If Wolk looses this case big time, he can then turn around and sue himself for malpractice for millions. Then when he looses the malpractice case against himself, he can turn around again and jack up the lawsuit amount to cover the judgment and legal fees from the previous loss. The cycle is potentially endless.
Oh my God.
He could end up being owed all the money in the Universe.
I am a monkey who has mastered both the operation of a camera and (obviously) a computer keyboard.
Do you have any positions available for photographers?
Even though I am a monkey, I am prepared to fully assign my copyright to you under contract. To ensure this is legally possible, I have consulted my attorneys at Bannana, Slip and Fall, LLC. and they assure me this is completely legal.
As I pointed out in the comments of the original post on this subject, even -if- the monkey could grasp both the concept of the copyright sublicensing agreement and the pen to sign with, the agreement would still be invalid as Macaques live a maximum of eighteen years so the monkey that took the photos is most likely a minor.
In the scenario cited and in the case of monkeys, the camera has not been stolen. It is still within the immediate proximity of the owner. Once the shutter is clicked, the camera is immediately returned. Since there is no actionable criminal action there are no "criminals" here.
Your citation of the OJ case is interesting but irrelevant because the "If I Did It" Copyright and the profits were seized to partially satisfy the outstanding (and famous) wrongful death civil judgment obtained by Fred Goldman, not as part of any statutory offense or violation of Copyright law.
If your neighbor grabs your camera and snaps that one in million photograph and hands you back the camera, you do NOT own the copyright to that photo and have no rational claim to it and therefore your possession of the photo is practically worthless. But remember, while he possesses copyright, he lacks possession of the photo (which is why he is -NOT- a criminal) so his copyright is practically worthless as well.
Best make a deal with your neighbor to split the profits and draw up a contract.
But in the Monkey Photo case, the Monkey cannot enter into a contract for two obvious reasons:
1) He is a Monkey, not a person.
2) As Macaques are usually dead by 18, he is likely underage.
Re: Re: Amazing story and illustrates how silly copyright really is.
Copyright does not recognize nor address the instrumentalities underlying creation. The ownership of the equipment is immaterial. If ownership of the camera determined who owned copyright on the images produced by said cameras, then film producers would not own the copyrights on the movies they make using rented or borrowed cameras.
Yes, the neighbor failed to ask permission to use the camera. But he also does not posses the photograph. You do. But you cannot make or sell copies of the photo or transfer the copyright because you did not "create" the photograph.
Much like the case of the fellow who bought the box of Ansel Adams glass negatives in that garage sale, he may posses and even sell the negatives, but he cannot make copies or sell prints as he does not own the copyright.
Ownership of the camera, glass negative, film or memorystick is completely immaterial and unrelated to copyright.
Amazing story and illustrates how silly copyright really is.
I simply cannot imagine how a rational jurist could ever award the copyright of this photo to the Human who owned the camera, should it ever be contested. (And it will be.)
This is a GREAT photo and will become very popular.
Imagine this scenario: I am in my backyard with my camera sitting on a table talking to my neighbor. My neighbor grabs my camera and snaps a perfect photo of a jumbo jet crashing nearby. While I may own the camera and the memory stick, I am not entitled to the copyright of that valuable photograph. I may refuse to share it or surrender it, but I cannot transfer that copyright or sell that image or even make a copy of it to my own computer since I did not snap the shutter.
I cannot see how the above scenario differs from this story. The owner of the equipment is immaterial and irrelevant with respect to copyright.
On the post: Appeals Court Reiterates: ACLU And Others Are Allowed To Sue The Gov't Over Secret Spying
Re: Re: Is it just me...
On the post: Appeals Court Reiterates: ACLU And Others Are Allowed To Sue The Gov't Over Secret Spying
Something to think about...
Secret laws are a sure sign that you are living under tyranny.
.
On the post: Arthur Alan Wolk Settles Lawsuits With Various Sites
Things were better when....
Real men defended their honor with lead-ball pistols in an empty field.
The Alan Wolks of the world would eventually get their comeuppance and everyone's lot improved.
Do I really mean any of this??
I don't know.
Are you a U.S. Marshall?
.
On the post: Portlandia: We Satirize Portland, But If You Satirize Us, We'll Go Legal On You [Updated]
Obligitory...
What did Portlandia just do to their public relations?
Why, they "Put a turd on it!".
.
On the post: What What (In The Butt)? What What (Fair Use Doesn't Need A Trial)?
Thanks Mike....
At my age, I often feel I have seen it all and nothing much shocks me any more, with the possible, almost routine, exception of South Park.
While I had seen that episode with Butters doing his little YooToobe video, I had no idea -that part- was actually a parody.
Today, I spent three minutes and forty-seven seconds with my mouth agape, a stunned look on my face and a five word summary revolving in my mind.
"This is baldfaced, unfettered faggotry."
.
On the post: 'Jonathan's Card' Raises Interesting Ethical Debate: Who Decides Which Uses Of A Shared Resource Are 'Right'?
Starbucks?
I'd be just as interested to know Starbuck's reasons for closing the card account.
I suspect the PR bots there freaked out over something loosely associated with their business that they did not have strict control over.
"Starbucks: Hospitality...up to a point."
On the post: Our Response To Arthur Alan Wolk's Threat To Sue Us
Re:
On the post: What Do They Say About The Lawyer Who Represents Himself?
Re: Re: Two words:
Wolk -may- be the planet's ultimate legal genius.
Bear with me here...
If Wolk looses this case big time, he can then turn around and sue himself for malpractice for millions. Then when he looses the malpractice case against himself, he can turn around again and jack up the lawsuit amount to cover the judgment and legal fees from the previous loss. The cycle is potentially endless.
Oh my God.
He could end up being owed all the money in the Universe.
.
On the post: What Do They Say About The Lawyer Who Represents Himself?
Re: Sheep
On the post: Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Threatens Techdirt With Bogus DMCA Takedown
I feel sorry for Michael Pascazi.
He must be blind or mentally impaired.
Poor Michael.
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Re: Re: Re: Crowd creativity, anyone?
Say...How's the poo flinging out your way? This business of finding my own food -and- doing freelance journalism is getting old.
The Third Monkey on the Left.
The Jungle.
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Re: Re: Re: Just reply with this:
Naked Minor Monkey Pedo-Porn being claimed by Caters as their property.
Phoning the District Attorney now....
.
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Re: Crowd creativity, anyone?
Sirs...
I am a monkey who has mastered both the operation of a camera and (obviously) a computer keyboard.
Do you have any positions available for photographers?
Even though I am a monkey, I am prepared to fully assign my copyright to you under contract. To ensure this is legally possible, I have consulted my attorneys at Bannana, Slip and Fall, LLC. and they assure me this is completely legal.
Yours Truly,
The Third Monkey on the Left.
The Jungle.
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Re: Re: Re: Just reply with this:
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Re: Re:
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
Re: Just reply with this:
Check and Mate.
On the post: Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos
This is absolutely delicious.
Macaques have made Baboons out of Caters.
God, I -love- this planet.
.
On the post: Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?
Re:
Your citation of the OJ case is interesting but irrelevant because the "If I Did It" Copyright and the profits were seized to partially satisfy the outstanding (and famous) wrongful death civil judgment obtained by Fred Goldman, not as part of any statutory offense or violation of Copyright law.
If your neighbor grabs your camera and snaps that one in million photograph and hands you back the camera, you do NOT own the copyright to that photo and have no rational claim to it and therefore your possession of the photo is practically worthless. But remember, while he possesses copyright, he lacks possession of the photo (which is why he is -NOT- a criminal) so his copyright is practically worthless as well.
Best make a deal with your neighbor to split the profits and draw up a contract.
But in the Monkey Photo case, the Monkey cannot enter into a contract for two obvious reasons:
1) He is a Monkey, not a person.
2) As Macaques are usually dead by 18, he is likely underage.
On the post: Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?
Re: Re: Amazing story and illustrates how silly copyright really is.
Yes, the neighbor failed to ask permission to use the camera. But he also does not posses the photograph. You do. But you cannot make or sell copies of the photo or transfer the copyright because you did not "create" the photograph.
Much like the case of the fellow who bought the box of Ansel Adams glass negatives in that garage sale, he may posses and even sell the negatives, but he cannot make copies or sell prints as he does not own the copyright.
Ownership of the camera, glass negative, film or memorystick is completely immaterial and unrelated to copyright.
On the post: Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?
Amazing story and illustrates how silly copyright really is.
This is a GREAT photo and will become very popular.
Imagine this scenario: I am in my backyard with my camera sitting on a table talking to my neighbor. My neighbor grabs my camera and snaps a perfect photo of a jumbo jet crashing nearby. While I may own the camera and the memory stick, I am not entitled to the copyright of that valuable photograph. I may refuse to share it or surrender it, but I cannot transfer that copyright or sell that image or even make a copy of it to my own computer since I did not snap the shutter.
I cannot see how the above scenario differs from this story. The owner of the equipment is immaterial and irrelevant with respect to copyright.
Next >>