Monkey selfie

[Labdoc]

The monkey took the pic and the camera owner (photographer) was sued for copyright infringement. The case was settled but the photographer spent so much on the defense he will end up at a big loss. So watch when monkeys use your camera for a selfie.

"Under the deal, the photographer whose camera was used to take the photos agreed to donate 25 percent of any future revenue from the images to charities dedicated to protecting crested macaques in Indonesia, lawyers for an animal-rights group said."

 

[unfocused]

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.

 

[Don Haines]

Apparently, the monkey did not use a 6D2 because of the low ISO DR, and did not shoot video because of a lack of 4K...... CANON IS DOOMED!!!!!!!

 

[chrysoberyl]

I want to read the monkey's testimony on this. Where may I find that?

 

[littleB]

I want to read the monkey's testimony on this. Where may I find that?

You will get the monkey testimony only if you switch to S*ny system immediately, and dump your Canon gear in the nearest sewer. Without S*ny system, you will not be able to comprehend this testimony, because DR is too low, and +3 stops push is not enough. Only +5 stops attitude will reveal the testimony.

 

[Mikehit]

I want to read the monkey's testimony on this. Where may I find that?

you'll have to give him a good gorill-ing

 

[Don Haines]

I want to read the monkey's testimony on this. Where may I find that?

you'll have to give him a good gorill-ing

I'm not sure it's a good idea to antagonize someone who has a habit of flinging doo-doo when they get upset.....

 

[9VIII]

Someone should have just shot the monkey, going to jail for poaching would probably be cheaper and less time consuming.

 

[RGF]

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.

I agree. PETA is terrible organization. Why would they do this? Did you know they run kill shelters?

 

[Maximilian]

I agree. PETA is terrible organization. Why would they do this? ...

Because they need money. They get it (from new supporters) if they are in the news and sometimes they also get it from such lawsuits.

That's their kind of PR and income. On one side they are really nice to some celebs and get them for free for their "against fur" campaign, on the other side they are as brutal on people weaker then them, like that photog.

That photog, David Slater, was just trying to make a living. He also claims that he was trying to support animal welfare with his work. Now he is bankrupt (also because of other lawsuits), terminated his career as photog and is trying to make a new living as a tennis trainer.
Thank you PETA for destroying a life.


I am pro saving the environment, I am pro acting ecological. But I am absolutely con doing it that way PETA does.

 

[Orangutan]

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.

 

[Don Haines]

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?

 

[Maximilian]

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 :

 

[Orangutan]

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?

The distinction is this: your setup was deterministic. You framed the shot and configured it to trigger on very specific sensory input. You own copyright.

Let's see if I can recall an example I gave before. You're a creative photographer with physical disability. You have an assistant who follows all of your instructions exactly as you give them. You look through the VF to confirm framing, you dictate and confirm settings, but the assistant is your "robot" that does the work to compensate for your disability. You own copyright on that shot also, because you made all the creative decisions.

Now, suppose you sit down for 2 minutes to take a break, and the assistant decides to take a quick shot of the subjects doing something interesting. The assistant owns copyright for that shot.

It is falsely assumed that all photos have copyright, they do not. Since the photographer in this event did not decide framing, timing, etc, he has not done enough creative work to own copyright. (this is U.S. law as I understand it; IANAL)

Here's another example: you have a P&S in your pocket. You stumble, and the camera falls out, bounces, and takes an interesting shot. This was an accident, and no creative decisions were made, therefore no copyright exists for this shot. Now, if you subsequently attempt to repeat the procedure intentionally, then you might very well own copyright.

Again: copyright isn't automatic, a number of creative decisions must be made to earn it. The case of the macaque did not remotely reach that level (in the U.S.), therefore the image was not copyrightable by the human. The only remaining question was whether the macaque had enough rights, intentions, etc. to own copyright. I think we can agree that if a child did this then the child would own copyright. 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.

 

[Orangutan]

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.

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.

 

[Maximilian]

... 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! :

 

[Maximilian]

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

"Slater bleibt Rechteinhaber der Fotos des Affen"

in English: "Slater stays law rightholder of the monkeys photos."

What else should I post?

 

[Orangutan]

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

"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]

... 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]

...
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 Austrian 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.