Monkey Selfie Case May Settle: PETA Knows It'll Lose, And The Photographer Is Broke
from the so-settlement-makes-sense dept
It may finally be ending. The dumbest copyright lawsuit we've seen in a long time (and that's saying a lot) about a silly topic. We've been covering the story of the monkey selfie from basically the very beginning (and often get mentioned in stories about it, as we'll discuss below). But, the story that began as a weird quirk of explaining how copyright law works -- and how many people don't believe it works the way it does -- got stupid in a hurry once PETA and the formerly respected law firm of Irell & Manella got involved. And, now, finally, the case may be ending in a settlement.
A settlement totally makes sense here, because the plaintiff knows it's going to lose in embarrassing fashion if the case moves forward, and the defendant is broke, in part because of this case (though some people -- including the photographer -- appear to be partially blaming us*). If you somehow haven't followed this story the very, very quick recap is that a photographer named David Slater went to Indonesia where he was taking photographs in a national park, and at some point at least one (and possibly more?) macaque monkeys played with his camera and took some photos with it, including some selfies, which were mildly amusing. As we noted in a long discussion on this, technically the photos are almost certainly in the public domain (read that post to learn why if you don't believe it). David Slater disagrees with this and insists the copyright is his, and has had various representatives at times send totally bogus and severely confused threat letters. However, nearly all serious legal commentary has recognized that the works are in the public domain. That's just how copyright law works, whether you like it or not.
Either way, there's one thing that Slater and I agree on: the monkey doesn't hold the copyright... and PETA (an organization that often seems to care more about publicity stunts than animals) two years ago kicked off a monumentally dumb lawsuit against Slater, claiming that the monkey held the copyright and that PETA represented the monkey. And, again, this can't be stated often enough: PETA brought on a previously respected copyright law firm, Irell & Manella, to handle this case and they proceeded to make some really crazy arguments, including suggesting that every work must have a copyright -- apparently writing the public domain right out of the law.
Either way, PETA lost badly in court, but still appealed. That appeal has not gone well. At a hearing last month, it appears that the judges could barely contain their laughter at just how stupid a lawsuit this really is. PETA knows it's going to lose and lose badly -- and thus has every incentive to settle this case before such a ruling is released.
As for Slater, well, he's been telling reporters that he's completely broke -- so clearly he has incentive to just get the case over with as well. And, I feel for him. Being sued over a completely bogus claim totally sucks. I know that all too well. So it's pretty sensible that all the parties in the lawsuit have told the court to hold off on ruling while they work out a settlement.
And, really, what a despicable case this was by PETA and Irell & Manella. Yes, I know that PETA's whole schtick is to do ridiculous publicity stunts, but this one had real costs. It wasted a bunch of time in the courts, and was really damaging to David Slater, who didn't deserve to be dragged into court by such an organization. One hopes that, at the very least, part of the settlement includes an apology.
* So, this is kind of a separate issue, but Slater occasionally points to Techdirt's articles about why the photos are in the public domain as part of the problem -- and the recent reporting on his claims of being broke have more or less repeated this. The first report we saw, in the Guardian, mentions us and Wikipedia as "refusing" to take the images down -- which... leaves out a big part of the story (i.e., it was in the context of explaining why the work was in the public domain under copyright law). We actually had a few angry people contact us over the Guardian story not realizing the details.
But that was nothing compared to what happened when the Daily Mail, the UK's worst newspaper, basically tried to rewrite the Guardian story and twisted our role even more:
His problems began when Californian-based blog Techdirt and the online encyclopedia Wikipedia (whose mission statement is 'to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free licence or in the public domain') muscled in.
"Muscled in?" Guys, all we did was write (accurately, I may add!) about the copyright issues when a monkey takes a selfie. That's not "muscling in." That's journalism. The Daily Mail might want to try it some day.
They claimed the image was uncopyrightable because the monkey was the creator — and so they uploaded the picture onto their websites, free for anyone to use. To Dave, this was an assault on his livelihood.
Understandably, he asked Techdirt and Wikipedia to stop using the pictures — but they refused. Faced with little choice, Dave decided to sue for up to £18,000, saying: 'There's a lot more to copyright than who pushes the trigger.'
At least the Daily Mail mentions that we explained why the work is in the public domain, but they make it sound like we were the ones doing the initial distribution of the photo. That's crazy. It was all over the internet. In fact, uh, we first read about the monkey in the Daily Fucking Mail. Seriously. Go look at the link in our first story. You want to know where we first got the photograph? The Daily Mail. Yet now the Daily Mail is blaming us for making the photo available? Are you fucking kidding me?
And, I have no idea what the hell they're talking about saying that Slater sued us for £18,000. This is the first we've heard of it.
But, here's the thing: after the Daily Mail article went online, we started getting quite a bit of hate mail, accusing us of bankrupting Slater. I feel bad for Slater, as his situation sounds bad. But we didn't sue him. We didn't take away his livelihood. We explained the law. That's it. You might not like the law, but the law would have been the same whether or not we wrote about it. Slater wouldn't have had the copyright either way. It's fair to blame PETA for hurting Slater, because they sued him for no damn reason at all. But we just reported on the situation accurately -- something it would be nice if the Daily Mail tried once in a while.
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, naruto, public domain, settlement
Companies: irell & manella, peta
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Moving On
The crazy popularity of one photograph is worth very little. Slater obviously thought that he'd won the lottery. TechDirt pointed out that the numbers on his ticket didn't match the numbers in the drawing. Therefore, in his mind, it is TechDirt's fault that he didn't win the lottery.
What he doesn't seem to grasp is that this was a fifteen-minutes-of-fame photograph. Everyone has moved on, except Slater and PETA. And now PETA is moving on because an adverse decision may cost them fees to Slater and, more importantly, simply doesn't draw attention like it did a few years ago. No news is bad news for PETA.
P.S. Maybe you could sue the Daily Mail for defamation under the lax British laws to provide for your own defense. And these guys.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/01182015052/monkeys-dont-do-fair-use-news-agency-tel ls-techdirt-to-remove-photos.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140806/07044228126/photographe r-still-insisting-he-holds-copyright-photo-monkey-threatens-to-sue-wikimedia.shtml
He started the lawsuit happy environment and PETA was happy to jump in and throw a lot of shit in the fan.
That said, PETA is poisonous to the very cause they claim to fight for. I'm hoping they can't settle and have to pay every single cent and the lawyers get sanctioned for the frivolous lawsuit. Let's hope it gets too risky to defend PETA in courts so they'll be neutralized on that front.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfect Shit Storm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perfect Shit Storm
There once was a monkey macaque,
Who took a selfie that created some flak.
The photographer sued, then PETA did too,
Now he's lost the shirt off his back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moving On
The crazy popularity of one photograph is worth very little. Slater obviously thought that he'd won the lottery. TechDirt pointed out that the numbers on his ticket didn't match the numbers in the drawing. Therefore, in his mind, it is TechDirt's fault that he didn't win the lottery.
What he doesn't seem to grasp is that this was a fifteen-minutes-of-fame photograph. Everyone has moved on, except Slater and PETA. And now PETA is moving on because an adverse decision may cost them fees to Slater and, more importantly, simply doesn't draw attention like it did a few years ago. No news is bad news for PETA.
P.S. Maybe you could sue the Daily Mail for defamation under the lax British laws to provide for your own defense. And these guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving On
'My daughter tells everyone her daddy took the monkey selfie, but I've got nothing to give her from it.
Either she needs more schooling, or maybe counseling; why is she calling her father a monkey anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moving On
Uhh, isn't selfie a contraction for self portrait? So this guy's daughter is telling everyone her daddy is a monkey? Very perceptive child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moving On
A self-photograph, specifically, and by connotation, a bad one (usually with an arm/stick in the frame, and often improperly framed).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving On
A great example of this is I could print my favorite XKCD print off the internet and hang it on my wall (which is legal under CC BY-NC 2.5 license), but I'd rather spend $25 to buy it from the guy that created it. It helps him, I get signed art, and everyone leaves happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moving On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moving On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moving On
Since you are so fond of wikipedia you might want to try and read these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moving On
www.wikipediocracy.com
The attempted usurpation of fact by consensus. Rule by fake news. Wikipedia!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moving On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moving On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moving On
Anyway, you may want to put the crack pipe down, I think it's about to burn your fingers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moving On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moving On
Actually, no. According to his website, that's new as of last month:
Or am I not supposed to believe his website, either?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moving On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moving On
*this all applies to the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving On
Well then maybe self-employment is the wrong avenue if he thinks that just putting in hard work = getting money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving On
So he letting the popularity of a picture taken by accident destroy his career as a photographer. That is a sign of jealousy to the point of insanity. He should have shrugged and moved on, and figured out how to get animals close to a camera he controlled, or had set tp as a trap camera.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moving On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Moving On
Do London Johns use that phrase? Certainly not in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moving On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Moving On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haha! Have a +1 funny for reminding me of this...
http://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/user/ayshames/Python/ARCHITEC.PYTHON
https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=RicaXxiU1WM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving On
Using your own child to spread lies for you is despicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving On
Most hurtfully, he's stopped taking pictures. '
Slater - or the monkey?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moving On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
ANONYMOUS and COWARDLY. Social Justice Mangina Owning "Wawwior". Too afraid to raise your pathetic head into the spotlight eh? Get into the man's world little fluffy boy. Thanks for your petty little whine Fluffy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do explain.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's really funny coming from someone themselves posting anonymously. Hey, John, if you're so brave, go ahead and post your real full name and address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's used by copyright industry to get a steady flow of reasonable content cheaply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Daily Mail
Nice try. In that very first Daily Mail story, Slater admitted that the macaque knocked over the camera and then proceeded to take "hundreds" of photos:
Only after the copyright issue came to light did Slater first claim that he was the creative force behind the photographs:
Only after meeting with a lawyer did he change his tune from hope-the-monkey-takes-a-family-album to it-was-all-me-I-promise-and-I'm-sweaty-and-anguished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Daily Mail
When you read Slater's original story up against the Daily Mail story you use to back up your argument (so The Daily Mail is a reputable source for you, TechDescartes!!!!) it is very clear what happened. Slater set up the shoot, dialled in the settings, let the monkey press the button. Slater has copyright. What is it about your doublespeaking thick head you can't grasp? Answer - you believe in Techdirt. Nuff Said my controlled sheeple memeber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
No, John. Slater didn't "set up the shoot, dial[] in the settings, let the monkey press the button." I quoted the original Daily Mail story above. I'll quote it again:
Are you saying that the Daily Mail misquoted Slater? Or that Slater was lying when he said that? It seems that the only one who has a problem with the original Daily Mail story is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
Can I suggest you quote all the newspapers from this year, or even Slater's website, or the Guardian from 2011? Why you insisting the Daily Mail is reputable now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
More to the point the photo is only of interest if the monkey took it. If he took it it has no special value.
SO Slater loses either way. If he took the picture then he has the copyright - but the picture is just another picture of a monkey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reputations: Hard to build up, trivial to destroy
That really is the punchline to the whole thing, the fact that his short-sighted greed completely destroyed any value the picture might have had for him.
If he 'won' and somehow attained the rights to the photo by claiming to have set the shot up then it's useless, as it's just another picture of a monkey, of which I imagine there's plenty.
He could have accepted that the very thing that kept him from owning it, the fact that a monkey took it, made for an interesting story and gone from there, adding that little tidbit to his resume and using it to get his name more widely known, but thanks to his greed the only thing he's likely to be remembered for is being the person who tried to shake people down over a photo he didn't own, only to be dragged into a train-wreck of a PR-stunt/lawsuit.
As it stands with the case likely finally coming to a close the monkey is the only one who comes out of the whole debacle not looking foolish/greedy/absurd, and that is all sorts of ridiculous(even if it does make for a good source of schadenfreude).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reputations: Hard to build up, trivial to destroy
Of the involved parties, the monkey was throwing the least amount of feces around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
This is what an argumentum ad hominem is, even if the hominem is actually a corporation. The fact that The Daily Mail is a ball of crap does not have any bearing on undisputed quotations. If they are in dispute, Slater could have taken a far more profitable course of suing the paper for libel, in the land of easy libel suits, no less. Perhaps you could point out where his original story has any bearing on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
The story in the daily Mail was clearly a fun story. Are some cult Techshites here so naive to not know English humor? It was fun and I guess inaccurate to encourage laughs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
"Are some cult Techshites here so naive to not know English humor"
Well clearly you don't. In the land of fish & chips, orderly queues, and Monty Python, it's spelt "humour".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
The Daily Mail has oases of news in a sea of twaddle. It often makes up stories, e.g. the psycho ex-girlfriend dentist. It's basically a rage manufacturing machine, so the Slater story fits nicely in there.
Slater unfortunately believed that a) Copyright is a fountain flowing deep and wide and b) that one virally popular pic would see him in clover for life. That's not the way copyright and licencing works. However, as other TDers have written, even now he could sell prints on t-shirts or mugs, etc., and make money off them. The trouble with the pics being in the public domain, though, is that anyone else can, too. Being the man who owned the camera ought to count for something among buyers, though.
I don't think he's greedy, just a man who can't see past a cherished principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Daily Mail
why did Techdirt believe the quotes and story in it back in 2011?
Why, are they disputed? What's your point?
Looks like Techdirt are trying to wriggle from guilt.
Your general intent here is obvious, but makes as little sense as the string of words you used in attempt to convey it.
As a site claiming some expertise on copyright, you are provably fraudulaent,
[Aforementioned proof required]
and if anyone ever believes this site again, or worse, steals Slater's images because of this, is possibly going to regret it.
Excepting that Slater's monkey selfie pics are in the public domain by definition. Awesome he set up the camera and all, but he had no control over the actual subject of the photograph(s).
The sad thing here is he could have converted interest in this photo into lots of well-paying work and sales instead of trying to exert control over one image. Here's the guy who goes to some interesting places, and not without effort or hardship, and seems to have done pretty good work. And any of his work would have a measure of recognition as "from the man who brought us the monkey selfie". Now he's the guy who sent wack legal threats then got sued by a non-profit organization of loons. I rather imagine one bit of recognition, and not losing interest in one's calling, is better than the other form of recognition and being too upset to continue as a photographer. It's the result of poor decision making and an unreasonable will to control influenced by a horrifically bad climate of copyright trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Daily Mail
But this is why you, Orbitalinserting knobhead, visit this site isn't it? To be comforted by like minded thieves who wish to ruin artists livelihoods. Let's face it, you are so talentless you can't create your own works of art. You want to be a parasite don;t you?
Copyright is an incentive for creative people to entertain us, and Slater certainly has done this. he derves to profit from his pics.
He shoul also be recognised for the conservation aspect of all this. Something Techshits will never care about I reckon.
Actions of people like you who encourage theft by stating a falsehood about the pics public domain status, is stifling creativity. Techdirt and Wikipedia are clearly monopolising the idea of steal first, claim innocence later. Copyright is Slaters and he should determine who uses it and how much he wants to make from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
But the idea of fair use burns you like acid, too, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
What is fair about accreditation to a monkey or Wikipedia or the public domain when it is a lie. What is fair to rip off a photographer's copyrighted pic? Know what you are talking about befiore you try to be clever. Being clever is not following the Sheeple on this site but it is thinking for yourself and doing your own research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
You might try that "research" thing yourself, even though you keep imagining reasons why any source we find is invalid.
If Fair Use is in play, it doesn't matter who owns the copyright. Fair Use would still apply if FULL AND UNDISPUTED copyright was held by the photographer.
That said, Wikipedia has never been attributed ownership of the picture. The macaque definitely took the picture, though, so if he was legally capable of holding a copyright, it would be his. Since the "artist" can't have a copyright, then the photo can only be public domain.
If you want more research than I can get from reputable sources, that's called "original research," and it's generally considered unacceptable without peer review.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
Macaques don't take pictures, humans do. Macaques press buttons, humans set up the rest. Why do you wawwiors not see this.
And are you now suggesting the Daily Nail is peer reviewed?
Is Wikipedia peer reviewed?
Idiots under the spell of consensus reality would say so.
Intelligent folk, including law courts, see facts, not Techshit drivel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
Not according to the law.
>He shoul also be recognised for the conservation aspect of all this. Something Techshits will never care about I reckon.
This has no actual bearing when discussing copyright. I helped someone change their tire the other day, recycle, and donated to several charities ... and this has no actual relevance when discussing copy right. If you are also curious for other things that have no relation to the discussion at hand I had a soda at lunch, I am wearing shoes, and it rained today.
>You are a classic example of knowing zip about copyright and public domain especially. The proff of techdirt's fraudulence is in the way you encourage therft of a copyrighted work without so much as a reasoned argument or effort to research the topic from the source - Mr Slater's website! QED.
Mr. Slater's website is not a source for discussing copy right law. If you want Mr. Slater's opinion on what copy right law should be that would be a good source but if you actually want to know what the copy right law is ... I'd suggest starting here https://www.copyright.gov/title17/.
And according to the law (and unfortunately for Mr. Slater) he does not get, let me repeat that for you, he does not get copyright on that particular picture. You may think it is unfair and you may think he should but that is your opinion on the matter not what the law states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
No, that is not how the law works. If you are going to make the claim that is how copyright law works you are either a) willfully stupid or b) willfully stupid. Copyright law is very specific on when copy right can be claimed. By Mr. Slater's own explanation of the account he is not the copy right holder. His argument claiming that he is doesn't matter because legally he is not. If it comes down to someone's opinion on how the law should work and how the law is written guess which wins? Hint it is the way the law is written.
You can argue any other way you want but if your entire line of reasoning that Mr. Slater was there so he must hold the copyright then you are being willfully stupid. Stop being willfully stupid. Copy right law is very clear on this and I have the feeling the only reasoning you won't acknowledge it is a) your being willfully stupid b) you hate techdirt and you need a reason to bash them c) you think Mr. Slater should have the copyright even though the law says he doesn't or d) you're feeling yourself up right now because you get your jollies off being an obstinate ass on the internet ... or e) all of the above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
David, why do you hate girls so? Couldn't get a date to the prom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
Except for the part where he specifically said that none of the monkey images involved his own creativity, thus negating his copyright claim.
This isn't a difficult concept to understand, and the contention around it is puzzling.
Either Slater lied and negated his own copyright, or he told the truth and doesn't deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
Why do you lot believe everything you read? You must be American for goodness sakes!!! The world knows you are controlled this way!
Confirmational bias is the answer. This has no meaning in law. You're a fwaud Techshit. I am beginning to believe that Masnick is behind everyone of the comments here. A fwaud Mr Masthick, you're a fwaud. Stop trawwing your own site Mr Masthick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/07/462245189/federal-judge-says-monkey-cant-own-copyr ight-to-his-selfie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
could have avoided it all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: could have avoided it all
The stories about the selfies hit in July 2011. In September his website changed, giving a new story that he set up remote triggers, with autofocus, and flashguns.
Only problem is, he said most of the photos were out of focus in July, and the pictures quite clearly show no flash (you can make out the gaps in the jungle canopy in the eyes) and no tripod.
He tried exactly what you said, but too late.
of course, a remotely triggered photo wouldn't have made it interesting anyway, there are loads of those.
The very fact that made it marketable, is the fact that makes it uncopyrightable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: could have avoided it all
Your argument is as fallacious as Masthick. And again, you quote the "worst paper in the world " - not by me but by your cult leader Masthick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: could have avoided it all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: could have avoided it all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: could have avoided it all
https://web.archive.org/web/20110121151100/http://www.djsphotography.co.uk:80/Tropical%20Forest s/Sulawesi%20Macaques.htm
The changed version with the camera setup story added, among other things, as of September 3, 2011:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110903035338/http://www.djsphotography.co.uk:80/Tropical%20Forest s/Sulawesi%20Macaques.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: could have avoided it all
https://web.archive.org/web/20110121151100/http://www.djsphotography.co.uk:80/Tropical%20Fore sts/Sulawesi%20Macaques.htm
thats Jan 2011
July 7th it's gone https://web.archive.org/web/20110707120244/http://www.djsphotography.co.uk:80/Tropical%20Forests/Sul awesi%20Macaques.htm
Still down (or removed) August 7th
It's not until September 2011 that the new story is there
https://web.archive.org/web/20110903035338/http://www.djsphotography.co.uk:80/Tropical%20Forest s/Sulawesi%20Macaques.htm
BTW, Since you hate the Daily Mail, hows about the Telegraph, which carried the exact same story verbatum
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8615859/Monkey-steals-camera-to-snap -himself.html
If he's claiming they're lying about what he said, maybe he can sue them for libel and make his money back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: could have avoided it all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He wants money for his Monkey Selfie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh snap, did you come up with that sick burn all by yourself, or did you have help from a monkey?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Bloviate Blather, Bloviate Blather, Bloviate Blather..."
The he gets creative:
"Blather Bloviate, Blather Bloviate, Blather Bloviate..."
Can't wait to see what he comes up with next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No copyright on the Daily Mail story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, the monkey?
Now that you mention it, I do see him pretty frequently in the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How do you define “failed copyright expert”? What proof do you have of his failure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, I can't see the comment you're replying to. Who's a failed copyright expert?
...am I a failed copyright expert?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess it's too late now...
He should have just given the monkey a banana and called the selfie a work for hire...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I guess it's too late now...
If so, why not just say he did and all this silliness would have been avoided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I guess it's too late now...
He may want to have it both ways (photo made famous for being a monkey selfie, but belongs to him) but he can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I guess it's too late now...
There is one more happenstance that should be pointed out: the rise of the word "selfie." It was the OED's word of the year in 2013:
One has to wonder whether the interest in this photo even would be the same if it hit the Internet today:
This photo rode the "selfie" wave. That wave has passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I guess it's too late now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's been nice to meet Techshit acolites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's been nice to meet Techshit acolites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's been nice to meet Techshit acolites
No!!!
JohM, come back JohM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naruto is a great troll
Maybe Naruto needs to hire a lawyer to sue for misappropriation. Call it the Crested Macaques Survival Fund. Maybe Jeff Kerr would do it pro bono. He is familiar with Naruto by now (but not legally a friend), and he has access to plenty of photographic evidence that he could obtain for free from the internet.
Naruto would have to appear in court, but that could probably be handled remotely using the internet, and imagine this, a streaming camera!
Naruto could even then do a live demo for the court demonstrating that Naruto does in fact understand cam tech!
Why PETA did not think of this in first place is a mystery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fraudster?
It sounds to me like Slater was hoping to pull off a fraud by claiming a copyright that he didn't have. However, the publicity in the press from Techdirt and others made that fraud more difficult. So, yeah, I could see how that would be a problem for him. And I'm glad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'John' -- Care to Share?
Masnick has given his viewpoint on multiple occasions and has used logic, reason, and all here are pretty familiar with his stance.
Do you care to share what you believe to the be actual rules on the matter of copyright? I see you lashing out at others, but not contributing to the conversation at hand. It seems to me that you believe Slater has a valid copyright; and with this being a law blog and all, do you care to counterpoint with reasoned logic what your interpretation of the law is? Citations help when making a case, so please include any that are applicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'John' -- Care to Share?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'John' -- Care to Share?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Live by the sword, die by the sword
and the defendant is broke, in part because of this case (though some people -- including the photographer -- appear to be partially blaming us).
If the fact that he didn't own a single photo was enough to completely tank his finances... then he was doomed from the get-go from banking his entire career on one photo. Even assuming he did have full rights over that single photo the odds of him being able to base a successful career on it were zero to none. It was an interesting photo thanks to the circumstances of it's creation, but it certainly wasn't 'able to live comfortably for the rest of your life' or even 'send your child to university' levels of interesting/valuable.
I would feel sorry for him having to pay out the nose in legal fees, but as Ninja pointed out he went legal first, so that bit strikes me as a 'hoist by your own petard', or perhaps 'turnabout is fair play'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JMT got it right
Johm was actually one of the most blatant I've ever seen here. Maybe that brings out the worst in us all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Go look at the link in our first story. You want to know where we first got the photograph? The Daily Mail. Yet now the Daily Mail is blaming us for making the photo available? Are you fucking kidding me?"
The Fail have never let things like consistency, honesty and facts stop them from pursuing what they think will sell. You just happened to originally stumble across a story that they didn't care enough about at the time to lie about. Perhaps, being honest on those kind of fluff stories (as this was to them at the time) is how they stop the husks of their souls from completely dying over their daily work of fabrication. Now that they have agendas and narratives they want to push, they will reject any such attempts at actual journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Physician heal thyself!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor Naruto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Daily Mail
I'm beginning to think a camera isn't the only thing the monkey got a hold of....made the Last Word by TechDescartes