Eeek something without a copyright, this madness must be stopped at once.
1 Like
Iâm just going to state the completely obvious here.
Nonhumans do not have copyright protection.
Maybe if a human took a selfie, it would be his copyright. But if it was an apeâs camera, then that might not hold true under ape law.
Whatâs that? Apes donât have laws? Oh yeah, thatâs right, theyâre FUCKING APES.
1 Like
Depending on the degree of editorial discretion the finding-artist uses while finding Found Art, it is possible that the Found Art would be a derivative work authored by the finding-artist. Now, distinguishing between mere slavish collection and creative finding will probably require a vacuous ad-hoc âtestâ and a battery of be-robed judiciaryâŚ
Hmmmmm. Does it though? What about a piece of work, say, an installation made of found pieces that uses pictures/prints/tchotkes/whatever that are copyrighted things as part of a larger whole? Assemblage sculpture?
Thatâs some mighty fancy lawyerinâ there 
1 Like
It at the very least ought to see an artists vs lawyers thread as good as that one about the science fiction painting. Howay, folks.
For one its going to take a lot more to get usable (especially still) images out off tossing a camera in the ocean than just hucking in a a GoPro. But if you as the photographer decide throwing a bare GoPro into the bay is the best way to create precisely the image you want to create, yes thatâs creative control/agency. Even if you only give it 10 seconds of consideration. Under the law you might have to argue for your copyright, or defend your claims in court. Because its close enough to outside the scope of the law that others could conceivably encroach on your copyright or argue for its denial.
Also In terms of why studios/production companies/other large entities end up with motion picture copyrights over a director, or camera op, or anyone else involved isnât necessarily down to individual roles being work for hire. Though thatâs part of the structure used to keep IP clear in this case. Basically films are inherently collaborative. When youâve got dozens to thousands of people making (often important) creative decisions every minute for months on end youâve got to get rights assigned clearly from the beginning. Ownership of copyright for the finished product is established by contract before the movie is made, as is ownership of the over all IP and any licensing rights needed for the film. These rights may reside with an individual or a group/company, and then be sub licensed out to other entities. Otherwise anyone with a significant creative contribution (which could be many, many people) could stake a legitimate claim to a portion or total ownership after the fact. JonS seems to have confused authorship/auteur theory with copyright. Directors get the bulk of the credit because we socially consider them to be the âauthorâ of the film.
You might be making a similar mistake. We can certainly say that the photog here had a significant (or even primary) part in the authorship of this photo. But thatâs not the way the law works. His creative control, intent were focused on another photo entirely. One he presumably took and has a clear copyright over. That another entity picked up the camera, probably changed nothing, and took another photo (or hundreds in this case) doesnât give him copyright over that new photo. It just so happens the entity in question here (a monkey) canât hold a copyright. So it falls to the public domain. Iâm not saying its nice, or right, and its clearly not inline with social theories/feelings of authorship. But Wikimedia seems to correct in their reading of the law. And copyright professionals apparently agree. Iâve seen it pointed out that the monkey selfie isnât just in a gray area, its outside the scope of what copyright is intended for.
Its disappointing for the photog, but unless UK law has a significantly different take on these issues (from what Iâve seen they donât) heâs kind of SOL.
Well, thanks to the discussion on this board I have learned that Wikipedia is not proposing that the monkey owns the rights to the picture. Instead they are simply asserting that the camera-owner does not. I hate false dichotomies but here I created one of my own!
Thanks for making it clear!
3 Likes
As long as you arenât a filthy pirate, a compilation, even of already copyrighted objects, is explicitly covered; but the copyright of the compiler extends only to the compilation and does not modify the status or ownership of copyrights of the compiled objects.
1 Like
Seems to me the only way he could claim rights to that photo is if he deliberately gave the monkey the camera with the intention of it taking a selfie. This would be comparable to John Cage writing 4â33" and recording it in a crowded concert hall-- any noises made by the audience are part of the composition by design, so you couldnât sneeze and then demand to own the recording.
And interestingly the photographerâs account of the incident seems to have changed since ownership became an issue.
From the BBCâs latest story:
I became accepted as part of the troop, they touched me and groomed me⌠so I thought they could take their own photograph.
I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right⌠and all youâve got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture.
I have to say, Iâd be tempted to give this version more weight if heâd mentioned it before ownership of copyright became an issue.
3 Likes
Besides, what is this weird idea that it is it necessary that someone have copyright of everything ever made.
This.
This, this, a thousand times this.
The folks arguing for David Slaterâs âartistryâ (of the monkey selfies specifically) or âownershipâ (of same) seem to be neoliberally aligned with the privatization of creativity, while disallowing that creativity is a spontaneous function of the universe that well preceded copyright laws, that will outlast copyright laws, and that will express itself today in forms that do not fit the existing copyright regime.
Caveat: I am making this point aside from any argument as to whether copyright should exist, should not exist, or should exist in some other form.
1 Like
The crux of the argument is that the photographer cannot own the copyright because it was only luck that the rhesus picked up his camera, and happened to trigger the shutter ant just the right focus/angle/moment.
I just donât buy that. The fact that he was fortunate does not mean that he cannot claim the right to his photo. He was out photographing wildlife and came back with an amazing photo. How is that different than a photog out shooting a lightning storm, and coming back with an amazing photo of a lightning strike, or ball lightning, or other phenomenon? The phenomena are far too fast for them to ever pull the shutter with conscious volition, so it is spray and pray, and blind luck when you get an amazing one.
The same is true for photographs of whales breaching. You are on a whale watching boat, but the event happens so randomly and so quickly that you could not possibly consciously compose the shot. You simply shoot and pray.
If we apply the predominant logic in this discussion, then none of these photos can be copyrighted either. They are all public domain, because it was there was no way that any of the photographers could ever have planned âthat shotâ.
The fact that a monkey picked up his camera, and took a beautiful picture of itself rather than throwing it, or breaking it, or shooting pictures of the ground is indeed luck, but no more or less so than any of the cases I described above.
2 Likes
Which is exactly what David Slater did not do according to his own narrative.
Itâs different because his camera was stolen, unintentionally, and manipulated, unintentionally, and photos were taken, unintentionally. You are conflating âowns the cameraâ with âhas copyright on pictures taken with the camera, but not taken by the camera owner, and without the ownerâs intention.â
Well, copyright always exists only so long as it holds up in court.
Does throwing a GoPro in the water still give you copyright if a shark grabs it and runs away with it? How does copyright hold up in the fox example? Does video vs. still photography make a difference?
Actually, it is. Because, like you say, in the absence of work for hire agreements you would have multiple parties being able to claim co-authorship. Work-for-hire agreements, coupled with the specific statutory exception for motion-picture contract workers, is what allows the studio to obtain copyright.
But in the case of the temporarily-abandoned camera in the ocean there is no intent to make any photograph in particular, and no real imagined subject. The intent is basically: âletâs try my luck and see what chance turns up.â
And like @Elusis has said, we might feel differently if it was an octopus what pressed the button, and weâd probably feel even differently if a falling rock/branch/fruit had hit the shutter button and clicked the picture. And if we feel differently, then a jury might differently about all these situations⌠which is why I donât think this is as clear as many copyright professors apparently do.
You can claim copyright over the copyrightable contributions youâve made: the adujustments to the image. The original image remains in the public domain. If you restore a public-domain movie you can have copyright over the restored version, but anyone can still sell copies of the unrestored version.
This is basically what I suggested he should say, earlier. He can make it even more believable by saying he stretched the truth in his earlier claims (or that the media exaggerated or misquoted him) because he figured it would make for an even more exciting story.
Just say I let a camera equipped with a proximity sensor drift in the ocean for a couple of days, then I retrieve it. I havenât pressed the shutter, controlled where the camera is or where itâs pointing, or what it photographs. Do I own the copyright?
If you set the motion detector than yes. if this guy had handed his camera to a monkey with a timer set, it would have been his picture.
Indeed. Which is why Iâm finding this debate so interesting, I think.
Good lord, I hope Zoth Ommog hasnât gotten wind of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5DyBkYKqnM
1 Like
The owner put the camera in a position where this âhappy accidentâ could occur, serendipity always being a part of photography. I assume this is purely digital rather than film photography, where processing the film, choosing the image, printing the photo, and all the work and creative choices attendant with that isnât an issue, but presumably there were still adjustments made to the image. The fact of the matter is that photography now is purely a matter of choice - choosing one image over another, making aesthetic decisions about color balance, darkness, etc. He still made those choices. The fact that he didnât physically press the button is a technicality. If he had set up some system of trip-wires, the animal would have been triggering the image just as happened here.
Someone has to own the copyright on the image, and since the photo is unambiguously his and produced from equipment of his ownership, traditionally there would have been no question of who had the copyright. I rather suspect that because itâs digital and thereâs no physical photograph of which he has exclusive ownership is the only reason the decision was made the way it was. Frankly using this logic, about 90% of the photographs taken should probably be considered without copyright.
I agree with you, but intention doesnât entirely come into it, either. If he took a picture of one group of monkeys, not noticing this monkey on the edge of the photo, he wouldnât have intentionally taken a picture of it, but he did all the same. If he was holding the camera and accidentally pressed the button, or someone bumped into him and caused the button to be pressed and as a result a photograph was taken of the monkey he didnât intend to photograph, the picture would still be his. Accident and chance play a roll in photography, unavoidably.
Incorrect. Nobody has to own the copyright on the image. Copyright is an artificial imposition to inspire people to produce art and is only imposed on works of art, not accidents. Not all images are deliberate works of art, some are accidents. That he happened to be there is irrelevant⌠he happened to be there and took other photos where the copyright is clear⌠it doesnât mean that everything that he happened to find as a result of him being there is his.
Letâs say a man went out into the woods to produce a painting. And he paints an okay one. While heâs there, he notices that thereâs a piece of discarded fabric lying near his campspot, full of bird poop. The poop happens to be in a pattern that it makes a stunning impressionistic image of Luke Skywalker fighting a Wampa in a Hoth Snowstorm, but itâs about to rain and wash it away. The only reason heâs in a position to find that happy accident is because he was there painting, true. But that doesnât mean he produced the painting. He can take it, even sell it, but not claim copyright over it. He can do that with the painting he made himself, not one he happened to find because he was in the right place at the right time. Same with the photographer.
If he has a claim on the monkey selfie, then everyone who produced the camera equipment or the underlying theory has an equal claim, because without their work, this happy accident couldnât have occurred either. They werenât intending him to produce that photo either.
2 Likes
