How The Monkeys & Copyright Debate Explains Why Congress Shouldn't Rush To Approve PROTECT IP

from the it's-not-that-simple dept

This week's episode of WNYC's On the Media might interest a bunch of you (though, hopefully most of you already listen to the show). First off, it has two of my favorite tech/legal commentators on other segments -- Joe Mullin on Righthaven's self destruction and Tim Lee on the "six strikes" agreement (which I still argue is more properly labeled "five strikes," but no one else agrees). And then (blatant self promotion) it has a short segment with me talking about why PROTECT IP is bad news... in which host Bob Garfield does a nice job bringing the story back around to the monkeys and their copyright woes.

The key point that we discuss is that, contrary to what some supporters of PROTECT IP would have you believe, determining what is, definitively, infringing is not as easy as they believe. They keep saying not to worry about PROTECT IP because it "only" applies to "rogue sites," or "sites dedicated to infringing activities." But all of that presumes it's easy to define what is a rogue site. But it's not. And that's proved by the fact that the list of "sites dedicated to infringing activities" put together by WPP/GroupM, with help from Universal Music, Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros., includes tons of perfectly legitimate sites, including the Internet Archive, Vimeo, Vibe Magazine and a bunch of hip hop blogs. It also includes 50 Cent's personal website... even though he's a Universal Music artist!

It's further highlighted by a stroll through history, and a look at the list of things the industry has previously declared as infringing, including the player piano, radio, the photocopier, cable TV, the VCR, cassette tapes, the DVR, the mp3 player and YouTube, among many other things. Frankly, the industry has a dismally poor track record in figuring out what's really dedicated to infringing activities and separating that from what's the next major platform for growth.

And where do the monkeys fit into all of this? Well, as Bob Garfield pointed out, it's this kind of confusion over copyright law, where some people insist that it's simple to understand this stuff, that leads to bad, overly-generalized legislation like PROTECT IP. Either that, or he was making a comment about the simian nature of our elected officials. Or maybe both. Either way, if you want to take a listen, get the podcast here.

Filed Under: congress, copyright, monkeys, protect ip

Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His

from the is-this-some-new-copyright-theory? dept

It appears this monkey business isn't over just yet. As you probably know already, we had a discussion recently about some monkey self-portraits, in which some monkeys in Indonesia happened upon a camera left by photographer David Slater. In the original article on the subject, Mr. Slater stated clearly that he believed the resulting photograph was due to an accident:

'One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy, said Slater, 46.

'At first there was a lot of grimacing with their teeth showing because it was probably the first time they had ever seen a reflection. 'They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button.

'The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it

'At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to watch.'

As we noted, it seems pretty clear that under copyright law in the US and the UK, the photograph is in the public domain. They were not created by a human. The creative inputs into the image were not made by a human. There is no copyright on those images. And yet, Slater apparently licensed them to Caters News Agency, who sent us a takedown request. We stand by our assertion that the images are in the public domain, and even if they're not, our use is covered by fair use rules within copyright law.

The story has been getting wider and wider attention, and it has now been picked up by the Metro in the UK, who spoke with David Slater to get his take on things, and he stands by his belief that he holds the copyright, based on a rather unique interpretation of copyright law (and, by unique, we mean "wrong"):

‘Until I hear from the monkey’s lawyers, I will stick to the belief that I own the copyright,’ said Mr Slater yesterday.

He obtained the amazing photo when he left his camera around a group of primates on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi.

But he said, although he had left the equipment ‘unmanned’, the suggestion the incident was an accident was wrong.

He claimed he had engineered the shoot, adding: ‘I was the artist behind it.

‘It was my artistry and idea to leave them to play with the camera and it was all in my eyesight. I knew the monkeys were very likely to do this and I predicted it. I knew there was a chance of a photo being taken.’

It's a nice thought and all, but I can find nothing in copyright law that suggests it is determined this way. If I leave out a stack of crayons for my son and he colors the walls, do I get the copyright on it? No. He does. Separately, Slater himself admitted earlier that it was an "accident," so he's now changing his story. As for the final sentence that it was his "idea," that's totally meaningless. Copyright is not on the idea. This is why we have the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright law. And, yes, both US and UK copyright law have the idea/expression dichotomy (applied slightly differently, but as far as I can tell that difference is meaningless here). Copyright only applies to the expression and not the idea. It makes no difference at all that he had the idea, or that he left the camera out hoping for the accident. It makes no difference that he predicted what would happen.

Hell, I predicted that David Slater would say that the copyright belonged to him. Based on David Slater's reasoning, because I predicted it, the copyright on his statement now belongs to me. But, of course, that's silly. The copyright in a photograph is specifically limited to the creative choices in the expression, not the idea -- and the monkeys took the pictures here, meaning the expression was their own.

Separately, the Metro article claims that unnamed "experts" agree with Mr. Slater:

Copyright lawyers confirmed that setting up the pictures gave Mr Slater a lawful claim to the copyright.

And experts added the ‘author’ of any copyrighted work had to be a ‘natural’ person – not, it seems, a monkey.

It's kind of strange that they don't name or quote these "experts," but I believe the Metro either misrepresented the copyright issue at hand, or is misrepresenting the reply of the lawyers they spoke to. First off, it's true that a photographer could potentially claim copyright on an image shot by someone else if they really were involved in "setting up the pictures," but that means actually setting up what the photo is about: the framing, the composition, the angle, etc. Slater did not do that here. He did not do enough to qualify for a copyright under US or UK law. The "experts" are also correct that the author, for the purpose of copyright, needs to be a natural person and not a monkey... but this does not mean, as the article falsely implies, that when the true author is a monkey, the copyright defaults to the nearest human.

I'm sure that Mr. Slater is a nice guy and a wonderful photographer. I went through some other images on his site, and he's very talented, and deservedly holds the copyright on many other photos. But on these images, he's just wrong. He doesn't hold the copyright. I doubt the monkeys will send their lawyers after him, but he should be careful about claiming he holds the copyright.

Filed Under: copyright, david slater, fair use, monkeys

Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain

from the do-monkeys-believe-in-the-public-domain dept

So our post concerning the takedown request from Caters News Agency over the monkey self-portraits has stirred up quite a lot of interest and discussion around the globe. I wanted to revisit the issue a little more focused on the legal side, and why it seems quite likely that these images are very much in the public domain (which would also suggest that an actual takedown notice (rather than a simple request, as happened here) would represent copyfraud.

First up, I've seen many people insisting that the camera owner gets the copyright on any photo taken with their camera. If you read the comments on various other news stories that have covered this, people say this so confidently. They're almost certainly wrong. There may be some exceptional cases where that's true, but for the most part it's not true. The confusion here is between ownership of the photo itself and the copyright on the photo. This is an issue that confuses many people who don't deal much with copyright law, but the photo and the copyright on the photo are two separate things.

Under US law (we'll deal with elsewhere soon), you have to have made the creative contributions (the copyrightable aspects) to the image to have it qualify for any copyright protection (and then, it's only the creative aspects that get the copyright). Thus, you could argue that if the photographer had set up the camera, framed the shot, and simply let the monkey click the shutter, perhaps there is some copyright there (though, even then it would likely be limited to some of the framing, and not much else). But David Slater has already admitted that the monkeys found a camera he had left out by accident and that he did not have anything to do with setting up the shot. He's stated that the monkeys were playing with the shiny objects and when one pushed the shutter, the noise interested them and they kept it up. It would be difficult to argue he made any sort of creative contribution here to warrant copyright.

Can the monkeys get the copyright? No. As Justin Levine kindly pointed out, according to the rules published by the US Copyright Office:

503.03 Works not capable of supporting a copyright claim.

Claims to copyright in the following works cannot be registered in the Copyright Office:

503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.

In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable

That seems pretty cut and dried. The works are not subject to copyright at all. That would make them public domain.

But that's all under US law. Could there be international claims? Aurelia J. Schultz has the best review of the relevant international law that I've seen, and it, too, concludes that the photos are almost certainly public domain. There are two countries where the law may matter: Indonesia and the UK. Schultz first looks at Indonesian law:

Under Indonesian copyright law an author is “a person or some persons.” Miss Monkey is ruled out right there I’m afraid.

Sorry, Monkey. UK law?

Since it’s a British company claiming copyright, any suit is likely to be brought in the UK.  Indonesia is a member of Berne and TRIPs, so the photos should be treated the same as UK works under UK copyright law.  Unfortunately for the monkey, The UK copyright law also defines author as “the person.”  Sorry monkey, it’s not you.

Monkey see, monkey do, but monkey don't get no copyrights. Okay, but does David Slater and/or Caters News have any copyright interest in the photos under international law? Again, the answer is almost certainly no. Under Indonesian law, if anyone can claim the right to the image, it might be the Indonesian government:

There is a clause in Article 7 of the Indonesian copyright law that specifies if a work is designed by one person and worked out by another, then the one who designed the work gets the copyright. If the photographer had set up the shot and the monkey had just taken the photo, the photographer would likely have the copyright. But the photographer didn’t design anything here. He just left his camera. The monkey did all the designing in the photos, so this article shouldn’t apply.

Perhaps more useful here is Article 9, “If a legal entity announces that a work has originated from it without mentioning a person as the author, then the legal entity shall be deemed to be the author, unless proven otherwise.” The monkey took the photos in an Indonesian national park. The Indonesian government presumably owns that park and is a legal entity. It would seem that if the Indonesian government claimed it was the copyright owner, then it would be. Except for that “unless proven otherwise bit.” But this leads us to another question, does the park own the monkey?

If not having an author as defined under the copyright law is the same as having an unknown author, then Indonesia owns the copyright under Article 10A of the Indonesian copyright law.

Okay, but Caters said they represented Slater, not the Indonesian government. What about under UK law? There, too, it appears that the image is almost certainly public domain:

Under Section 153, the work only qualifies for copyright protection if it meets requirements in several different areas including the area of author.  Section 154 outlines the requirements the author must meet in order for the work to receive copyright protection. 

• Option one, a British citizen. Pretty sure the Indonesian monkey is not a British citizen.
• Option two, an individual domiciled or resident in the UK. Monkey lives in Indonesia.
• Option three, an individual domiciled or resident in another country to which the relevant provisions of this Part extend. This seems to include any countries to which the UK must extend national treatment with respect to copyright. Since Indonesia is a member of Berne and TRIPS, Indonesia would be one of these countries. It might seem like we need to know if the monkey is an individual, or if it can be domiciled or resident.  But, that doesn’t matter because the first part of Section 154 says “if the author was at the material time a qualifying person.” (emphasis added)

So it appears under UK law, the photos are in the public domain.

So, it's looking like the image is in the public domain in both the UK and the US.

Of course, given Caters initial response to this whole thing: "Michael, regardless of the issue of who does and doesn't own the copyright - it is 100% clear that the copyright owner is not yourself," it suggests that Caters doesn't wish to recognize a public domain or the value that it provides. I find this to be yet another depressing statement on the state of copyright law today, where people can't even fathom the idea that such a photo might actually belong in the public domain, where it can be used legitimately to enrich the lives of everyone.

Filed Under: copyright, david slater, indonesia, monkeys, public domain, uk, us
Companies: caters news agency

Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos

from the monkey-see,-monkey-do,-monkey-sue? dept

Remember our story last week, discussing the copyright issues of monkeys taking photographs of themselves using a photographer's camera that he had left alone? The whole post was about whether or not anyone had a legitimate copyright claim on the photos, noting that the photographer, David Slater, almost certainly did not have a claim, seeing as he did not take the photos, and even admits that the images were an accident from monkeys who found the camera (i.e., he has stated publicly that he did not "set up" the shot and let the monkeys take it). And yet, Caters News Agency has a copyright notice on two of the images, claiming to hold the rights to them. We doubted that the monkeys -- who might have the best "claim" to copyright on these photos, if there is one, had licensed the images.

Either way, we were a bit surprised to receive a notice on Monday from Caters News, telling us they represented David Slater with respect to the syndication of those photos, and asking us to take down the photos. The notice was not a DMCA takedown notice. It doesn't even mention copyright, though that seems like the only basis upon which they would make such a takedown request. And, to be clear, it was not in the least bit threatening. There is no legal language and no threat at all in the note. Here it is in its entirety (minus the name and contact info of the person who sent it):

Hello,

I have noticed you have used David Slater's images on your website. However we are representing David Slater and syndicating these images on his behalf.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110706/00200314983/monkey-business-can-monkey-license-its-copyrights-to-news-agency.shtml

These images are being used without David's or our permission, therefore can I ask you remove these images from your site immediately.

Please email me to inform me when this done.

Thanks

Given that the very nature of our post was to point out that it's unlikely that Caters has a legitimate copyright claim on these photos, it struck me as a bit odd that they would not even address that at all. In fact, I almost wondered if this was a prank from someone. So I contacted Caters to confirm that it was legit and received confirmation saying that it was, indeed, genuine. After consulting no fewer than four lawyers (I'm nothing if not thorough) on this matter, I decided that the best course of action was just to ask for a clarification, since they did not make clear the actual basis for the request, and point out that it's not at all clear Caters has any legal claim whatsoever. At the same time, assuming they could come back with some legal argument for why the copyright was legit, we decided to make it clear that we believe, strongly, that the use of the images was protected fair use, if they actually are covered by copyright. Since the initial email was not threatening or legalistic, I decided that it was best to reply in kind, without having a lawyer respond on our behalf.

In response to your email concerning the posting of images that were taken by some monkeys using David Slater's camera, I was hoping you could elaborate on your request for us to remove the images. Your request never uses the word copyright, but in the absence of a copyright claim it is not clear to me on what basis you might be asking that the photos be removed. If you ARE asserting a copyright claim, what is the basis for your claim that Slater holds the copyright on any of the images (and thus, had the right to license them to you)? In the original article, Slater himself apparently admits that the images were an accident from monkeys who happened upon the camera, so I'm trying to understand the basis for claiming that the copyright on the images are Slater's to license?

Separately, we believe strongly that the use of the images in our post was quintessential fair use under US copyright law. The post itself was not about the photos, so much as the copyright issues raised by the photos. As such, displaying the photos as part of that discussion was necessary to make the point. We believe the very nature of the discussion around the copyright question makes this a transformative use of the photos, Furthermore, Section 107 of the Copyright Act lists out "news reporting" as one of the key purposes for which fair use is designed to cover.

As this very discussion relates to the point of our original post, we also intend to make this discussion public, as it would likely further the commentary around the copyright on these images.

Thank you,
Michael Masnick

Caters was quick to reply, and it appears they have a rather different view on these things:

Michael, regardless of the issue of who does and doesn't own the copyright - it is 100% clear that the copyright owner is not yourself.

You have blatantly 'lifted' these photographs from somewhere - I presume the Daily Mail online. On the presumption that you do not like to encourage copyright theft (regardless of who owns it) then please remove the photographs.

If I'm reading this correctly -- and I believe that I am -- Caters News Agency is claiming that anyone, copyright holder or not, can issue a takedown on a photo, if they can claim that the person using the image is not the copyright holder either -- regardless of whether "fair use" applies. That's... an interesting interpretation of the law. It's also not a valid interpretation of the law. In fact, in some places, sending a takedown notice, if you are not the copyright holder, is what's actually against the law. It's absolutely true that we are not the copyright holder, but as I made clear in my email, that does not matter, as we believe that our use qualifies as fair use. The whole point of fair use is, in fact, to allow those who are not the holders of the copyright to make use of the work in some cases, so it seems odd that Caters would imply no such thing exists.

Also, the second paragraph seems completely out of left field. If the images are either public domain or fair use, then there is no "theft" or "lifting" at all. And, no, I'm not "encouraging copyright theft" at all. You could say I might be encouraging fair use, but that seems like a good thing, doesn't it? Separately, "copyright theft," implies someone falsely taking possession of the copyright itself, not making use of a work. I don't see how that applies to us at all. We're not the ones claiming a copyright on an image we have no copyright interest in. Finally, whether or not we got the images from the Daily Mail seems entirely superfluous. At no point has Caters suggested that the Daily Mail holds the copyright on these images, so bringing up the Daily Mail seems to suggest a bizarre situation where Caters appears to believe that our fair use efforts violate some totally unstated right that the Daily Mail holds on these images.

Either way, we stand by our original analysis. We do not believe Caters News Agency has a legitimate copyright interest in the photo, and the company is in no position to issue a takedown of the images. Furthermore, even if it does turn out, through some convoluted process, that Caters does have a legitimate copyright interest in the photo, we believe that our use falls squarely into the classical confines of fair use under US copyright law. Thus, we have no plans to remove the photos or make any changes, barring Caters providing us with a sound basis for doing so.

More importantly, this highlights another case of someone completely misunderstanding the purpose and intent of copyright law, believing that it is universal and that it gives total control to the copyright holder. Caters does not even seem willing to consider that this image might not even have a copyright given its provenance. In fact, under Cater's own definition, it seems just as reasonable for us to ask that it take down the image, given that we do not believe that it has a valid copyright interest in the image either. Not everything gets copyright, and when something is covered by copyright, it does not give the rightsholder full control over every use. It's unfortunate that a company that has built a business around copyright appears not to understand these basic facts.

Filed Under: copyright, david slater, fair use, monkeys
Companies: caters news agency

Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?

from the i-don't-think-so... dept

A year and a half ago, we wrote about a movie that was entirely filmed by chimpanzees, and wondered about who held the copyright on it. Technically, in most cases, whoever makes the actual work gets the copyright. That is, if you hand your camera to a stranger to take your photo, technically that stranger holds the copyright on the photo, though no one ever enforces this. There were some different theories made in the comments about who actually holds the copyrights, but no clear agreement. Of course, the whole discussion was purely theoretical, because it wasn't like anyone was concerned about the copyright.

However, now we have a similar, but different, story where I think it's a very valid question. Mr. LemurBoy points us to a story involving an award winning nature photographer, David Slater, who was in Indonesia in a national park. At some point, he left the camera unattended, and apparently a macaque monkey wandered over and took this hilarious self-portrait: Now that's the best photo of the bunch, and appears to have no copyright notice on it (though that doesn't mean it's not covered by copyright), but two of the other photos, which the article also claims were taken by the monkeys, do have copyright notices, with the claim being that the copyright is held by the Caters News Agency.

So here's the legal question: how did the copyright get assigned to Caters? I can't see how there's been a legal transfer. The monkeys were unlikely to have sold or licensed the work. I'm assuming that it's likely that the photographer, Slater, probably submitted the photos to the agency, and from a common sense view of things, that would make perfect sense. But from a letter-of-the-law view of things, Slater almost certainly does not hold the copyrights on those images, and has no legal right to then sell, license or assign them to Caters.

Filed Under: copyright, monkeys