Vox:
Slater had traveled to Indonesia to do a wildlife shoot. While he was there, he left one of his cameras unattended, and a crested black macaque monkey began playing with it. She took dozens of photos, most of which were blurry shots of the ground or the sky. But the photos included this crystal-clear selfie.
Slater says he owns the copyright to the photograph and asked Wikimedia to take it down. In its first-ever transparency report, the Wikimedia Foundation says it refused because it doesn’t believe Slater owns the copyright.
On one level, this is a funny story but, as a photographer, it’s very interesting to me. We’ve usually said that whoever actually took the photo owns the copyright. But what if the “photographer” isn’t human?
Who would own the copyright if the camera took the photo automatically? Who owns the copyright to security footage?
Whoever pressed the button or started the program or application that set the photo in motion, perhaps? I would suppose that however a camera takes a photo, if you follow the line of causation eventually you’ll find a person that started a timer or invoked a command or booted an application.
EDIT: I would also imagine that in the case of security footage there is a part of a contract that says all the footage is owned by the purchaser of the equipment, rather than the supplier of the equipment. Just guessing, though, I don’t really know.
It seems to me the argument, “…because no human being actually took the photo, it’s not copyrighted at all. And therefore anyone is free to use it.” is without merit, but I doubt they plan to argue that in court. Hardly anyone would argue that the pictures of the elusive Snow Leopard (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140125-snow-leopard-pakistan-animals-science-world-endangered-species/) are public domain.
But this is a different case. The photos were taken without human agency. It was an accident. Not all that different from a toddler taking a picture; in that case I’d expect the parent or guardian to have copyright, certainly not some creepy guy who handed the kid a camera. An animal with no owner in an accidental situation is an interesting case. I’d lean toward the camera owner having copyright, but could see it go either way.
He’s claiming that he can’t make enough money without this photo. What he’s basically saying is that a monkey can do his job better than he can.
Under this logic, Wikimedia would need the monkey’s permission to publish the picture.
What a weak, lame argument. Good luck to the photographer; I hope he pursues this.
All I thought is “wow, that’s pretty cute” ha ha.
I’ve donated to Wikipedia whenever they asked…never again!
sentient – “able to perceive/feel things”. I am sure the monkey can perceive things. Certainly a monkey can “sense” as in the five senses, which is the root word here.
It’s more than that and you know it.
Mirriam-Webster: sen·tient adjective ˈsen(t)-sh(ē-)ənt, ˈsen-tē-ənt
able to feel, see, hear, smell, or taste
1
responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2
aware
3
finely sensitive in perception or feeling
Dictionary definitions aside (and any snarking), does it matter? This picture has been thoroughly internet disseminated. It has been published and republished and already is getting meme’d to death. The photog will get at best a pyrrhic victory out of this should he succeed, very little $$ will follow him.
Really? Merriam-Webster?
Okay, fine.
Is the monkey self aware?
Did the monkey take the blurry photos in an “artistic mood”?
Let’s ask him.
Thank you. You get it.
No, because they’re saying it’s public domain and not under anyone or anything’s ownership. You don’t have to ask for permission under public domain.
Actually, as far as I know, it’s the person who takes the photograph who typically owns the photo, not the camera owner. This came up when Ellen DeGeneres’ Oscar selfie was making the rounds– Bradley Cooper would have had a very compelling case for ownership had there been a dispute, since he positioned the camera and pushed the button.
Since the camera was handled and triggered by the monkey, the argument is that the photographer had no involvement in the creation of the image. If no one with the ability to hold copyright made it, then it would fall under the public domain.
So the argument goes– I really don’t care either way.
Monkey owns the copyright as long as he
has US citizenship otherwise the law is ambiguous.
Then monkey should set up a foundation and milk
the royalties to 120 years after his death.
Its in the Constitution people.
The selfie belongs to the artificial intelligence embedded within the camera itself. If self-driving cars can kill people while their drivers walk away with impunity, then cameras can own the photographs they create.
Isn’t this completely and utterly obvious? Jeez.
The copyright belongs to the creative head & the owner of the camera. So rightfully Slater owns the copyright. Shame on you wikimedia.
So if a photographer borrows a friend’s camera, the friend owns the pictures?
Unfortunately “a weak, lame argument” is not precluded from becoming, and remaining, valid law. A lot of what’s happened to patent and copyright law over the last 30 years could easily qualify as weak and lame.
Think of all the pictures from the national geographic catalog that would then be without copyright since they were taken by the animals themselves as they crossed in front of a trail camera!
Not disagreeing. Since the motive is to pay for his trip, I doubt he’ll pursue this. There’s probably not enough of a payout, and it’s not guaranteed, and he’d be going up against the douche army of Wikimedia. Pity.
The Wikimedia Foundation yet again proves the Walter Principle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl5aYhkF3E
The owner of the device owns the copyright to the data inside the camera unless permission is given to use said device.
BTW- in the USA corporations are people. I’ll believe that when Texas executes one (corporation, not a monkey).
Bokeh, man. Not blurry. Must the art community correct you all the time?
That’s a great opinion. Unfortunately, it’s not the way copyright law has worked in the past.
If a banana is involved, then it’s obviously the monkey.
If a banana fell on the camera and the button got pushed, would the banana be eaten?
I feel such shame.
The publisher owns the copyright. Duh.
There are millions of works where the copyright is not owned by the person who made the work. Instead, the copyright is owned by the publisher. In this case, the person described as a “photographer” is actually the “publisher.” If he hadn’t published the photograph, nobody would have seen it and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Cameras don’t take photos automatically. In 100% of cases, a human was involved. Including this case. The monkey did not purchase or make his own camera, or set it up for photography, or publish the photo.
No, the photo was not taken without human agency. There was a human there who brought the camera, set up the camera, and later published the photo.
It has nothing to do with owning the camera. It’s about owning the photo. The monkey can’t own anything. The photographer here is the owner and publisher of the photo.