You're not late at all, Gwiz, and I'm happy you're joining the discussion. Thank you for not calling me names!
I'm not really sure what "loophole" you are referring to, but Techdirt's use of the photo to comment on the story surrounding it is clearly fair use.
I'm not arguing about fair use. The "loophole" I'm referring to is Wikimedia volunteers declaring this image public domain via a simple majority vote conducted amongst themselves, based on a weird and unprecedented technicality. And Techdirt have simply latched onto it like it's some sort of "cause" to fight for.
That would most likely be considered a "work for hire" scenario ...
Yes, I know. I was responding to some ridiculous rhetoric with real-world examples of said rhetoric. That should've been evident in context. I've repeated myself here at least 6 times about this already, and I'm tired, so very tired.
How do you know he merely twiddled a few settings? And why do you not consider twiddling of settings to be the active participation in the creation of this work? Where do you draw the line when it comes to potential aesthetic and technical choices Mr Slater may or may not have made? These are the questions that may come up during a court case, so you might start practicing your answers. "Monkey hit the button" is not gonna fly, i guarantee.
When it comes to this issue as a whole, I'm saying that making the argument that the monkey was the author while simultaneously claiming a monkey can't be an author is flimsy logic at best. (If that actually is the spirit of the law, then we can at least we agree the law definitely needs reform.) I still maintain that demonizing Mr Slater for writing a cease-and-desist is obnoxious and not helpful. Sure those letters are annoying, but his ownership is in dispute, yes? (And no, the USCO compendium is an unrelated set of guidelines for future registrations and not a direct ruling on this matter.) He should be allowed to persue his livelihood if he truly believes he's the proper claimant. Whether or not he actually does deserve it is not for me, you, Mr Masnick, Mr Siy, nor Wikimedia to decide. They simply found a hole in copyright law, and proceeded to push Mr Slater straight into it. And that leaves them open to criticism of their motives, which even some Wikimedia editors find repugnant. Again, this all just reeks of The Internet wanting everything for free, trying to avoid paying artists for their work, especially photographers.
The only reply I got regarding that point is one that called *me* the self-entitled one in this situation. Hmmm.
Holding this up as a victory is not only premature but it makes Mr Masnick, Wikimedia et al. look like a mean-spirited jackasses who are totally missing the intended purpose of copyright. It's meant to give content creators incentive to create content, right? Of course copyright is often abused. But the way I see it here, the abuse just happens to be coming from the other side. If this sort of BS quibbling carries on, then we'll all lose in the end.
I know we'll never change eachothers' minds, but I considered your thought exercises and found them to be useless hyperbole. I'll ask you consider the very real scenario in which an artist has a team of apprentices who do all the actual painting. The artist still claims copyright for the images, though he or she never touched the canvas. That does indeed happen, and those apprentices are not monkeys. They are humans, and by such a narrow interpretation of "authorship", those actual humans, possessing actual legal agency, are the ones who "pushed the button". Explain to me how you think this is different, and please try hard not to use the phrase "photographers don't count."
Finally, yes, I'd love to see this case in court, but asking me, (or even Mr Slater for that matter) to shell out a huge amount of cash to do it is not an effective tactic for winning in the comments section.
I'm not trying to make the argument that he deserves any rubles simply because he bought a plane ticket and lugged the equipment, etc. I agree that's invalid. But denying that he had zero influence over the resulting photo is insulting. There is more to photography than pushing a button. There is more to this story than who or what pushed that button, especially since the main rationale on the Wikimedia talk page seems to insist the monkey has agency while simultaneously having no agency. Another example of Schrodinger's Monkey, perhaps? (I really like that, btw.) There is a lot of loopy logic going on, seemingly in an effort to make this a simpler black and white issue.
Did the monkey choose the lens, set the ISO, do the final color grade, etc? You're focusing on only one step in the photographic process, the shutter button, which to me sounds like an attempt to devalue the role of photographers in creating their work. If you step outside this little circle for a moment, you might find that quite a few "real artists" share my beliefs on this.
I'm glad to hear that wtop.com paid, however techdirt.com has not, and in fact proudly and loudly refuse too. Describing these photographs as "selfies that happen to be taken using his equipment" is exactly the type of anti-artist attitude I find so infuriating. Btw, it actually has yet to be determined that Mr Slater "lacks a copyright". This case hasn't been to court, and last I checked Wikimedia is not a government body. Simply because they've decided to claim the photograph as public domain does not automatically make it so. Nor does the USCO compendium decide anything either. So far, there has been nothing but baseless opinions about what authorship means. And it is my opinion that those on Mr Masnick's side of the debate appear to me to have an agenda involving not paying artists for their work.
Really? David Slater deliberately left a camera out for a monkey to pick up, even going so far as to encourage the creature to do so? Because I distinctly remember him saying otherwise before others started copying the image. Perhaps you remember The Daily Mail saying otherwise, but Mr Slater told the whole story on his own website back in 2011, well before he got dragged into this disgraceful mess. Hope that helps.
Good for you for finding a little loophole which you think entitles you to steal a photograph. I'm not disputing that public domain is a good thing, however the way you are attempting to use it as an argument is morally reprehensible and extremely damaging to your cause. In what way does denying artists the ability to make a living good for society exactly? Plus, the assumption that photography is nothing more than button pushing is insulting to the entire profession, and it smacks of the all-too-common belief that artists are nothing more than glorified hobbyists who need to get a real job. It really comes off like you're just whining about having to pay royalties, so you're trying to vilify Mr Slater. Not a good look mate.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by malbee.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not really sure what "loophole" you are referring to, but Techdirt's use of the photo to comment on the story surrounding it is clearly fair use.
I'm not arguing about fair use. The "loophole" I'm referring to is Wikimedia volunteers declaring this image public domain via a simple majority vote conducted amongst themselves, based on a weird and unprecedented technicality. And Techdirt have simply latched onto it like it's some sort of "cause" to fight for.
That would most likely be considered a "work for hire" scenario ...
Yes, I know. I was responding to some ridiculous rhetoric with real-world examples of said rhetoric. That should've been evident in context. I've repeated myself here at least 6 times about this already, and I'm tired, so very tired.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When it comes to this issue as a whole, I'm saying that making the argument that the monkey was the author while simultaneously claiming a monkey can't be an author is flimsy logic at best. (If that actually is the spirit of the law, then we can at least we agree the law definitely needs reform.) I still maintain that demonizing Mr Slater for writing a cease-and-desist is obnoxious and not helpful. Sure those letters are annoying, but his ownership is in dispute, yes? (And no, the USCO compendium is an unrelated set of guidelines for future registrations and not a direct ruling on this matter.) He should be allowed to persue his livelihood if he truly believes he's the proper claimant. Whether or not he actually does deserve it is not for me, you, Mr Masnick, Mr Siy, nor Wikimedia to decide. They simply found a hole in copyright law, and proceeded to push Mr Slater straight into it. And that leaves them open to criticism of their motives, which even some Wikimedia editors find repugnant. Again, this all just reeks of The Internet wanting everything for free, trying to avoid paying artists for their work, especially photographers.
The only reply I got regarding that point is one that called *me* the self-entitled one in this situation. Hmmm.
Holding this up as a victory is not only premature but it makes Mr Masnick, Wikimedia et al. look like a mean-spirited jackasses who are totally missing the intended purpose of copyright. It's meant to give content creators incentive to create content, right? Of course copyright is often abused. But the way I see it here, the abuse just happens to be coming from the other side. If this sort of BS quibbling carries on, then we'll all lose in the end.
I know we'll never change eachothers' minds, but I considered your thought exercises and found them to be useless hyperbole. I'll ask you consider the very real scenario in which an artist has a team of apprentices who do all the actual painting. The artist still claims copyright for the images, though he or she never touched the canvas. That does indeed happen, and those apprentices are not monkeys. They are humans, and by such a narrow interpretation of "authorship", those actual humans, possessing actual legal agency, are the ones who "pushed the button". Explain to me how you think this is different, and please try hard not to use the phrase "photographers don't count."
Finally, yes, I'd love to see this case in court, but asking me, (or even Mr Slater for that matter) to shell out a huge amount of cash to do it is not an effective tactic for winning in the comments section.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: ILCP sadly supports Slater
Perhaps you remember The Daily Mail saying otherwise, but Mr Slater told the whole story on his own website back in 2011, well before he got dragged into this disgraceful mess. Hope that helps.
(untitled comment)
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by malbee.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt