporting" exception, and even a general "fair dealing" one.
So while he may be correct in that the image is registered, that registration may be invalid, and the use of the image may not be infringing.
But I'm not a Guernsey Image Rights lawyer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skip the high-level debate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Quit putting a god-damned dollar sign ON EVERY FUCKING THING ON THIS PLANET!"
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't believe the original story
1. Admit that the original claim that the photo is a monkey "selfie" is bogus and his photo becomes his copyright, but also uninteresting or:
2. Admit that he has no copyright on the photo.
He is choosing option 3 -- fingers in ears, eyes closed "I can't hear you ....."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't believe the original story
"Oh, sorry. Actually I was mistaken. This photo was—in fact—taken by me. Now give me my copyright."
But of course there wouldn't have been nearly as much publicity around this photo if it were just another shot of a monkey. It is the story behind it that makes it valuable. So that's why he's trying to have the story and copyright too.
And here's the sad thing: David Slater could have used this 15 minutes of fame to propel him to more work and more success. Creative people know (or should) that at least half of your present paycheck is based on your past work. People hire you today because of the stuff you did yesterday. Take a look at any professional sports contract.
And yet he's blowing all of this opportunity to try to cling to a couple of photos. Let them go and keep creating. These photos might be a career highlight, but they shouldn't be the end of his career. This wasn't his "One Last Job."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monkeyshines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My opinion is simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surely he CAN take a better photo of a monkey than a monkey can, can't he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://imgur.com/DeBOtsv
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typewriters
The Complete of Works of Shakespeare will probably take a bit longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typewriters
Who would own the copyright on those?
I believe, in today's environment, that the monkeys would be taken to task for plagiarism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "transformative" loophole
Then I would be very careful to NEVER release the original file. In fact if I were truly evil, I might permanently delete it. Or I might keep a very low res copy (maybe even a print out to further discourage copying) just to have an example of the original to show my transformation if I somehow needed to prove this to the courts.
Of course this hurts the public. It encourages the sole caretaker of what is the only copy of public property to withhold or destroy it in order to create artificial scarcity of the transformative work.
And this begs the question: how much transformation is sufficient to warrant copyright? And can I claim a transformative copyright if I do not also make available the public domain source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monkey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Implied Consent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Self Serving blinkered fools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
You're absolutely right—I published those monkey selfie images when I blogged about this issue 3 years ago. As you no doubt are aware, the use of images for discussion and debate—especially when there is no money involved—is basic fair use, regardless of who (if anyone) holds a copyright.
You know who else hosts the image? Wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
That's not what he said in 2011:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-borrow s-photographers-camera.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
Fair enough. But as the kids say today: [citation] or it didn't happen.
Why do you blinkered fools believe stories and quotes from a single tabloid in the UK?
I used that citation because it quotes Slater's own words. Are you trying to imply that the Daily Mail made up those quotes? If you are, then prove it.
Does it serve your freeloading agenda to cherry pick tabloids? Really! Do you actually believe tabloids report properly? This site is so up its own arse it is unbelievable.
Thus far, that only thing you have brought to this discussion are childish insults. Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/04/shutter-happy-monkey-photographer
Yes, you are correct that Slater left the camera on a tripod. But he also admits that the animals were "monkeying around with it" and that "One hit the button. The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it".
Basically, Slater admitted that the monkey determined the creative elements and actually took the picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
Gwiz incorrectly claims: "Basically, Slater admitted that the monkey determined the creative elements and actually took the picture."
Where on Earth does he say this because this admission would put it back in the public domain? How can a monkey determine the composition if it was on a tripod?
I am starting to believe that some folk on here are grasping at straws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
Slater admits that the animals were "monkeying around" with the camera. And based on all the other photos I've seen from this shoot the camera was not left in place on the tripod. The monkeys moved it. Slater certainly didn't determine the composition of these photos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
Which is the same reason why camera trap photos cannot be copyrighted either. Yes the photographer chooses where to place the camera and point, but they do not specifically choose which animals are in the frame, which way they are facing, the specific lighting conditions at the time of capture, exactly when the shutter is triggered, and a whole host of other variables.
Whoever takes this one to court will have an uphill battle convincing a knowledgeable judge that they hold copyright on camera trap photos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
The highlighted comment of yours that starts this thread clearly has you insulting the International League of Conservation Photographers or ILCP.
These photographers, of which Slater belongs, brings wildlife organizations, schools and the public too a major benefit. Without these talented photographers we would know a lot less about our planet and its animals.
This includes photographers and film-makers like NatGeo and the BBC.
David Cortwright - you are a disgrace to any wildlife charity or profiteering business that has you, and especially The Wildlife Conservation Network of which you claim to work for.
I think a letter to the WCN is in order. You are a threat to the efforts that wildlife conservationists make, including Slater of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
I think it's more accurate to say said copyrights were fraudulently obtained. How can copyright be obtained if the person claiming it doesn't even need to be there when "the work" is created? I can't blame them for trying. There's money on the table, after all.
This whole episode reminds me of the discussion held about a century ago when portrait and landscape painters were protesting that this new-fangled photography thing was attempting to place itself on par with real artists.
Threatening Cortwright for stating his opinion is a despicably low blow. You have the makings to become a lawyer, I'm sad to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
Maybe you need to do research rather than guesswork to support your ideology? Maybe try reading this to start!
http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/original_story.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
I have read that. Seems like his story has changed some since this went viral, in my opinion.
And just so you know, I have no agenda or "ideology" that I am pushing regarding this issue. The legal aspects of copyright are an interest of mine, nothing more, nothing less. This story caught my interest and I believe the legal analyses that indicate this photo is public domain are correct. Other than that, I couldn't give a shit whether this particular photograph is under copyright or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
If EVER, there is EVER another example of doubt about copyright like this one, the true copyright expert would use the precautionary principle and keep quiet and not promote the stealing of this image to others around the world.
Mike Masnick, as owner of this site, is culpable of not just copyright infringement and abuse of Fair Use, but a criminal under Common Law also.
This is the result of believing a silly self-promotionist working for a wider agenda, that I promise, is not in your interest. He is well paid for YOUR ignorance and pathetic attempt to climb the ladder of the Free-Rights leadership party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
If EVER, there is EVER another example of doubt about copyright like this one, the true copyright expert would use the precautionary principle and keep quiet and not promote the stealing of this image to others around the world.
Quite a few "copyright experts" have already stated their opinions that this photo is public domain. Your use of the word "stealing" instead of "infringement" says quite a bit about your (lack) knowledge of concerning copyright.
Mike Masnick, as owner of this site, is culpable of not just copyright infringement and abuse of Fair Use, but a criminal under Common Law also.
Nope. Absolutely not. Even if this photo is under copyright, Mike's use to comment on the issues surrounding are absolutely Fair Use. Once again your lack of knowledge concerning copyright is showing.
This is the result of believing a silly self-promotionist working for a wider agenda, that I promise, is not in your interest. He is well paid for YOUR ignorance and pathetic attempt to climb the ladder of the Free-Rights leadership party.
Blah, blah, blah. Quite a conspiracy theory you got going there, my friend. What are you going to say next - that we didn't land on the moon and aliens actually shot Kennedy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Self Serving blinkered fools
How could the USA have the intellegence? Because it's citizens even today can't understand the simplest of things still, like Fair Use.
Fair Use must be Fair to the human photographer that created the works. It certainly is not Fair to reject the photographer's claim so that little pricks like you can take the image for your own profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick is not just wrong but a fool as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick is not just wrong but a fool as well
I'm not a freeloader. I'm a boycotter! I avoid all of your copyrighted for eternity crap. I want you jerks to go out of business. I hate you all for trying to twist my world into something it never should have been. You're corrupting our elected politicians with bribes, you're perverting the judicial system and needlessly enriching ambulance chasers, you're a drain on the economy of the world, all for your own personal enrichment at our expense.
Keep it up. I'll cheer when I see the likes of you hanging from a lamp post!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick is not just wrong but a fool as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick is not just wrong but a fool as well
Why do you believe is didn't happen that way? The photographer stated it as fact himself:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-bor rows-photographers-camera.html
Masnick wants a public domain to serve the Communists...err, Community.
Not even sure what you are trying to convey here. Detailed analysis by copyright experts say the monkey picture is public domain. Do you actually have a counter argument to that?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110713/11244515079/can-we-subpoena-monkey-why-monkey-self-p ortraits-are-likely-public-domain.shtml
Since you fail so spectacularly to grasp the basics of this situation, the rest of your comment is just mindless gibberish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike Masnick is not just wrong but a fool as well
The fact is, they're both wrong. We need a commons; there has always been one and nobody was deprived of property rights in the creation thereof. Its existence doesn't stop people owning stuff, either. It simply means that some things are shared and others are not.
Can we please stop doing the boogeyman thing? The Red scare should have been dead and buried years ago. It stops rational discussion dead... though I guess that's the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick is not just wrong but a fool as well
But the assumption that potentially profitable artwork becomes your "property" (or not proerty according to your twisted thinking) doesn't make it right, or a Right.
Put simply, "Commonsists" are Communists but with a small but important difference. You want to profit from other people's skills. You are the Corporatists who hope the Proles will give up their property for your personal benefit. You are property "Supremecists" because you want all property to be yours, to use for your own profit, and f**k the stupid idiots who complain they should have some rights to control what they made.
You and the usual commentator on Techdirt have the same ideology of a slave trader. Give up your work for the benefit of the rich, because your profits may trickle down to the poor.
If your Communist Cult ruler Masnick would pay artists to produce for your benefit, you may get your way. Until then, artists need copyright protection and the right to make a living from their work.
Agenda 21 of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick is not just wrong but a fool as well
Oh crap. Mike, you never told us you were a communist cult leader!?! WTF!11 :-) First, he hates copyright, and now this? Aaauughr! Grr. Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cult of Masnick
The insulting words of many users on here suggests a clique that collaborates to push an agenda of no ownership without a valid basis. This is especially vocalized on here for things like Intellectual Property.
I just cannot see why some surely good folks on here are so paranoid that copyright means the air will soon be owned! Rights to property is in our Constitution and what made us great. It is what separates us from Communism.
I also see the Cult of Masnick seems incapable of understanding that the press is not a source of facts. I see this faulty line of reasoning all over this story going right back to 2011. Faulty because it relies on a single newspaper. Even if it were more newspapers, folk should understand that papers copy stories from each other - just like websites that promote a free-rights agenda also do.
Has anyone ever asked Slater for the story behind these beautiful and iconic images? Did Masnick ever reply to Slater when his appointed agent asked the images to be taken down, or was he just rude as per his reply as published on this site? If he has communicated with Slater, please could Mike share with us what Slater said (not his agent) in defending his claim he is the author.
If I were Slater I would be livid with rage at Masnick who has completely encouraged people to infringe these photographs. Slater should be making a decent living from these images in my opinion.
And because Masnick and his cult followers hang on his every faulty word in this matter, I do wonder if Masnick is making replies on this site under various pseudonyms? What's the truth Mike?
I see you wrote your own profile on Wikipedia, something frowned upon because self-serving articles are, well, just that. Very underhanded indeed! It looks like Masnick and "his" cult may be his very own self-serving spawn on here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cult of Masnick
Just because it's in the public domain, doesn't mean Slater can't sell it. Just means he can't stop others from using it too.
By the way, you may not be aware that the little snowflakes next to your name indicate the IP address you post from Ian/John Kaslik/David Slater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
As hilarious as that sounds, I should remind you that an IP address does not identify an individual. For all we know, two of them are next door or in their cars outside leeching wifi off the third. It doesn't preclude them all being a single corpus dilecti, but it doesn't prove the alternative either.
Still pretty funny, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
I can't tell if Slater has changed his story, but the newspaper reports are not credible sources of information that is what I know. And even if they were, I still can't see where you are coming from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
Oh really? [Citation needed]
Talk are cheap. If you are so sure the law is on your side, file a lawsuit. That is, if you have standing. Otherwise I most humbly suggest that you STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
Lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
Ownership of copyright Rules, my friend,. Get used to it.
Adios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
Nope. Mike's use is most definitely Fair Use under US law where Techdirt is located.
Google will collect the royalties from Techdirt if it wishes to promote itself using a third party works.
Why would Google collect anything from anybody concerning this? You have officially crossed over into crazyland. now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
Which humble magazine is that, prithee tell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
https://www.techdirt.com/user/mmasnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cult of Masnick
I thought photogs used lensfinders. In fact, my telescope comes with two plus an extender (Barlow).
You're not actually evoking the telescopic sight metaphor, are you? How rude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope. I've simply grown bored with baiting you into displaying your ignorance on these subjects.
I'd much rather my intellectual sparring is with an armed individual. Have a nice life. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Godwin's Law achieved. Conversation over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just that I don;t believe a word spoken on this parasite of a website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Protip: if you want to argue intelligently about intellectual property issues, I highly encourage you to learn the difference between "stealing" and "infringement".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anti-artist?!? For insisting that discovering "a monkey pressed a button" isn't artistic expression?!? You need to go read a dictionary. Real artists would justifiably spit on your beliefs.
Holy self-entitlement, Batman! I eagerly look forward to the day that you manage to conjure up a thought worth more than a snicker of disdain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The amount of effort or expense one exerts in an endeavor is ultimately not relevant in what one receives as a result of said endeavor. Poet Robert Frost wrote one of his best poems—Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening—in just "a few minutes without strain." Whereas countless aspiring writers have written reams with nary a ruble rewarding their effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Regardless, despite your false assertion, the USCO Compendium most certainly does make this a pretty clear cut case. But if you really want proof, then why don't you bring it to court Mssr. malbee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When it comes to this issue as a whole, I'm saying that making the argument that the monkey was the author while simultaneously claiming a monkey can't be an author is flimsy logic at best. (If that actually is the spirit of the law, then we can at least we agree the law definitely needs reform.) I still maintain that demonizing Mr Slater for writing a cease-and-desist is obnoxious and not helpful. Sure those letters are annoying, but his ownership is in dispute, yes? (And no, the USCO compendium is an unrelated set of guidelines for future registrations and not a direct ruling on this matter.) He should be allowed to persue his livelihood if he truly believes he's the proper claimant. Whether or not he actually does deserve it is not for me, you, Mr Masnick, Mr Siy, nor Wikimedia to decide. They simply found a hole in copyright law, and proceeded to push Mr Slater straight into it. And that leaves them open to criticism of their motives, which even some Wikimedia editors find repugnant. Again, this all just reeks of The Internet wanting everything for free, trying to avoid paying artists for their work, especially photographers.
The only reply I got regarding that point is one that called *me* the self-entitled one in this situation. Hmmm.
Holding this up as a victory is not only premature but it makes Mr Masnick, Wikimedia et al. look like a mean-spirited jackasses who are totally missing the intended purpose of copyright. It's meant to give content creators incentive to create content, right? Of course copyright is often abused. But the way I see it here, the abuse just happens to be coming from the other side. If this sort of BS quibbling carries on, then we'll all lose in the end.
I know we'll never change eachothers' minds, but I considered your thought exercises and found them to be useless hyperbole. I'll ask you consider the very real scenario in which an artist has a team of apprentices who do all the actual painting. The artist still claims copyright for the images, though he or she never touched the canvas. That does indeed happen, and those apprentices are not monkeys. They are humans, and by such a narrow interpretation of "authorship", those actual humans, possessing actual legal agency, are the ones who "pushed the button". Explain to me how you think this is different, and please try hard not to use the phrase "photographers don't count."
Finally, yes, I'd love to see this case in court, but asking me, (or even Mr Slater for that matter) to shell out a huge amount of cash to do it is not an effective tactic for winning in the comments section.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They simply found a hole in copyright law, and proceeded to push Mr Slater straight into it.
I'm not really sure what "loophole" you are referring to, but Techdirt's use of the photo to comment on the story surrounding it is clearly fair use. In the US, fair use is most certainly not a "loophole" by any stretch of the imagination. Without the fair use defense against infringement, copyright could not exist in the US without running afoul of the First Amendment.
I'll ask you consider the very real scenario in which an artist has a team of apprentices who do all the actual painting. The artist still claims copyright for the images, though he or she never touched the canvas.
That would most likely be considered a "work for hire" scenario and is usually covered by contracts between the parties where the individual artist relinquishes their copyrights in exchange for wages. This is how big production movies are handled. All of the cameramen don't end up with the copyright of the movie even though they are the ones actually affixing it to a tangible medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not really sure what "loophole" you are referring to, but Techdirt's use of the photo to comment on the story surrounding it is clearly fair use.
I'm not arguing about fair use. The "loophole" I'm referring to is Wikimedia volunteers declaring this image public domain via a simple majority vote conducted amongst themselves, based on a weird and unprecedented technicality. And Techdirt have simply latched onto it like it's some sort of "cause" to fight for.
That would most likely be considered a "work for hire" scenario ...
Yes, I know. I was responding to some ridiculous rhetoric with real-world examples of said rhetoric. That should've been evident in context. I've repeated myself here at least 6 times about this already, and I'm tired, so very tired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahh, I see why I was confused. What you are referring to as a "loophole" isn't any such thing, it's following the law as written. (Disclaimer: This is a minor pet peeve of mine - following the law as written is not "skirting the law" or "pushing the limits of the law" or "using a loophole" or any other such nonsense. It's following the law as written, nothing more and nothing less)
Also, it's not just Wikimedia declaring this work to be public domain, it's also quite a few respected people who are extremely knowledgeable in copyright law who are saying this.
And Techdirt have simply latched onto it like it's some sort of "cause" to fight for.
I disagree with this statement. This situation is very newsworthy and lands smack dab in the middle of Techdirt's wheelhouse. Much along the lines of the discussions that occur here concerning how the 1969 version of "Night of the Living Dead" is public domain because the distributor didn't affix a proper copyright notice on the film as was required at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since you are playing the part of pedant, then you must also admit that it has yet to be determined the Mssr. Slater actually has a copyright claim here. With no court ruling to say one way or the other, the state of Schrödinger's Monkey is officially undefined.
So I say bring on the lawsuit! If Mssr. Slater is so confident in his rights, then he should have no problem asserting them in court. If not, well that itself speaks volumes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I suggest you have your employers go back to the old days and do it the way classical artists worked. Find a prince or pope or king or some other rich person and get them to sign a contract for the work, then create something. They (the patron) will have utter and complete control over the work (they needn't even admit to anyone that it exists), and they can save a lot of money doing without legal leeches like you trying to convince them of the utility of hairbrained schemes like this.
BTW, I used to be an artist until I discovered there's hardly any money in it, so I found a better way to make a living. Perhaps your client should consider doing the same. Just a bit of friendly advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]