I’ve no idea, but if I saw that story linked on BoingBoing, I’d click. Dolphin selfies?
Having an idea and executing it doesn’t mean you’ve made a copyrightable expressive work. Copyright isn’t about ideas, executed or otherwise. Is that difficult to understand?
Sorry for talking about the system that actually exists, and the actual legal basis for why camera operators do not own the copyright of movies (which was the real-life example you chose to use).
It all depends on the level of abstraction at which you look at something. Throwing a GoPro in the ocean is creative control? Well, the camera owner here selected the lens, the location, the focus and exposure modes (would it make a difference if it was in manual metering mode?), and even the specific type of animal to be photographed. His agency was definitely involved in bringing all of thee things to the end photograph.
As it is with a lot of camera traps.
Unfortunately, it’s possible someone might not upload a dolphin selfie—or at least not a good quality version of it—if they couldn’t get copyright: the rational thing to do would be to negotiate the sale of it to a media group or keep it private until they could figure out some way to monetize it.
1 Like
The facts of the case would be effectively the same; but I suspect that we’d feel substantially closer to the ‘dropping accident’ camera case that you describe, and that that would mean a much stronger presumption of authorship for the available primate. We wouldn’t really have any good reason; but ascribing agency is something seems to be something where you feel first and sometimes ask questions later, if you even recognize that you’ve jumped to a conclusion at all.
(With an octopus specifically, jurisdiction usually defaults to the unknowable courts of R’lyeh’s ith circuit; but that’s a special case of cephalopod molluscs.)
2 Likes
The monkey may own the picture but he/she/it has not granted wikipedia the right to use it so I don’t see how this argument works for wikipedia.
You’re talking about memories.
I think this does not all ride on who pressed the button. Suppose the photographer had chosen a monkey-proof camera, and gave it to a monkey hoping that it might take something interesting for their coming exhibition ‘Monkey Pictures’; well, it seems reasonable that they could claim ownership. But not in this case. Even if they left the monkey with pens and a lot of release waivers in case they signed anything interesting.
You technically wouldn’t hold a copyright. US copyright law explicitly excludes works created by random chance. However, being a smart cookie, would not mention the photograph’s provenance to anyone, and would sell the end result and hold the copyright claim anyway.
The only reason David Slater’s picture got the attention that it did was its unusual provenance. He could have kept mum and sold the picture on its own merits - a rather striking picture of a monkey - but for him to try and claim copyright on a picture that everyone knows about because he didn’t take it seems a bit disingenuous.
So, let’s say Ansel Adams (the guy with the cameras) intended to get pictures of clouds above a mountain, he didn’t do anything at all with the intention to capture these particular clouds…
Camera ownership and button-pressing are red herrings?
If button-pressing is a red herring, it’s just as much of a red herring to assert that the monkey pressed the button. The set up and intent – lugging the cameras and equipment into a situation for taking pictures of monkeys with a camera – and the result – the camera is filled with pictures of monkeys – seem to align.
1 Like
If you are a “photographer”, but your livelihood is at risk based on a single picture you didn’t actually compose and take, then I’d say perhaps you’re not really a “photographer”. At least not as a profession.
2 Likes
You’ve changed the facts to make the case. The photographer himself says that he did not set up the camera.
1 Like
It is quite splendidly Douglas Adams, isn’t it?
1 Like
Hmmmm… Many artists create works that rely (to varying extents) on random chance. But (nearly) all of them afterwards perform a selection process, weeding through the various results of chance and picking out the particular instances to be exhibited later. Doesn’t this selection process constitute creative work that would permit the artist to claim authorship (and hence copyright) of the art?
4 Likes
Editing is a creative act !! or , it can be sometimes !! as in this instance ! it can also be an important part of the overall artistic process !! so , in this instance , the COMBINATION of traveling to the area , possessing the camera , having intent of photographing monkeys , and also the selection of the appropriate shot constitutes the artistic act ~ on the gripping hand , i am not a lawyer , and i only pretend to be an artiste’ on the pro/amateur cusp , and , once images are released upon the interweb without both distinct-obvious and ’ hidden ’ watermarks , wellllll
The difference here is that those artists are choosing to include random chance in their work. Putting a canvas out in the rain to see the random effect of raindrops would arguably produce a copyrightable image. Handing a camera to a monkey and showing it the shutter would also likely pass this test.
Finding a canvas left in the rain, or a picture taken by a monkey, do not automatically confer copyright, even if the end result is the same. Copyright cases are decided both on the work itself, and the work’s process.
1 Like
So if I intend to find a cool picture in the Library of Congress archives, I travel to DC, I possess a scanner, I select the appropriate public domain image, and then I edit that image to improve contrast and framing, does that make the end result mine? Can I claim copyright on that public domain image?
The monkeys got more help from god in getting this picture than they got from this guy.
If this is art it is found art.
3 Likes
I’m fairly certain that if you sufficiently modify a public domain image then you can copyright your newly created image. Of course, if the only modifications involve contrast and framing, then they might have to be relatively radical changes in contrast and framing. But maybe not. Memory fails me on what film this was, but supposedly there was a major film that fell out of copyright, but the studio reestablished copyright on the VHS version due to the pan-n-scan.
And no of course one couldn’t claim copyright on the original public domain image.
The hypothetical situation you describe isn’t what happened here though. I’m not under the impression that Slater did much (if any) editing of contrast and framing. On the other hand, he didn’t sift through a public archive, but instead looked through photos captured on his own private camera. Can something be public domain before it has been released to the public?
Where does that leave Found Art then?
It leaves it uncopyrightable, or it leaves the copyright with the original creator, not the discoverer.
