Monkey selfie sparks copyright row

[bwana]

Linky? I don't see that on the two images at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebes_crested_macaque#Copyright_test_case

That copyright tag would help the photographer's case, methinks.

I don't think Wikipedia's argument (that the monkey took the shot, ergo, cannot be copyrighted) will hold water either. Most folks would agree that the photographer owns the content on their camera(s).

Should be fun watching this play out.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg?download

 

[ponder]

How do you earn a living? Photographers put their photo's online for show but to use it you need to pay for the rights. I am not a photographer but I have used images and trust me they would be pissed off if someone started putting their photo's irrespective of source on a non profit website.

They would lose their incomes

you can see where I am going with this?

He did not use the camera, frame the shot or compose the image. There is zero artistic license here.

Imagine for a second that you picked up my camera and took a brilliant award winning shot that puts Ansel Adams to shame, can I claim the copyright on the image because it was taken with my property/camera?

If your answer is yes I'm gonna tell you to fsck off!

 

[bgotapen]

He did not use the camera, frame the shot or compose the image. There is zero artistic license here.

Imagine for a second that you picked up my camera and took a brilliant award winning shot that puts Ansel Adams to shame, can I claim the copyright on the image because it was taken with my property/camera?

If your answer is yes I'm gonna tell you to fsck off!

Animal/human obv missed the point of the entire thread.

So lets say the camera falls and it takes a picture does the camera owner not hold any right to the photo? I understand why people hold copyright because a company renting out dslr's could just claim all photo's copyrighted to them but this is a unique case...

 

[ToxicBunny]

No its not..

The monkey had the camera and took the picture.... the photographer was merely the provider of the equipment, therefore no copyright vests with the owner of the equipment but with the taker of the picture, and due to US copyright laws an animal may not hold copyright therefore the image is in the public domain. Its a simple case really and this Slater character is trying to make some mileage out of it.

 

[Electron1]

The photographer should have secured his rights when posting the pic. He hasn't and it is pointless trying to enforce copyright now.

 

[bwana]

The photographer should have secured his rights when posting the pic. He hasn't and it is pointless trying to enforce copyright now.

Copyright is automatic - registering the copyright, assuming it hasn't already been done already, just ensures greater damages can be awarded.

Anyway, wiki is disputing that the image was his to begin with.

 

[Electron1]

Thanks Bwana - didn't know that.

 

[crackersa]

ya'll missing the bigger picture. monkey *knows* how to use a camera. takes selfie...probably registered on some dating sites. who knows, could have a MYBB account "glares around the room".

it's the begin of rise of the planet of the apes and we are sitting here arguing about what is what is not copyright.