vFunct: The US Copyright office is going to delete this, since it's only a draft statement.
Photographs are never created by nature. The other examples that the Copyright office gives of natural works - elephants painting, driftwood shapes, rock grain formations - are all naturally contained works. They don't have any human involvement in its output.
Meanwhile, a photograph always relies on human involvement in its output - someone has to setup, process, and print/publish it.
It is not possible for nature to produce a photograph on its own.
Sure. Because of this, when someone shoots a photo for you, it's HIS photo of course, and not yours.If I pay a photographer to make photos for me, it's HIS photos.
"Set it up specifically".He set up the camera, but NOT for selfies.Then "One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy." (Slater)
So his "setup" was vastly modified by the monkey already before the selfies.
Langusta: “What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?”
"A good start"
Can you elaborate on what creative steps Slater took to "set up" those selfies?
falconeyes: I fear the editors at DPR missed the decisive sentence in the 1222 p document all else is following from:
>>> The copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind. ... Because copyright law is limited to “original intellectual conceptions of the author,” the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work. <<<
Therefore, the simple question isn't if a monkey created the photograph. It is if there is "an original intellectual conception" behind the photograph.
Example "monkey taking a photograph" only applies in the simple case of an accidental image.
Here, one must determine if the selfie results from "an intellectual conception" by Mr. Slater, i.e., did he plan and evolve the situation in order to obtain selfies.
From what Mr. Slater reported elsewhere, he did not. It was an unplanned accidental event. No copyright then. But it is the back story which decides.
You keep ignoring that Slater neither set up anything nor post-processed anything.
Yes, because monkeys cannot author anything. This is why the monkey cannot hold copyright.Slater himself neither took not authored the shot. He did nothing at all. That's the main point you're constantly ignoring.
Yes, at least this is what Mr. Slater said several times.
MarcusGR: I think the photographs in question are no way copyright-able as "work of art", because they are obviously not the product of anybody's "artistic intentions" (they would if Mr. Slater had deliberately prepared the camera and consigned it to the apes in the hope they would use it somehow; but this is not the case, according to Mr. Slater himself).Nonetheless, the images are OBVIOUSLY Mr. SLATER's PROPERTY, since they were taken by his own equipment and recovered from it by he himself, and the world would never have seen such images were it not for Mr. Slater. So these images are no doubt his own, as his car and his house are. And existing laws regarding property (ownership) should be called in cause.
Absolutely right!Nobody is allowed to take away the photos from him. But anyone is free to copy them since his property is not affected in any way.
Jan Bohme: Looking into the forum section of dpreview for the first time in a long while, I immediately realised why I quit posting in the first place: There is nothing ever as pig-headed as a photographer involved in a discussion who is wrong. :)
The legal issue is crystal clear: If the animal, as Slater claims, has pushed the trigger and pointed the camera by its own free will, that is the core creative moment, and Slater can't have copyright. Because it is not human, nor can the monkey. If we just discuss de lege lata - i.e. discuss the law as it stands - there is nothing more to discuss. While it is technically correct to say that the rulings of the US Copyright Office are only legally binding inside the US, there is nothing bizarre or outlandish in neither the US copyright legislations, or the specific ruling at hand, in this matter. The ruling will be the same in most, and very possibly all, countries signatory to the Berne convention.
That's right, but Slater did not choose those parameters as he did not even intend to take these pictures. They were set randomly when the monkey grabbed the cam. No creativity was involved here at all.
Even a US Copyright office statement is not enough to make clear to you that your point of view is nonsense.But on the other hand, who cares about your point of view.US Copyright office does not, Wikimedia does not, Courts do not.
brycesteiner: Why is there an argument here?
People, just because you own equipment does not make you the copyright holder. There is nothing else period. This would not even make it to trial. If there is a question about the image or subject, the first question would be, "Did you take the picture." That's the only way to even have a claim or partial claim.
This is simply not true and I do not need to prove it, it's in the law. You guys should learn to separate authorship from usage rights.If a stranger takes a photo of me and my wife, it's his original work but he silently gives all the rights to me, EXCEPT the authorship which is not transferrable.This is very clear in German law (where I live) but I'm pretty sure it's mostly the same all over the world, even in the strangest jurisdictions like the US.
This is completely wrong. Of course it's the stranger's photo as he is the photographer.
duartix: By the looks of it, I'd say it would take nearly 10,000 years before the monkeys got the composition right.
Considering the images have been obviously cropped and most probably retouched, I guess the photographer has grounds to his claim, and as long as the untouched original isn't in the public domain, I believe Wikimedia will have a hard job proving that what they are selling didn't originate from the photographer's variant (which is obviously copyrighted) even though the copyright on the original may be disputable.
Here's the untouched original: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg
wlad: omg, why did Canon even bother with ISO 102400, when ISO 25600 is already absolutely unusable ? pure marketing I guess
I disagree.ISO 25600 is perfectly usable for a lot of applications escpecially for on-screen or small print usage.
ISO 102800 imags are ugly, but still better than a completely blurred image or no image at all.
Jared Abrams: Is there a reason why DPreview chose to use Non-Native ISO's for this test? Has something changed with the 5D3. Typically Native ISO's are 160, 320, 640, 1250, Etc. Unless something has changed this test is not valid without them.
ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, ... is native to Canon.
Bernard D: I wonder why they don't or can't with CF cards?
If we're lucky we can find an all-plastic CF-SD adapter that will make these SD-WIFI-Cards work in our DSLRs.
AFAIK, the Eye-Fis work with adapters.
What about using Speedlites together with umbrellas and softboxes? Is it any good?