5 ms·

"as it is jeopardising his livelihood" -- So if a monkey hadn't taken a selfie, he'd be starving and homeless.

by mjgoins 12y ago

kaonashi 12y ago
If he hadn't made a popular photograph, his income would be lower.
Alupis 12y ago
Doesn't the monkey technically own copyright over the images? I mean.. just because it's this guy's camera doesn't mean he has copyright, unless the monkey transferred copyright to him via some sort of agreement.
- viggity 12y ago
  Copyright isn't assigned to the tool owner, it is assigned to the person who created the work. I use Visual Studio, that doesn't make the code I write owned by Microsoft even they "own" Visual Studio. Bad analogy, but you get the point.
  - autarch 12y ago
    Actually, I think it's a very good analogy. Here's another. If I leave my laptop running Visual Studio out and a monkey bangs on the keyboard to make a program (by accident, just as with this photo), I don't own the copyright to that program.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      You do if its your monkey!
    - swah 12y ago
      What if the monkey just press F8 and build it and that is the version you release?
- jnevill 12y ago
  Ownership is clearly stated as "Person", which a monkey is not.
  - tmzt 12y ago
    But a corporation is?
- tadfisher 12y ago
  There is no "technically" about it, as the right of animals to hold intellectual property has yet to be affirmed in a court.
- guan 12y ago
  The US Copyright Compendium states that “authorship”, which is a prerequisite for copyright, requires a human author. In previous cases copyright in natural patterns such as wood patterns has been rejected. If the purported author is a non-human animal, then there can’t be copyright (in the US). http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#202.02(b) http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#202.02(b) The Compendium reflects the rulings of the Copyright Office and a court might see things differently. Or the Copyright Office might agree that this photograph was not authored by the human. If they don’t agree, then at the very least you can’t register the copyright and get statutory damages. (Unless you sue the Copyright Office to force them to register.)
  - voidlogic 12y ago
    Then is sounds like wikipedia is correct, a non-human took the photo, that is not disputed, not a human author, therefore the prerequisite for copyright is not met and the image is public domain.
eamsen 12y ago
Let's summarize, £5000 worth of equipment on a £2000 trip and the best picture has been taken by a monkey. The monkey took "hundreds of pictures", increasing the likelihood of producing a few quality shots. Its quantitative approach has seemingly yielded the better results compared to whatever Mr. Slater has applied. Mr. Slater can not be attributed the director role either, as the macaque has "hijacked a camera", disregarding his setup and direction. But how could the macaque benefit from holding the copyright on the picture? "For every 10,000 images I take, one makes money that keeps me going. And that was one of those images." This is what it should be about. We should want him, as any other professional doing his job, to make a living. Instead of spending money on beating him on court, let's spend the money to buy rights to the picture to put it up under a creative commons license. Why are we spending so much energy on finding out who's "right", instead of just doing "the right thing", in cases where there is a win-win situation like this.
- haihaibye 12y ago
  >> Why are we spending so much energy on finding out who's "right" Legal precedent
  - deong 12y ago
    I'm struggling to imagine a less useful precedent than this.
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      The precedent to confirm is that those without artistic input in to the creation of a work should not be afforded automatic copyright in that work no matter the extent of their financial or technical input. This seems quite an important precedent to affirm to me.
- spinlock 12y ago
  I couldn't agree more. I think wikimedia is being incredibly unethical. I certainly won't be contributing to them anymore. If it's OK for them to use the product of Mr. Slater's equipment without his consent, why should I help them pay for their infrastructure?

"as it is jeopardising his livelihood" -- So if a monkey hadn't taken a selfie, he'd be starving and homeless.

by mjgoins 12y ago

"as it is jeopardising his livelihood" -- So if a monkey hadn't taken a selfie, he'd be starving and homeless.

kaonashi 12y ago

If he hadn't made a popular photograph, his income would be lower.

Alupis 12y ago

Doesn't the monkey technically own copyright over the images? I mean.. just because it's this guy's camera doesn't mean he has copyright, unless the monkey transferred copyright to him via some sort of agreement.

viggity 12y ago
Copyright isn't assigned to the tool owner, it is assigned to the person who created the work. I use Visual Studio, that doesn't make the code I write owned by Microsoft even they "own" Visual Studio. Bad analogy, but you get the point.
- autarch 12y ago
  Actually, I think it's a very good analogy. Here's another. If I leave my laptop running Visual Studio out and a monkey bangs on the keyboard to make a program (by accident, just as with this photo), I don't own the copyright to that program.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    You do if its your monkey!
  - swah 12y ago
    What if the monkey just press F8 and build it and that is the version you release?
jnevill 12y ago
Ownership is clearly stated as "Person", which a monkey is not.
- tmzt 12y ago
  But a corporation is?
tadfisher 12y ago
There is no "technically" about it, as the right of animals to hold intellectual property has yet to be affirmed in a court.
guan 12y ago
The US Copyright Compendium states that “authorship”, which is a prerequisite for copyright, requires a human author. In previous cases copyright in natural patterns such as wood patterns has been rejected. If the purported author is a non-human animal, then there can’t be copyright (in the US). http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#202.02(b) http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#202.02(b) The Compendium reflects the rulings of the Copyright Office and a court might see things differently. Or the Copyright Office might agree that this photograph was not authored by the human. If they don’t agree, then at the very least you can’t register the copyright and get statutory damages. (Unless you sue the Copyright Office to force them to register.)
- voidlogic 12y ago
  Then is sounds like wikipedia is correct, a non-human took the photo, that is not disputed, not a human author, therefore the prerequisite for copyright is not met and the image is public domain.

eamsen 12y ago

Let's summarize, £5000 worth of equipment on a £2000 trip and the best picture has been taken by a monkey. The monkey took "hundreds of pictures", increasing the likelihood of producing a few quality shots. Its quantitative approach has seemingly yielded the better results compared to whatever Mr. Slater has applied. Mr. Slater can not be attributed the director role either, as the macaque has "hijacked a camera", disregarding his setup and direction. But how could the macaque benefit from holding the copyright on the picture? "For every 10,000 images I take, one makes money that keeps me going. And that was one of those images." This is what it should be about. We should want him, as any other professional doing his job, to make a living. Instead of spending money on beating him on court, let's spend the money to buy rights to the picture to put it up under a creative commons license. Why are we spending so much energy on finding out who's "right", instead of just doing "the right thing", in cases where there is a win-win situation like this.

haihaibye 12y ago
>> Why are we spending so much energy on finding out who's "right" Legal precedent
- deong 12y ago
  I'm struggling to imagine a less useful precedent than this.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    The precedent to confirm is that those without artistic input in to the creation of a work should not be afforded automatic copyright in that work no matter the extent of their financial or technical input. This seems quite an important precedent to affirm to me.
spinlock 12y ago
I couldn't agree more. I think wikimedia is being incredibly unethical. I certainly won't be contributing to them anymore. If it's OK for them to use the product of Mr. Slater's equipment without his consent, why should I help them pay for their infrastructure?