Monkey takes picture

R

r3p1v

New member
Nov 17, 2006
2,531
17
0
I'm sure you guys have seen this in the news right?

What do you think? Is Wikipedia right or the photographer?

I agree with the photographer. What Wikipedia did seems mean. First they said the monkey owns it, now they are saying nobody owns it. I think they deserve to have their pants sued off for not removing it when asked. Seems like some of the volunteers on that site are out of control. And I think the guy should have the rights to it because it was his camera and he got the file off the camera and posted it online.
 


The monkey is the owner. What wikipedia means by 'nobody owns it' is that a monkey can't own copyright to his photograph.

Even if you borrow me your million dollar camera for a day, a photograph is owned by the person who made all those split second decisions and clicked the shutter - and no one else. This applies to both Canada and the USA.

Suppose you lent me your paint brushes for a day, why would you have any right over what I made with them? It wouldn't make sense, nor would it make sense with photography.
 
zimok said:
The monkey is the owner. What wikipedia means by 'nobody owns it' is that a monkey can't own copyright to his photograph.
Click to expand...

This doesn't really make sense imo. If non-humans can't own a picture in the first place, then how is it that it immediately goes to the public domain? This argument is having it both ways by saying that it's really the monkey's, but technically since that isn't allowed it goes to the public domain.

The guy should own the picture because he retrieved it from his camera, copied it to a computer, and uploaded it to the internet.
 
zimok said:
Suppose you lent me your paint brushes for a day, why would you have any right over what I made with them? It wouldn't make sense, nor would it make sense with photography.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, this is different because you are a human. So you would retain the ownership of it.
 
r3p1v said:
This doesn't really make sense imo. If non-humans can't own a picture in the first place, then how is it that it immediately goes to the public domain? This argument is having it both ways by saying that it's really the monkey's, but technically since that isn't allowed it goes to the public domain.
Click to expand...

'Should' & 'Sense' don't often apply to copyright law.

Does it make sense that MPAA/RIAA can take granny to court for 120K for uploading her downloaded material to honey pots? Not really, but it doesn't matter. They can, they do, and they win.

The argument doesn't go both ways because in reality the monkey cannot defend his copyright, therefor he can't own it. It's the sole responsibility of the the copyright owner to defend.

r3p1v said:
The guy should own the picture because he retrieved it from his camera, copied it to a computer, and uploaded it to the internet.
Click to expand...

All those are rudimentary things that have zero application in copyright law. The only thing that matters is the creation of the works, not what happens after, nor who owns what.

r3p1v said:
From what I understand, this is different because you are a human. So you would retain the ownership of it.
Click to expand...

It's not different though, suppose you give a monkey paint brushes and he manages to produce a work of art. You will own the tableau its on, since it's your property, but you will not own any copyright over the works created. Back to our monkey picture example, this is exactly why wikipedia isn't interferring with the camera owner's copyright.
 
article-2718120-204ED1D200000578-593_306x461.jpg
article-2718120-204ED1CD00000578-217_306x461.jpg


*flies away*
 
I am paranoid of monkeys, gorillas, brian Costello, since I saw Rise of the planet of the apes, first this, whats next? hostile take over?
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
Since these are public domain I guess that means I can use these in my dating ads right?
Click to expand...

Unless(very small unless) this specific case creates a precedent that says the owner of the equipment owns copyright in situations where the creator of the artistic works cannot own copyright, then yes you could use it in any ad for any reason. Even nasty ads with defamation potential.
 
Does the mind not rebel at the thought of a situation where we are debating the "property rights" of a wild animal?

If anybody ever needed help understanding that IP law is essentially just a lame attempt to create a capital good out of thin air via protectionist legislation, this is fucking it.
 
If an animal manages to trigger an already set up camera to take photos, that's not much different to setting the camera on a timer. Would Wikipedia claim that if someone sets up the timer on a camera then they aren't the owner of any image taken 10 seconds later, because they didn't press the button at that instant?
 
Those photos were EPIC! I feel bad for the photographer though, could have made a lot of cash with those. Come to think of it Wiki claims they don't owe the photographer, does that mean they apes? If so, those macaques are so damn lucky their selfies made them fortune! Not everyone can do that! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom