September 21, 2017, 03:46:53 PM

Author Topic: Monkey selfie  (Read 2030 times)

Maximilian

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1855
  • The dark side - I've been there
Re: Monkey selfie
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2017, 09:18:18 AM »
... How different is a macaque from a child?  I believe (but have no way to know) that this was PETAs point -- that primates are not so different from us.
Point is, that animals - including apes and monkeys - are no legal person under law in almost every country.
This case could have been a good chance for PETA to clear this up in the U.S. up to the supreme authority.

Why didn't they do so? Because they recognized that they would lose? Or because they recognized their inhumanity against David Slater?

Either way they should have considered this in first! But they did not! ::)
sometimes you have to close your eyes to see properly.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Monkey selfie
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2017, 09:18:18 AM »

Maximilian

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1855
  • The dark side - I've been there
Re: Monkey selfie
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2017, 09:21:54 AM »
AFAIK from this (German language) source http://derstandard.at/2000063935182/Affen-Selfie-Prozess-endet-mit-aussergerichtlicher-Einigung?ref=rec
the lawsuit was settled with the agreement that Slater is keeping the copyrights but is legally responsible to pay 25% of all earnings from these copyrights to animal welfare organizations.
If you find that information please post.  I believe the resolution was that he could keep selling photos because the monkey did not own copyright, not because the human did.  I.e., public domain.
The exact phrase from the linked article is
Quote
"Slater bleibt Rechteinhaber der Fotos des Affen"
in English: "Slater stays law rightholder of the monkeys photos."

What else should I post?
sometimes you have to close your eyes to see properly.

Orangutan

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1823
Re: Monkey selfie
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2017, 09:33:02 AM »
AFAIK from this (German language) source http://derstandard.at/2000063935182/Affen-Selfie-Prozess-endet-mit-aussergerichtlicher-Einigung?ref=rec
the lawsuit was settled with the agreement that Slater is keeping the copyrights but is legally responsible to pay 25% of all earnings from these copyrights to animal welfare organizations.
If you find that information please post.  I believe the resolution was that he could keep selling photos because the monkey did not own copyright, not because the human did.  I.e., public domain.
The exact phrase from the linked article is
Quote
"Slater bleibt Rechteinhaber der Fotos des Affen"
in English: "Slater stays law rightholder of the monkeys photos."

What else should I post?

Thanks, I was hoping for more specific info.  Again, from what I've read, the photo is public domain now, and the lawsuit was about whether the human was infringing the macaque's rights.

Orangutan

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1823
Re: Monkey selfie
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2017, 09:34:46 AM »
... How different is a macaque from a child?  I believe (but have no way to know) that this was PETAs point -- that primates are not so different from us.
Point is, that animals - including apes and monkeys - are no legal person under law in almost every country.
This case could have been a good chance for PETA to clear this up in the U.S. up to the supreme authority.

Why didn't they do so? Because they recognized that they would lose? Or because

because it's expensive and time-consuming, and they had made their point.  Except for the article you cite, everything I've seen says the photo is now in the public domain, Slater does not own copyright.  This is as it should be.

Maximilian

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1855
  • The dark side - I've been there
Re: Monkey selfie
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2017, 10:13:58 AM »
...
Except for the article you cite, everything I've seen says the photo is now in the public domain, Slater does not own copyright.  This is as it should be.
All other articles in German newspapers I've read are not as precise as the Austian one I linked.
But none of them said that the picture is now or stays public domain.
All say that (all) the income from this picture (not only the signed ones) is shared 75% for Slater and 25% for animal welfare.  The percentage implies that the rights remain to Slater.
sometimes you have to close your eyes to see properly.

Tugela

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
Re: Monkey selfie
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2017, 01:12:18 PM »
So....

I set up my camera in front of the bird feeder..... it is set to trigger on the detection of motion.... a chickadee lands on the feeder, triggering the camera and I get a picture....

I do not own the copyright to the picture because the chickadee triggered it?

No, you would own the photo because you set it up to be triggered when something specific happened. The photo happened as a result of your actions, not the chikadee's. In this case the monkey took the picture itself, presumably without any input from the photographer.

Tugela

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 718
Re: Monkey selfie
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2017, 01:18:58 PM »
Nuisance lawsuit filed by PETA, that was going to be dismissed anyway. This whole case, which goes back years and involves Wikipedia and others appropriating the image, is a textbook example of what is wrong with the legal system in America.

Totally wrong.  This suit was about the monkey owning the copyright, and U.S. law still holds that they photo is not copyrightable at all, as is the case with elephant paintings.  The photographer has not won copyright to the photo, and rightly so since he neither framed the image nor pressed the shutter.

The photographer is selling signed copies of the photo, which is OK and totally legal.  He is now free to do so because he is not held to be infringing the monkey's copyright.  But then, you and I could also sell signed copies of the photo because the guy does not own the copyright.
AFAIK from this (German language) source http://derstandard.at/2000063935182/Affen-Selfie-Prozess-endet-mit-aussergerichtlicher-Einigung?ref=rec
the lawsuit was settled with the agreement that Slater is keeping the copyrights but is legally responsible to pay 25% of all earnings from these copyrights to animal welfare organizations.

I have no access to the detailed records of this case so I have to rely on the newspaper article.

I have read about this sometime ago, that the PETA position was quite uncertain because an animal is no person by law and therefore cannot hold any copyrights.
And in addition PETA needed a written authority from the monkey to represent it (or her, as it was a female monkey, if you like so) in court.
Try getting a written authority from a monkey ::)

They would have to prove that the monkey they got the signature from is in fact the monkey in the photograph (all monkeys look the same). They would also need to show that the monkey had not agreed to yield rights to the photograph to the photographer, something that might be difficult since most monkeys don't speak much.

PETA clearly had no standing in this matter. You can't file suit presuming to represent a third party without input from them or at least being a legal representative of them.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Monkey selfie
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2017, 01:18:58 PM »