Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Who owns the copyright?

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Splinters
    Registered Users Posts: 885 ✭✭✭Splinters


    I can honestly say thats an area I've never given much thought. Is the monkey the photographer if all it did was press the shutter button...possibly. Its a fair enough point that only a human can hold a copyright but this is a bit of a unique circumstance. Given the fact that any money owed would likely be a drop in the ocean for Wikipedia you'd imagine they'd just be good sports about it and not argue with the photographer instead of generating bad press over such a small issue (for them anyway).


  • Options
    #3
    Wabbit Ears
    Registered Users Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭Wabbit Ears


    If the photographer owned the monkey, Id say he had a case.
    If he had given the monkey the camera with the intention of having teh animal take random shots, he would have a case.

    But it was a wild monkey who stole his camera.

    If I stole his camera and took a selfie I have copyright over that image.
    Monkeys cant hold copyright so, at best, the state park owners/parks authority own copyright as they come as close to "owning" the monkey as anyone.

    I agree with wikis stance.


  • Options
    #4
    Kenny Logins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    He owns the files and he published them, so I would assume that he also has the copyright. Is photography all about who presses the button?


  • Options
    #5
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Kenny Logins wrote: »
    He owns the files and he published them, so I would assume that he also has the copyright.

    Why you you make that assumption?

    Possession of the digital file doesn't give you copyright of the images.
    Publishing of a photo doesn't mean you have copyright of the image.

    If I download one of your photos (possession of the file) and then I publish it on a website, does that mean I then have the copyright on that image? Nope, I think not.

    The cameraman probably set it to aperture priority or something. So, in that case, when the photo was taken, the camera software determined the settings to use. Would that then not mean that the software writer/company has some claim to the copyright? Nope, of course not.

    I believe, in this case, that the images are uncopyrightable (I know, no such word). But, since a monkey can't own copyright, and the photographer didn't compose/set/take the images, then he can't own the copyright.
    Kenny Logins wrote: »
    . Is photography all about who presses the button?

    It comes down to settings, composition and the taking of the image. The monkey composed the image and took the photo. The camera software probably determined most of the settings, with the photographer having some input to that.

    But, that wouldn't give him enough cause for claiming copyright.

    That's my view on it.


  • Options
    #6
    Kenny Logins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    Maybe he could argue that he employed the monkey to take the photos for him? :D

    ...or admit that he lied about the whole thing, and it was all staged. The theft/selfie aspect was concocted to give 'his' photos a push towards going viral. Maybe Wikipedia is aware of this, and denied his request in the hope of an admission? :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Wabbit Ears
    Registered Users Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭Wabbit Ears


    ironically I think its his own 'stole' bit that scuppered him. If he had said he had given the monkey the camera with the intention of getting random images the monkey had clicked he would prob have copyright as he is composing and framing it even if that composition and framing is the randomness of monkeys.


  • Options
    #8
    Buzz Lightyear
    Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭Buzz Lightyear


    If I take a shot of the Eiffel tower having composed the image having waited on the correct lighting and environmental conditions then IMO I own the copyright of the image, not the Eiffel Tower company or the camera manufacturer. However if I loan you MY camera and you take the shot, I do not own the copyright of the shot that you took on my camera. Likewise if you stole my camera and used it for your own benefit to then take the same shot I do not own the copyright to the image, even though you took it using my equipment. It was not my skill and judgement (or lack thereoff) that created the image on the camera.

    While I was initially aghast and annoyed on the photographers behalf at wikipedia denying this man his reward for having captured the image, can I now do so based on the above. Based on the above logic the monkey actually owns the copyright to the image as he was the one who took it, not the photographer who owned the equipment, even tho he might have setup some initial settings.

    Is my logic screwed or is this actually the case ?


  • Options
    #9
    challengemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 16,931 ✭✭✭✭challengemaster


    Kenny Logins wrote: »
    Is photography all about who presses the button?

    Very much so.

    There was a thread posted on here (and everywhere else on the internet) about a studio assistant that was pressing the buttons on an ad campaign shoot while the main photographer was being hands-on on set.

    Some of the images used for the final campaign were those taken by the assistant, he filed and won a copyright infringement case for huge money because those shots weren't the main photographers to sell / use.


  • Options
    #10
    pullandbang
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 4,948 ✭✭✭pullandbang


    The monkey was smiling not because he was taking a selfie, it's because he found a new toy and he could see his reflection on the camera lens. He wasn't taking pictures. He discovered that a button makes the toy make sounds. The photographer may not have pressed the shutter release but he took advantage of a rare opportunity; he set the system up and since you can't really tell the monkey to pose and press the button, he took advantage of the animal's natural curiosity. They were watching him manipulate the camera and when he intentionally left the camera on a tripod, he knew that the animals would jump at the chance and they did immediately 'grab' it and took 'control' of it. Obviously, the animals were amused. The monkey may have pressed the shutter at the right moment but really, he didn't even know what was going on. The idea/vision/concept/intent/plan was David's. I think it's his picture. The photographer's website has more of the batch taken by the tricked monkey.

    One of the comments from the DP Review linky. I think this one hits the nail on the head. Photographer owns the copyright.


  • Options
    #11
    Wabbit Ears
    Registered Users Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭Wabbit Ears


    That doesnt fit with the photographers own story, if he had had any intention of the monkey taking shots that post would hold true, but it doesnt.

    That poster says "he took advantage of the animal's natural curiosity" but the photographer said the monkey stole his camera, making that pivotal statement completly untrue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    pullandbang wrote: »
    The monkey may have pressed the shutter at the right moment but really, he didn't even know what was going on.

    I love this bit. I know a few "photographers" who put their camera on auto and press the shutter, and don't even know what is going on. :D Does that then negate their copyright? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #13
    Kenny Logins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    So if a camera is set up with an audio/optical trigger say for example on a nest of eggs, and a fox steps in and triggers it, the fox is the photographer?


  • Options
    #14
    Kenny Logins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    This sums it up very well IMHO

    http://technology.ie/wikipedia-rejects-photographers-copyright-claim-monkey-selfies/


  • Options
    #15
    Wabbit Ears
    Registered Users Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭Wabbit Ears


    Kenny Logins wrote: »
    So if a camera is set up with an audio/optical trigger say for example on a nest of eggs, and a fox steps in and triggers it, the fox is the photographer?

    I think because you composed and framed the picture, you retain rights.


  • Options
    #16
    Kenny Logins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    Wabbit Ears wrote: »
    I think because you composed and framed the picture, you retain rights.

    What if the fox knocks the camera out of position as it passes? :pac:

    It's a silly argument IMHO, and Wikipedia are taking the piss I reckon.


  • Options
    #17
    Wabbit Ears
    Registered Users Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭Wabbit Ears


    I cant really see why he'd insist they take it down anyway so they may well be just taking the mick because he annoyed them :)


  • Options
    #18
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Kenny Logins wrote: »
    This sums it up very well IMHO

    http://technology.ie/wikipedia-rejects-photographers-copyright-claim-monkey-selfies/

    Just another "opinion".

    The real test would have to be through a court, and I can't see the guy taking this to court. Even he is unsure he'd win, otherwise he would have done it by now.


  • Options
    #19
    Cameraman
    Registered Users Posts: 476 ✭✭Cameraman


    challengemaster wrote: »
    Very much so.

    There was a thread posted on here (and everywhere else on the internet) about a studio assistant that was pressing the buttons on an ad campaign shoot while the main photographer was being hands-on on set.

    Some of the images used for the final campaign were those taken by the assistant, he filed and won a copyright infringement case for huge money because those shots weren't the main photographers to sell / use.

    It's not completely that clear-cut - if it's classified as "work for hire" then the employer owns the copyright (US Copyright Law, but pretty generally applicable).


  • Options
    #20
    Wabbit Ears
    Registered Users Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭Wabbit Ears


    also the case where a person who works for a company is asked to take photos by that company then the company, i believe, owns the copyright of those images. Its really surprising that teh assistant would have any copyright rights at all as he was working for the main photographer.


  • Options
    #21
    Ben D Bus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭Ben D Bus


    Bored in the office this afternoon and random stuff is popping into my head.

    What if an image is shot in bulb mode, person A starts the exposure and person B ends it? Who owns the copyright then, eh? :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    9de5q7tsr8u2im
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,888 ✭✭✭9de5q7tsr8u2im


    ur man owns the files and he published them, so I would assume that he also has the copyright


  • Options
    #23
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,492 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Wabbit Ears wrote: »
    also the case where a person who works for a company is asked to take photos by that company then the company, i believe, owns the copyright of those images. Its really surprising that teh assistant would have any copyright rights at all as he was working for the main photographer.
    i don't think the monkey in this case was working for, or being paid by, the photographer. there would certainly be no implied contract, and i don't think any court in the land would rule that the monkey could have assumed his role was one of assistant.


  • Options
    #24
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    LuckyDude12 wrote: »
    ur man owns the files and he published them, so I would assume that he also has the copyright

    Now why would you assume that? Just having the files and publishing them doesn't mean anything these days. People can pull files from the net and republish them. It doesn't mean they own the copyright.

    So, I'll disagree with your assumption.


  • Options
    #25
    Kenny Logins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    Republishing is completely different from creating.
    Generally, the first owner of copyright in a work is its author. An author is usually the person who first fixes a work or puts it in a tangible form, such as in writing, saved digitally, or recorded.

    http://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-basics/copyright-basics/

    As the monkey is not a person, surely the copyright lies with the photographer - the person that extracted, processed, and published the images, no?


  • Options
    #26
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Well, the US Copyright Office has made their ruling - the photographer does not own the copyright, and the work cannot be copyrighted.

    http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/08/monkey-selfie-eligible-copyright-registration-new-rules.html

    That settles that, in the US at least.


Advertisement