Monkey See, Monkey Do, But Judge Says Monkey Gets No Copyright
from the sorry-folks dept
A few weeks ago, we wrote about some details from the court hearing in the ridiculous monkey selfie case in which PETA (the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) claimed not only that it represented Naruto, an Indonesian macaque monkey, but that the monkey should hold the copyright on this selfie:Here, the Copyright Act does not “plainly” extend the concept of authorship or statutory standing to animals. To the contrary, there is no mention of animals anywhere in the Act. The Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have repeatedly referred to “persons” or “human beings” when analyzing authorship under the Act. See, e.g., Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]n author superintends the work by exercising control. This will likely be a person who has actually formed the picture by putting the persons in position, and arranging the place where the people are to be.”) (internal quotation marks, citations and modifications omitted) (emphasis added); Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 1997) (“For copyright purposes, however, a work is copyrightable if copyrightability is claimed by the first human beings who compiled, selected, coordinated, and arranged [the work].”) (emphasis added); Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 737 (1989) (“As a general rule, the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is the person who translates an idea in a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection.”) (emphasis added). Despite Next Friends’ assertion that declining to grant a monkey copyright to a photograph “would depart from well-established norms,” Next Friends have not cited, and I have not found, a single case that expands the definition of authors to include animals.And the judge is also convinced by the Copyright Office rejecting non-human copyrights as well:
Moreover, the Copyright Office agrees that works created by animals are not entitled to copyright protection. It directly addressed the issue of human authorship in the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices issued in December 2014 (the “Compendium”). “When interpreting the Copyright Act, [the courts] defer to the Copyright Office’s interpretations in the appropriate circumstances.”... In section 306 of the Compendium, entitled “The Human Authorship Requirement,” the Copyright Office relies on citations from Trade-Mark Cases, 101 U.S. 94 (1879) and Burrow-Giles to conclude that it “will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being.”... Similarly, in a section titled “Works That Lack Human Authorship,” the Compendium states that, “[t]o qualify as a work of ‘authorship’ a work must be created by a human being. Works that do not satisfy this requirement are not copyrightable.”... Specifically, the Copyright Office will not register works produced by “nature, animals, or plants” including, by specific example, a “photograph taken by a monkey.”And thus, sucks for Naruto (and PETA):
Naruto is not an “author” within the meaning of the Copyright Act. Next Friends argue that this result is “antithetical” to the “tremendous [public] interest in animal art.” ... Perhaps. But that is an argument that should be made to Congress and the President, not to me. The issue for me is whether Next Friends have demonstrated that the Copyright Act confers standing upon Naruto. In light of the plain language of the Copyright Act, past judicial interpretations of the Act’s authorship requirement, and guidance from the Copyright Office, they have not.
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, monkey selfie, monkeys, naruto, public domain
Companies: peta
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
use of resources
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely horrible ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely horrible ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Absolutely horrible ruling
The works of Shakespeare are already in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely horrible ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely horrible ruling
No wonder they haven't produced any new hits lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely horrible ruling
Very few animals were harmed in the making of this post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Absolutely horrible ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely horrible ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other animals...
That was not the case here, as the camera was left unattended, and the monkey controlled both the framing (handled and pointed it at will) and the timing (the shutter operation)
Of course, later, after he was turned down by the copyright office, Slater went and changed his story, claiming he deliberately set the camera up to be taken (giving him the element of creative input needed to get a copyright interest)
Of course, that would be fraud, so.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
However, if you do register, you get some extra benefits, like the right to statutory damages and a presumption of validity. Most people who commercially exploit their works register them in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Other animals...
Also, Slater has the images registered at the US Copyright Office, so how was he turned down?
I think you are referring to press stories and not real interviews or Slater's own writings on the affair.
Newspapers are not reliable sources. However, the tripod was mentioned on the same day as the Daily Mail piece, from which people seem to rely too heavily on.
Thus, the camera was set by the photographer to record a background that had elements of choice within it. I also believe Slater set the controls and allowed the monkey to play with camera.
This is how it happened, and unless you were there can't say how things happened.
For you to say that the monkey controlled everything only highlight that you are a simpleton that believes newspapers (very sad) and that monkeys can turn a heavy DSLR camera onto themselves. You try it and go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Rich... you should try listening to yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
For you to say that the monkey controlled everything only highlight that you are a simpleton that believes newspapers (very sad) and that monkeys can turn a heavy DSLR camera onto themselves.
A pro DSLR and pro tripod probably weigh something like 10-20 pounds. These are pretty good sized monkeys, and they're strong enough to climb trees with ease. I doubt they would have any trouble maneuvering a camera.
You try it and go figure.
It's quite easy with my consumer grade DSLR and tripod. Have you tried it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Sulawesi macaques are about the size of small dogs. Simply do your research - if you know what that is you idiot.
You will argue against all facts for artwork to be free. I bet you have all stolen artwork for your own benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
OK, they're smaller than I thought. I still maintain your claim that they would be incapable of maneuvering an SLR on a tripod to be unsupported, not to mention the claim that it was on a tripod to begin with is dubious.
Simply do your research - if you know what that is you idiot. You will argue against all facts for artwork to be free. I bet you have all stolen artwork for your own benefit.
I'm the one who's trollish and not worth responding to? You seem to have completely misunderstood everything about this situation. Can you point to anyone arguing "artwork should be free"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
"This is how it happened, and usless [sic] you were there can't say how things happened"
Again, super rich (a gold mine, you might say), of irony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
It's not like anything about copy protection laws make sense anyways so what's the point?
"You will argue against all facts for artwork to be free."
and this is a very good reason copy protection laws should be abolished. Their intent should not be to prevent artwork from being free. Their intent should be to promote the progress of the sciences and useful art, to expand the public domain so that we have more free works, and to serve a public interests. That you have perverted it into something self serving is reason to abolish it. If you can't demonstrate that an aspect of copy protection serves a public interest then it should be abolished. Making something cost money that would otherwise be free is not a public interest.
Interestingly you aren't even arguing in favor of the artist here (the artist which, btw, you really don't care at all for). You are simply stating that you think works should cost money for the sake of costing money. Which is not how the law should be intended.
"I bet you have all stolen artwork for your own benefit."
A: It's not stealing it's infringement
B: Hollywood has a long history of infringement. Hollywood was even built on infringement. Don't think that IP extremists don't still infringe like crazy for their own benefit while trying to impose these ridiculous laws on others.
C: Since copy protection laws are so convoluted and difficult not to break there are probably people that inadvertently violate it.
D: I bet you have robbed a bank for your own benefit.
Typical IP extremist mindset thinking that people are guilty until proven innocent and that an accusation is sufficient to presume guilt until innocence is proven. You should be in jail now until you can prove to me you haven't robbed that bank.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
A monkey taking a photo of a camera placed on a tripod by a photographer will automatically grant the human photographer copyright.
There's no slipery slope either. Copyright is essential for the continuation of creativity and financial gain by those that have such skills. Any slippery slopes are those created by freetards that wish to see copyright destroyed for their own advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Copyright is not essential for creativity, and if anything it tends to inhibit creativity because of the fear of infringement. As to financial gain, the people who make the most financial gain from copyright are the middlemen publishers, labels and studios, and if they cannot survive without copyright there are alternative ways of publishing using the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Antithetical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Say that to the millions of people who release their music/artwork/photos/movies under the CC licence.
I'm sure you would get a two word answer (second word off).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Remember, copy protection is a privilege (the government provides it) and if you want special privileges that have social costs (monopolies reduce aggregate output, their enforcement costs money, and the people and institutions subject to these laws are paying by giving up their natural rights) the burden is on you to prove your case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
The monkey owner would have no standing at all with regard to copyright.
A monkey taking a photo of a camera placed on a tripod by a photographer will automatically grant the human photographer copyright.
Do you have any court cases or copyright office guidance to prove that?
Copyright is essential for the continuation of creativity and financial gain by those that have such skills.
Citation needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Of course not. You have not a single idea about copyright have you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Neither of those citations support your claim.
Do you have any court cases citations that states a photographic work that owes its origin to a human is NOT copyrightable?
You seem to have missed the story. This work was ruled, by a court of law, to have been created by an animal, not a human. Your weasel phrase "owes its origin to" is not based in copyright law and has no bearing on the discussion. You're trying to make it sound like a person created the photo, but that isn't what happened. The photo also "owes its origin to" the camera, the camera manufacturer, the memory card in the camera, its manufacturer, the monkey, and the sun which provided the light for the photo. But none of them get a copyright on it either.
You have not a single idea about copyright have you?
The irony is strong with this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other animals...
In this case, Slater's own description of the event, and what made the photo of note, made it clear that it was purely by accident that it happened, and he had no creative input regarding it at all, hence no copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Other animals...
What seems accidental was the events that led up to the famous selfies. A money stole his camera and took some blurred shots. This gave Slater the idea they may take a self-portrait if set on a tripod etc.
Get your facts right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Quite at odds with his statements to press at the time which says
In fact, if you look at the wayback machine, his story first appeared on his sitesometime before Feb 6 2015, but AFTER August 16 2014. Funny that. Especially since guess what happened in August 2014? That's right, that's when the US Copyright office issed the new guidelines saying 'photos by a monkey' can't be copyrighted.
BTW, other reason we know the tripod story is crap? Because some of the original photos he released, would have required said tripod to be under 3 inches tall. Just look at the very last one on the Daily Mail page, you can see the camera is pretty much at ground level, no tripod (also arms length, not THAT heavy). They also have other photos ,including one of slater trying to get his camera back. Hell, even the famous selfie is heavily angled, which indicates, you got it, NO TRIPOD. You know, since they can be heavy in themselves, and they would drag the shot 'straight', or force a tip-over if on the ground at that angle.
Remember this, Slater's a nobody photographer who got lucky when the camera was taken. This photo is, in his own words, worth a lot of money. Yeah, can TOTALLY see why he has no reason to lie about things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
And what is more telling is that you can't even use the wayback site to discover that the story on Slater's site dates back to at least September 2011 if nor before (Wayback only takes random snapshots). My God, even the idiots at Wikipedia seem to have linked to the Slater's site from 2011.
You are floundering in your own waste product here. Just give up making a jackass of yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Well then he should sue them for damages, because clearly their lies are costing him his IP.
Or maybe, just maybe, he's the liar, and he can't sue the newspapers because they're telling the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Given he has a vested financial interest(can't demand fees from people using a public domain pic) in making it seem like he deliberately(rather than accidentally) created the situation that resulted in the photo being taken, I'm going to assume that the original story, when he hadn't yet realized that it meant no copyright for him, is the true one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Does anyone remember that this story was fun in 2011? Why would Slater ever make the boring and dry points to how these photos came about?
He did so in 2001 on his website, as evidenced by Wayback. He even says he did not want fame and refused interviews! Thisis, because in his own words, he didn;t want fame and wanted the story to be about the monkeys.
From what I read on techdirt, i can only conclude you are a load of talentless image thieves wanting an argument about copyright to justify your own Communist ideas (property is wrong and art should be free for all)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
How about every news story at the time. Or how's about the press release BY HIM saying that. And he did a few interviews.
Oh, and I linked the wayback machine, his 'I set it up' story didn't appear until late 2014, after his rejection by the US Copyright office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other animals...
Willful ignorance?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-b orrows-photographers-camera.html
"'One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy', said Slater"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other animals...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Before the monkey has the mental facilities for avarice and weapons, he's out of the game.
If there is intelligent non-human life here or anywhere else, they'll consider humanity the Earth crime syndicate. And trying to clamp down on a shared culture, shutting down the one thing humans have going for them, is not going to help the impression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
#freeourweapons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Inc.
A corporation is not a "natural person", it's just "a person". (there's an interesting Wikipedia article on where this whole "a person" vs "a natural person" came from.)
Usually in employment contracts with corporations, there are contractual terms that pass on the copyright of any work created while employed by the corporation to the corporation. Therefore a natural person created the copyrights (i.e. did the creative work over which there are copyrights), with the ownership, via contractual agreement, being transferred to the corporation. Therefore the corporation itself is not an actor, therefore it did not create the copyright.
Therefore creating a corporation would still not solve the issue of which actor created the copyright in the first place. The actor would still be the monkey, which not being a person (let alone a natural person) can not imbue its works with copyright status, therefore there would be no copyright to transfer to the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Inc.
“Copyright”, in the United States, is a limited statutory monopoly created by Congress under the authority of Article I, Section 8.
17 U.S.C. § 102(a)
Other sovereigns may create copyright. Among the more famous examples, the statute enacted in Great Britain in the 8th year of Queen Anne (1710) created copyright under the authority of the Queen-in-Parliament.
Please don't confuse copyright with a work of authorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Inc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Monkeys have plenty of other incentives to conduct business. That poo, for instance, isn't going to fling itself, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The future is without copyright, for we will not create anything outselves! Techdirt Utopia achieved in our lifetimes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My point was more related to the guys who were talking about using a computer to generate all of the potential songs / melodies in the world, copyrighting them, and making everyone pay every time they tried to use them in another song. That wouldn't work because the computer generated music wouldn't in itself be able to be copyright. Without a human as part of the creation on an individual case basis, this judge would suggest no copyright would be granted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A sequencer is not an automatic music generator, but rather an automatic performer, with a human composing the sequence. Therefore the music can be copyrighted and licensed by the composer, just like any other music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Either grow up and find a valid reason to exist, or you'll deserve to go the way of the alchemists. We already have philosophy and science. Professional liars are not necessary for anything nor anyone. Criminals do what they do far more efficiently and at much lower cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright is the ultimate tool of the corporate controlled dystopia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160129/07144833457/commerce-department-wants-to-fix-some-wo rst-problems-copyright-law-reform-crazy-damages.shtml#c280
Do you care more for the artists or the IP holders (ie: the distributors).
Of course your refusal to answer is quite telling. You refuse to answer exactly because you don't care at all for the artists and are only concerned with the distributors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are more Monkeys in PETA than in the Forest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PETA..PETA...PETA
PETA:
We'll save them all, even if we have to kill every last one of them. Trust us, they want to be put out of their misery. Our 32nd degree whisperer on the other side told John Edwards everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still not a closed case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right result, bad decision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right result, bad decision
If they can find a easy reason to decide a case, they don't bother looking at other reasons.
This is because:
1 - It saves everyone's time and effort.
2 - Hard cases make bad law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Right result, bad decision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Right result, bad decision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right result, bad decision
If the court doesn't have jurisdiction, then the court ought to just say so—and then bail out. No jurisdiction means no power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right result, bad decision
I'm not sure what your point is exactly, because it appears that the case was dismissed under 12(b)(6):
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a paid-for company that advertises products by manufacturing 'outrage'.
e.g they took 10 million dollars from Nintendo to claim they were angry at 'cooking mama' during its re-release.
They've made over 50 million from Mcdonalds by staging fake 'protests' whenever a new burger or other food item comes out....
They took money from various suit manufacturers to demonstrate against wool claiming it was breaching the rights of sheep....etc etc etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
PETA also invent monkey personalities, for example it would seem that the evidence that Naruto exists is absent form PETA.
Slater's website claims that Naruoto is "a fraudster", lucky not to be in jail. Surely PETA should be made to prove that the monkey they got into court actually exists!
PETA expolit animals for their own publicity stunts, much like Techdirt exploits photographer's works for their own commercial gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have a source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Resting nude" (one of a whole set of paintings of the same scene/model, arguably the best one) by Modigliani was recently sold for more than $100mil.
You think it would have garnered that price without all the advertising by free photographs of it circulating the net?
Monkey photographs are more problematic than elephant paintings: from a photograph, there are only reproductions. So there is no "original" to "own".
This was already the case for "analog" photography even though you could at least own the negative from which reproductions were made. With digital photography, physically owning the original medium is a moot point. At least until somebody cooks up some DRM scheme for screwing over people's use of their own possessions (like ineffectively but annoyingly done with CD/DAT/MiniDisc digital copying).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monkey Selfie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Monkey Selfie
In TV and film, most cameras are rented, so the people that make films don't own them.
The law requires input of creative effort to get a copyright interest. owning a camera doesn't count as a creative input. I've got some video cameras I borrowed from friends (was ) and did the camera owners get the copyright? No, I did, the person who placed the cameras, and started and stopped them. It doesn't matter if you put financial stuff into it, if you paid for hte camera, or if you bought the plane tickets and hired the guide and the jeep. The copyright belongs to the entity that set the framing and the moment (by aiming the camera and defining when the shutter would act). That's the ONLY thing that defines this specific shot. Now, both of those things are by the monkey, and so copyright would go to the monkey, except they're not capable of holding a copyright, thus it defaults to the public domain.
It's really very simple.
I mean your argument could say 'the owner of the photo is Nikon, because if Nikon didn't make the camera, there wouldn't have been a camera to take the shot'
or
'The owner of the photo is the guide, because if the guide didn't take him there, then there'd be no shot'
or
'the owner of the photo is the monkey, because if he didn't grab the camera and then start pressing the button, there would be no specific photo'.
Oh wait, that last one is the one that was actually relevant to the photos at hand. And the only one the law recognises.
And hell, here's something to really mess with your argument. What if Slater just bought the camera on an account (say a hire-purchase, or there was a lien on it?) and so didn't actually own it himself?
Impact on the composition of the shot = copyright interest.
Impact on the circumstances that allow for any number of shots to potentially be taken = absolutely zero copyright interest.
Don't know how many times and articles and references to the law, and case history, etc. that need to be made, before this point is gotten.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Monkey Selfie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Monkey Selfie
No acknowledgement of the photographer (Slater), use of the whole works, detrimental to the financial effectiveness for the photographer, no element of Fair Use.
Mike Masnick is an infringer, willfully so, and because of this he is also liable for criminal prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Monkey Selfie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Monkey Selfie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Monkey Selfie
But does he weigh more than a duck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Monkey Selfie
According to Slater's (original) account, he was not the photographer. The monkey (presumably Naruto) was the photographer. But monkeys can't hold a copyright, so this work is in the public domain.
But even if Slater were the photographer, acknowledgement has nothing to do with copyright infringement. People who upload a Metallica song to the Pirate Bay "acknowledge" that Metallica is the author. Do you think that they're not infringing?
And, even if this were the case, pretty much every single story about this saga has "acknowledged" Slater. So, you're simply wrong.
use of the whole works
Even assuming the copyright goes to Slater (which it doesn't), use of an entire image does not mean it's not fair use.
Copyright does not arise from the exertion of labor. See e.g. Feist v. Rural.
Every element of fair use. The photo was used for commentary and news reporting, both of which are explicit examples of fair use in the statutes.
Willfully displaying a picture is not the same as willful infringement. Even if it were (which it's not), and even if this were not fair use (which it is), it violates only the display right. That is at most a misdemeanor under criminal copyright law.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Monkey Selfie
Your opinion is at variance with the law and with the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Monkey Selfie
The guy drove there in a Toyota.
If the Toyota didn't exist, there would be no Monkey Selfie, thus Toyota is the rightful owner of the picture and copyright.. Not sure why this isn't evident...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wasted opportunity
Instead he jumped on the current everything-mu$t-be-owned band wagon and turned himself into an ownership monkey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wasted opportunity
Once again, Techdirt followers no NOTHING about photography and copyright. Take a look at this if you can;t get your head around it.
http://fusion.net/story/261552/millions-of-animal-selfies-offer-snapshot-of-habitat/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wasted opportunity
Once again, making unsubstantiated claims does not lend credence to your arguments.
All I need to find is one instance of a TD follower who "no" (s) something about photography and copyright. What that something is - is up to me - lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wasted opportunity
As for your rant on the TD followers... you are a TD follower, claiming TD followers know nothing about photography and copyright - so, I guess you know nothing about photography and copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, PETA should be glad for this outcome
Then everybody who has something stolen or destroyed by a monkey will be able to sue PETA for damages.
They can be very glad that the judge did not accept their arguments or they'd be broke in no time whatsoever.
Because, make no mistake, monkeys' destructive potential quite outweighs their creative one. And they have a dim view towards their civic responsibilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, PETA should be glad for this outcome
Quite the leap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It claims copyright impedes creativity yet wishes to destroy individualism via the creation of art and social commentry. Working for nothing has NEVER worked outside of the lunatic asylum.
All Techdirt is concerned about is thieving the work of others under the presumption that artists will work for nothing.
There is secret history to the world that clearly uncovers the truth that ideas are paramount to cultural identity and advancement.
Techdirt wishes to stop the creativity at its source. It only talks about secondary creativity and ideas (which is the underbelly of social media, sharing).
Techdirt and its supporters promote parasitism.
It promotes falsely the notion that artwork should be made free, under some force of either law or communist pressure - err, community pressure.
Who will pay artists for their work? The State?
Seriously!
I have never belived in banning websites until now, but Techdirt should be amongst the first to banned because it promotes radical ideologies that created a Cold War.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is the most backwards shit I've ever heard in my life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all together now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]