Copyright claim - with a difference

[tcdev]

Apologies if this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html) is well-known or posted here before, but it's a very interesting case indeed!

[ricktas]

Interesting discussion. In Australia the photographer who presses the shutter button owns copyright (except for some cases involving commercial/domestic agreement etc).

But what is the definition of photographer? Does it have to be a human? If the law stated the PERSON who presses the shutter then it opens up another can of worms, but our law states, the 'photographer'. As far as I can understand it does not state the photographer has to be a human being. So based strictly on our laws, my interpretation is that the monkey does indeed own copyright.

Will be interesting to see where this case goes.

[MissionMan]

It's a very interesting scenario. I'd personally say that Wikipedia are using it to their advantage as opposed to doing what's right. If Wikipedia do intend say that the picture is in the public domain, it begs the question on where they retrieved it from, did they seek permission from the author (monkey), what rights do they have to use the photo in the absence of the authors permission etc. (I'm guessing, I don't know the law).

I'd say in the absence of a human, the camera owner should rightfully be the one who owns the photo, but what's right and the law don't necessarily correspond. It also shows how outdated the law actually is. I.e. if you use a motion trigger shutter release, who owns the picture?

The second question that is raised is what right does the owner have to the photo or the proceeds of the photo given the monkey used the camera without his permission?

[Steve Axford]

I think you could easily argue that the monkey was the photographer, but since monkeys have no rights under our law (just ask a monkey in a pharmaceutical lab what rights it has) she cannot claim copyright.

[arthurking83]

I think the owner of the photographer may subsequently argue that while the monkey is the 'copyright holder' of the original file .. the copyright of the processed file belongs to himself.
If the image is not a jpg straight out of the camera(least likely scenario) .. then the guy how uploaded the image to where ever it was ripped from should have some rights over the image.

He should be allowed to own copyright of any derivative works.
(I reckon it'd be a foregone conclusion that the monkey didn't also process the image)

[Steve Axford]

If a person took the photo you wouldn't have any rights even if you did process it, but since it's a monkey you may get away with it. As I said, monkeys have no rights so they can't hold copyright. So a judge would have to decide if the photo reverted to the camera owner or to nobody? I certainly wouldn't be the monkey, more's the pity.

[mongo]

Having read this brief article and noting the similarities, there may be serious implication for Mongos. Well, at least Wikipedia will honour and defend Mongo's copyright.

Now, about the article. It is absurd for the human in this case to claim to be the photographer or owner of the copyright. Looking at this critically, he did no more than reluctantly ( indeed, without his consent) provide equipment which another creature used to take the photo. To claim to be the photographer in such as case is as absurd and baseless as Mongo saying he is the photographer and copyright owner of some photos that Sar may have taken if Mongo had lent him Mongo's camera in order for Sar to be able to take the photos. (Truth be told, Mongo is always borrowing Sar's equipment and not vice versa). it would be equally absurd for Mongo to claim to be the author/owner of a Van Gogh because Mongo gave him some paint and brushes at the time.

all of that only speaks to who may be the "photographer". Who owns or can enforce the "copyright " is probably another question in this case. If the human cannot claim it, then, it probably belongs the the author I.e. Mongo's relative. However, if Mongo's relo was a wild animal with no "owner", it is possible that the copyright resides in a creature that cannot legally enforce it. The likely end result is that virtually anyone can use the image as there appears to be no one who has an enforceable right to stop them - be it the human who provided the equipment or Mongo's relo who took the photo

Mongo is now sure that humans are just good at complicating things

[Mark L]

Mongo is now sure that humans are just good at complicating things

And your relo who ripped of a camera didn't help complicate things?

If the photog hadn't told the full story to start with, no one would question his copyright.
He also wouldn't have got so much publicity from being honest and telling an interesting story.
Regardless of the law, if it wasn't for him, these photos wouldn't have been taken. gives him some rights to them I think.

[Kym]

But what is the definition of photographer? Does it have to be a human?

An animal can't be a legal entity. A person, partnership, association or a company are legal entities.
So my take is the camera owner is the (c) owner

[ameerat42]

Apish to think that if a [non-human primate species] triggers a selfie, then some [human concept of] copyright applies.

Bring on the planet of the Yapes.

(Oh, so we're already there?:eek:)

What next? If you go into the woods today... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxFIGWm9M6w)

(Who could bear it?)

[Shane H]

There could be an argument that if the Indonesians do not give legal status to animals (there have been steps taken in the US to have this done) and the animal was wild, no owner, the photo could be considered public domain. Either than or the copyright owner is the Indonesian government which might explain the sudden increase in fake monkeys being sold for only 5000 rupiah in Bali to tourists.

[ricktas]

This made the nightly news on the TV down here this evening

[tcdev]

An animal can't be a legal entity. A person, partnership, association or a company are legal entities.
So my take is the camera owner is the (c) owner
My take (IANAL) is that since the photographer is not a legal entity under the law, then no-one holds the copyright (and the photo can be freely used).
I don't see why the copyright should revert to anyone else.

[MissionMan]

My take (IANAL) is that since the photographer is not a legal entity under the law, then no-one holds the copyright (and the photo can be freely used).
I don't see why the copyright should revert to anyone else.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in court. I could be a benchmark ruling

[I @ M]

It'll be interesting to see what happens in court. I could be a benchmark ruling


From another perspective ----- http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/statement-monkey

[ricktas]

And now a few years later..it gets into the news again: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/peta-launches-legal-action-on-behalf-of-naruto-the-monkey-who-took-a-selfie-with-photographers-camera/story-fnq2oad4-1227544354589

[enseth]

You'd think PETA would have better things to do with their time & money.

[arthurking83]

You'd think PETA would have better things to do with their time & money.

It's simply idiotic! :rolleyes:
I'm hoping that it costs them heaps and that they have a massive payout pending to the photography gear's owner.
It's the only way that we as a society are going to stamp out stupidity! .. make the stupid pay(heaps!)

[Steve Axford]

Why is it "idiotic", Arthur. Unlikely to succeed, I agree, but some chimps (or interested parties of the chimps) managed to get legal entity status in NY, so it may be worth a try. I can't say that I agree, but it's no more idiotic than many things that are tried out legally. And some succeed.

[ricktas]

PETA need a name change to PITA

[ricktas]

Why is it "idiotic", Arthur. Unlikely to succeed, I agree, but some chimps (or interested parties of the chimps) managed to get legal entity status in NY, so it may be worth a try. I can't say that I agree, but it's no more idiotic than many things that are tried out legally. And some succeed.


idiotic
ɪdɪˈɒtɪk/
adjectiveinformal
adjective: idiotic

very stupid.
"I was able to hum its idiotic theme tune"
synonyms: stupid, silly, foolish, half-witted, witless, brainless, mindless, thoughtless, imprudent, incautious, irresponsible, injudicious, indiscreet, unwise, unintelligent, unreasonable; ill-advised, ill-considered, impolitic, rash, reckless, foolhardy;
absurd, senseless, pointless, nonsensical, inane, fatuous, ridiculous, laughable, risible, derisible;
dim, dim-witted, dopey, gormless, damfool, half-baked, hare-brained, crackbrained, pea-brained, wooden-headed, thickheaded, nutty, mad, crazy, dotty, batty, dippy, cuckoo, screwy, wacky;

Yep. Idiotic seems a good choice of word to me.:D

[Mark L]

So from the original article that is linked from the lesser article that Rick posted ..... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/22/monkey-selfies-copyright-lawsuit-peta

"The suit was filed in federal court in San Francisco by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta). It seeks a court order allowing Peta to administer all proceeds from the photos for the benefit of the monkey, which it identified as six-year-old Naruto, and other crested macaques living in a reserve on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi."
Seems like a good cause.:confused013

"Joining Peta in the suit is Antje Engelhardt, a primatologist from Germany who has studied the Sulawesi macaques.:"
She must presumably be an idiot??:confused013

"David Favre, a Michigan State University law professor who often writes about animal rights, said by email that the copyright issue raised by Peta “is a cutting-edge legal question.They have a fair argument,” he wrote, “but I would have to say it is an uphill battle.”
Another idiot maybe??:confused013

[Kym]

PETA are trying to get legal rights for animals... it's part of their complete idiot (no idiot parts missing) agenda.

[ameerat42]

PETA are trying to get legal rights for animals... it's part of their complete idiot (no idiot parts missing) agenda.


PETA are trying to get legal rights for animals... it's part of their complete idiot (no idiot parts missing) agenda.

--Which just goes to show you CAN say that again.

PETA - Problematic Extremists Tormenting All.

They have not got past the "ends justify the means" yet.

--This is NOT to deny that there is cruelty/ignorance/bigotry/other perjorations in the treatment/interaction with animals.

[Steve Axford]

Sometimes PETA do go a bit far, but they have achieved quite a bit that many people think is good. Without organisations like PETA, who would speak up for the rights of laboratory animals, live export animals, animals at abattoirs, etc. Why should we we think that idiotic?

[ameerat42]

You're right, but the point you make is "like PETA". There are lots, RSPCA and its ilk for some.

I'm not talking "idiotic" except for as it applies to certain activities that are extreme.

[Steve Axford]

Sometimes they do get a little "out there", but to write them off as just being crazies is also silly. Even the case we are discussing isn't that crazy if you read between the lines. It has almost no chance of succeeding (correct that, no chance), but it creates publicity and prompts people to think about the issues. It also emphasises the point that just because a man leaves a camera lying around with some monkeys, it doesn't mean he has a claim to photographic brilliance and the copyright. If he hadn't said a monkey took the photo, then he could have easily claimed the copyright - but then nobody would be interested in the photo. It's the story that sells this photo.

[MissionMan]

After watching the Freo AFL game on Friday, there are a couple of supporters from Freo that PETA should be defending in court because they definitely don't fall into the human category.

[ameerat42]

That's foreshore!

[Kym]

I stand by the complete idiot assessment of PETA... (google 'PETA idiots' for LOTS of examples)

http://www.deepseanews.com/2011/09/peta-still-consistent-in-being-idiots/

Offensive Language in Video Clip


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jog5ZLY-dQ

[Mark L]

PETA may be a pain for some but they, like all of us have a right to challenge things in the courts.
So is this thread about copyright or PETA? ;)

[ricktas]

PETA lost : http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-07/court-rules-monkey-cannot-own-selfie-copyright/7074538

[ameerat42]

Formal: PETA.
Colloquial: BOOFHEADS.
:D

[Mark L]

Formal: PETA.
Colloquial: BOOFHEADS.
:D



So is this thread about copyright or PETA? ;)

[ameerat42]

PETA (?PITA) were a player in the thread, so BOAF, I guess. - Hence "BOOF":D

They were appealing selfies of the "monkey" though. He might APPEAL:confused013

[arthurking83]

PETA lost : .....


As any sane normal person would reasonably assume.

The end point in this silliness is that PETA is run by abnormal types, from a head office in a nuthouse.

The real issue now is that they have totally diminished or destroyed any credibility they may have ever had.

[Glenda]

Have heard PETA is appealing the decision. Of course they are volunteering to administer any cash received on the primate's behalf. I wonder how much money has been wasted on the court cases up to now and think it would have been better donated to WWF or similar.

[ameerat42]

Have heard PETA is appealing the decision. Of course they are volunteering to administer any cash received on the primate's behalf. I wonder how much money has been wasted on the court cases up to now and think it would have been better donated to WWF or similar.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::D