October 31, 2014, 01:43:21 AM

Author Topic: Who owns the photo?  (Read 7998 times)

Daniel 78d

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Who owns the photo?
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2014, 12:50:49 AM »
Also if a man goes in with the intent of a "monkey" picture and comes out with a "monkey" picture then where is the real argument?
1dx, 7d, 100 2.8l macro, 24-70 f/4l, 16-35 f/4l, 40 2.8 pancake, 50 1.8 original, ef-s 10-18

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Who owns the photo?
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2014, 12:50:49 AM »

alfredo

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Who owns the photo?
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2014, 02:05:41 AM »
Quote
nor it can legally hold copyright
The owner of the macaque can own copyright.  In this case, they probably do.
I don't know whether the pics were taken in the wild, or in a zoo/park. In the latter case, I agree the zoo/parc owner and the photographer may dispute about copyright, and probably be entitled to share it.

Quote
Quote
the creative action of setting up the environment makes the copyright belong to the photographer.
But he didn't: he set up the camera, not the creative environment.  If the camera had been fixed with a tripwire of some kind, then the photographer could claim ownership.  As soon as the macaque takes physical control of framing the shot, it's no longer the photographer's.
The photographer, according to his version, did make the camera available to the monkeys in a "ready-to-shoot" mode. I claim he was creative enough, up to the point that he's the first man having intentionally made monkeys take a selfie.

Quote
Quote
If the button was triggered by a motion sensor, I'd say that both author and copyright holder are the photographer (as the motion sensor is inanimate).
Correct result, wrong reason.  The reason is that your setup of the motion sensor is deterministic: it's known, with a very high degree of certainty, what the framing of the shot will be.  The fact that you determined the framing (even if that's in advance) is what makes you the creative force of the photo.
I disagree (respectfully! ;-) ). According to your definition, if I set a random timer, and put my camera on a motorized dolly with random movements, then I give up copyright, because I give up on deciding the timing and framing of my picture. On the contrary, I claim that my act of will of setting up a random timing and framing in a particular environment is my act of creativity, for whose result I own the copyright.

Quote
Quote
the customer pays a fee to the machine, to hold the copyright of the result
You're assuming an implicit contract, which would require explicit statutory language, or a long history of common law.  I wouldn't accept that assertion from anyone short of an IP lawyer.
Right, I agree I don't remember reading a contract before jumping into one of those automatic booths. (Maybe there's one in small letters somewhere?)
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 02:08:00 AM by alfredo »

alfredo

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Who owns the photo?
« Reply #32 on: August 08, 2014, 02:12:19 AM »
We may argue whether the monkey or the photographer are the author of the photo, but since the monkey has no will of creative production, nor it can legally hold copyright, the creative action of setting up the environment makes the copyright belong to the photographer.
I agree with all of your other conclusions except this one, and it depends greatly on how a court would interpret Slater's intent. If he intended to get those shots, then yes, he would own copyright. If they believe he didn't intend and it was sheer luck, then nobody would own the copyright, and Wikimedia would be right in claiming them public domain. If he had set up the camera on a tripod knowing the monkeys would go to it and take photos, then he'd have a reasonable claim. But that doesn't sound like its the case

Obviously a monkey cant own a copyright, but, that doesnt mean the copyright goes to the next in line. As there was no contract, and possibly no creative intent, its quite possible nobody owns the photo
Yes, I agree. I'm implicitly buying the photographer statement, in that he went out to make a photo session, he set up the camera, put it in a position accessible to monkeys, then waited for them to get hold on the camera. If he lost his camera, then found it back with those pictures on it, that would be different, and would likely put the pictures in the public domain.

charlesa

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
  • I shoot with my eye!
    • View Profile
    • 16 stops to Heaven
Re: Who owns the photo?
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2014, 05:01:21 AM »
No DSLR near the monkey, no selfie ever possible. Quite straightforward reasoning I would assume...

scyrene

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr feed
Re: Who owns the photo?
« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2014, 07:06:44 AM »
Now I thought I understood the basics of photography copyright (cos it's useful for us snappers!), and that was that copyright does not need to be applied for. The creator of the work (let's ignore for now this case, and cases where you do a job for someone else, contracts etc) owns the copyright. I take a photo, its copyright belongs to me. I can release my claim to it, but doing nothing means I own the rights to it. I don't have to file paperwork. If down the line someone uses it without my permission, all I need to do is demonstrate it was me who took it, say by providing the raw image, or proving I was there and the other person wasn't.

Well, I did a little reading up, to see if my memory served me correctly. It does seem some things have changed a bit since I was in school and generally things are now more favorable toward the creator of a work.

From what I can tell, the key distinction is that while the copyright does not have to be applied for, as you state,  it may be difficult to enforce the copyright if you do absolutely nothing. At a minimum, it seems a good idea to use your software's ability to embed the copyright in the electronic file and to display a copyright symbol when practical.

I guess I would err on the side of caution and at least include a copyright claim in the electronic file. A simple and automated step that could help prevent confusion down the road.

Phew! I felt a bit stupid putting my name into the copyright exif setting, but now I'm glad I did! Although some editing software strips out all the exif anyway.
5D mark III, 50D, 300D, EOS-M; Samyang 14mm f/2.8, 24-105L, MP-E, 85L II, 100L macro, 500L IS II, EF-M 18-55; 1.4xIII, 2x III + 2xII extenders; 600EX-RT; EF-M--EF adaptor.
Former lenses include: 70-200L f/4 non-IS, 200L 2.8, 400L 5.6

Hillsilly

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: Who owns the photo?
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2014, 07:12:03 AM »
That's why I think the whole scenario is quite strange.  The EXIF data does contain copyright information.  I think the person who uploaded the photo to Wikimedia was very brave.
1000FN | 7E | 3000 | 3 | LS-100TS

fragilesi

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
Re: Who owns the photo?
« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2014, 07:44:05 AM »
...
Mr. Macaque has no revenue or cash equivalents. He throws feces at lawyers.

Priceless!

I'd actually say that's the most compelling argument here.  I award everything to Mr. Macaque, even the monkey picture for that reason alone!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Who owns the photo?
« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2014, 07:44:05 AM »

Lloyd

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
    • BRRLaw
Re: Who owns the photo?
« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2014, 04:44:24 PM »
I am going to have to amend my previous post concerning Mr. Macaque’s chances of success.  It seems that he managed to file suit in a favorable venue.  The jury, as pictured below, has been selected and things are looking up for Mr. Macaque.

« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 04:48:51 PM by Lloyd »
5D mkIII, 60D, 20D; 24-70mm f/2.8L; 24-105mm F4L; 70-200mm f/2.8L IS;  TS-E 17mm f/4L; Canon FD 800mm 5.6L; Canon FD 55mm f/1.2;  10-22mm f/3.5-4.5; Canon extenders 1.4X II and 2X II; Canon  580EX and 430EX

Valvebounce

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 949
  • Still can't use most of it to it's full potential!
    • View Profile
Copyright
« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2014, 07:28:47 PM »
Hi Folks.
As no one else has asked, who owns the copyright, the Photographer, the Monkey or no one?

http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/06/wikipedia-photographer-and-presumably-monkey-in-copyright-row-over-black-macaque-selfie-picture-4823588/

My view is the monkey didn't own or set up the gear and could not have taken the picture without the camera setup ready!
Would like your thoughts on this.

Cheers Graham.
7D + Grip, 40D + Grip, 20D, EF-S 17-85 Kit lens, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM, EF 2x III, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C, 50mm f1.8, 550EX some Filters Remotes Macro tubes Tripod heads etc!
20D, BG-E2N, 17-85mm, 50mm are pre loved. :)
(300D Saved a holiday, E-FS 18-55 Cosina 100-300 retired)

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2603
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright
« Reply #39 on: August 08, 2014, 07:36:04 PM »
Yes it has been asked. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22140.0

Besides, nobody is saying the monkey does, well nobody with any idea of how copyright works, the argument is that the camera owner does not own it.
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14796
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright
« Reply #40 on: August 08, 2014, 07:38:25 PM »
If it were on a white background, obviously Amazon would own it.  But in this case, it's a puzzler...   ;)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Valvebounce

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 949
  • Still can't use most of it to it's full potential!
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright
« Reply #41 on: August 08, 2014, 07:49:11 PM »
Hi privatebydesign.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Should this thread be pulled as it is a duplicate! Any idea if I can do that or is that a moderator job, does deleting the first post kill it or just make a mess? I'm really surprised it wasn't in the general section, but then I guess it is a business related question.

Cheers Graham.



7D + Grip, 40D + Grip, 20D, EF-S 17-85 Kit lens, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM, EF 2x III, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C, 50mm f1.8, 550EX some Filters Remotes Macro tubes Tripod heads etc!
20D, BG-E2N, 17-85mm, 50mm are pre loved. :)
(300D Saved a holiday, E-FS 18-55 Cosina 100-300 retired)

Jim Saunders

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 913
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright
« Reply #42 on: August 08, 2014, 07:53:00 PM »
If it were on a white background, obviously Amazon would own it.  But in this case, it's a puzzler...   ;)

Oook!
See what I see: 6500K, 160 cd/m^2, ICC 2, gamma 2.2.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Copyright
« Reply #42 on: August 08, 2014, 07:53:00 PM »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2603
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright
« Reply #43 on: August 08, 2014, 08:22:42 PM »
Neuro,

Only if the monkey was on an elevated platform and the background was lite by lights from the back of that platform as well as other places. :-)

Vavebounce,

You can't delete the first post in a thread, so it is mod only. But it was easy to miss so don't feel bad.
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14796
    • View Profile
Re: Copyright
« Reply #44 on: August 08, 2014, 08:27:17 PM »
Neuro,

Only if the monkey was on an elevated platform and the background was lite by lights from the back of that platform as well as other places. :-)

That all depends on the relative legal acumen of the monkey's lawyers vs. Amazon's.  Since monkeys don't have pockets, Amazon's are bound to be deeper...   :)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Copyright
« Reply #44 on: August 08, 2014, 08:27:17 PM »