jtan163

jtan163

Lives in Australia Adelaide, Australia
Joined on Oct 25, 2010
About me:

Just another guy with a camera.

Comments

Total: 323, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

I don't understand your objection to copyright law Roland.
What is the benefit of paying a fee to apply for copyright?
And why should your work not be yours?

The analogy for physical objects would be there are billions of physical objects in the world if you want to insure them and to have the benefit of police investigations, court prosecutions etc, then you have to register them and pay a fee for each item.

Most legal protections are automatic.
Why should copyright be different?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

Roland I'm not sure about where you live, but every image that is create where I live is copyright.
Having value and being copyright are two different concepts.

Just because something is protected by copyright does not mean it is valuable.
And it is not such an insane idea.
You never know what image might become valuable.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 11:30 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

What has intent go to do with copyright?
Copyright does not exist for pure abstract ideas.
That's patent's.
Copyright is about executed intent.

Again, please apart from " you think it should be" what argument do you have to support the idea that Slater owns the copyright to the images that the monkey shot.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 11:25 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

Well what did Slater do to be the author?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2014 at 16:40 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

As stated elsehwere in the thread, Im not suggesting the monkey is the author, just that Slater is not.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2014 at 14:10 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

vFact did you read the link?
" Oprah's attorney then came up with another angle: added
authorship. [ Section 106A of the Copyright Law.] Oprah's position was
that without her contributions as a producer of the TV Show, which included
such things as models, props, stagehands, TV camera equipment, etc.
the photos couldn't have been made. On this basis Oprah's attorney argued
that she was part "author" of these photos."

...
" At some point, Oprah's side must have realized "authorship"
was a weak position to argue in front of a jury. It would have been
bad publicity for her to go against established copyright precedents,
and also seek out an arcane (and weak) loophole in the copyright law,
i.e. to "stop at nothing, to win.""

Sounds like an authorship argument.

Setting up the scene choosing the location, subjects make up artists etc didn't do Oprah's lawyer any good in claiming authorship.

There's actually a fair bit of commentary on the case most of it says the same thing.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2014 at 14:09 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

vFunct:
Yes photos you accidentally take on your camera are yours.
Because you take them. Because you body clicks the buton.
Not because it's your camera.
For no other reason that you push the button on purpose or not.

That's the essential and defining point - you own them because you push the button.

Like you go to a photoworkshop and the instructor chooses the location, tells you what settings to dial in, and maybe even adjusts the focus of framing for you.
As long as you push the button, you own the copyright, unless you and the teacher have entered into some agreement otherwise.
Now I wouldn't say you should put it in your portfolio. or that you can morally claim that you created, but legally you did.

Here's another link to Natkin v Winfrey (since you appear to have ignored the previous one) that also states that though the authorship question wasn't addressed, if it was the people who psched the button would have won.
http://www.photosource.com/psn_full.php?type=FPNews&id=153

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2014 at 07:44 UTC
In reply to:

b craw: Though a unique circumstance, I think the law can be applied here in a pretty clear manner. [I acknowledge that I am not a professional in this field, though]. In absence of the possibility that a work for hire situation can be entered into with an animal (even a fairly intelligent primate), then the burden falls on Mr. Slater to demonstrate that the primary production of the images was done by him. As he has promoted these images as "selfies", then the predominate and definitional activity relating to production lies with the ape; preparation, postprocessing, and distribution not constituting essential production. As an example in contrast, wildlife photo traps are almost completely produced by the photographer. In the case of Mr. Slater, as an animal cannot hold a copyright, no copyright protection can be applied. Mr. Slater can, of course, distribute and profit from the images, as can anyone else. He has no legal basis to demand that Wikimedia take the images down.

Here's a discussion of a relatively contemporaneous case ( Natkin et al v. Winfrey et al) where someone else controlled the location, the look and mood of the scene, the subjects, their clothes, their presence etc etc etc.

http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/joint_authorship/

The extract is heavily edited to fit the DPR character count, but apparently the key argument was essentially:

"Winfrey argued, among other things, that because she controlled the underlying subject matter -- Oprah, the guests, their clothes and expression, the sets, and the “look” and “mood” of the show -- she was a co-author and jointly owned the copyright in the photos with the photographers."

The Court disagreed.

It is indeed the framing and composition, along with the selection of the instant of recording that constitute the major creative act for a photographer.
A professional photographer may need to do a lot of things to be a pro photographer, but most of those things are not creative acts.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

b craw: Though a unique circumstance, I think the law can be applied here in a pretty clear manner. [I acknowledge that I am not a professional in this field, though]. In absence of the possibility that a work for hire situation can be entered into with an animal (even a fairly intelligent primate), then the burden falls on Mr. Slater to demonstrate that the primary production of the images was done by him. As he has promoted these images as "selfies", then the predominate and definitional activity relating to production lies with the ape; preparation, postprocessing, and distribution not constituting essential production. As an example in contrast, wildlife photo traps are almost completely produced by the photographer. In the case of Mr. Slater, as an animal cannot hold a copyright, no copyright protection can be applied. Mr. Slater can, of course, distribute and profit from the images, as can anyone else. He has no legal basis to demand that Wikimedia take the images down.

If you look at Street Photography and other found photography the photographer who owns the copyright does nothing more than choose the frame and exposure program and click the button.

Yet despite the fact that everything that is seen in the frame was built, sewn, made by someone else and all of the people in the frame chose their own expression, pose, gait, etc, and presence, the photographer is the creator because he chose where to point the camera and when to press the button.

Mr Slater may have chosen the location, brought the camera there, perhaps even organised the subjects and lighting.
But given that the subject and lighting were there, there were an infinite number of shots that could be shot, depending on where and when the camera was pointed and the shutter released.
Mr Slate did not make those choices.
He did not make the photo.
He may well claim the memory card and thus have the right to delete the images stored on his property, but he does not own the images themselves.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 14:52 UTC
In reply to:

b craw: Though a unique circumstance, I think the law can be applied here in a pretty clear manner. [I acknowledge that I am not a professional in this field, though]. In absence of the possibility that a work for hire situation can be entered into with an animal (even a fairly intelligent primate), then the burden falls on Mr. Slater to demonstrate that the primary production of the images was done by him. As he has promoted these images as "selfies", then the predominate and definitional activity relating to production lies with the ape; preparation, postprocessing, and distribution not constituting essential production. As an example in contrast, wildlife photo traps are almost completely produced by the photographer. In the case of Mr. Slater, as an animal cannot hold a copyright, no copyright protection can be applied. Mr. Slater can, of course, distribute and profit from the images, as can anyone else. He has no legal basis to demand that Wikimedia take the images down.

BTW just to be clear, I'm not so much arguing the monkey is the author in a legal sense. I'm arguing that Mr Slater is not the author.
He didn't perform the requisite creative work, didn't make the requisite creative decisions.

Consider a fashion designer's company creates some garments, organises a show, hires the models, dresses them, directs their make, hair, pose, walk and provides the stage, seating, backdrops, lighting etc.
Then invites the media as guests (as opposed to hiring them as employees) who bring cameras and take still and moving pictures.

Does the fashion designer's company own the copyright?
After all they've selected every thing you see in the scene.

All the photographer does is turn up, choose a computer program on his camera, choose where to point it and push the button.

I'd suggest that in most places most courts would assign copyright to the photographer who merely framed/composed the shot and pushed the button.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 14:45 UTC
In reply to:

b craw: Though a unique circumstance, I think the law can be applied here in a pretty clear manner. [I acknowledge that I am not a professional in this field, though]. In absence of the possibility that a work for hire situation can be entered into with an animal (even a fairly intelligent primate), then the burden falls on Mr. Slater to demonstrate that the primary production of the images was done by him. As he has promoted these images as "selfies", then the predominate and definitional activity relating to production lies with the ape; preparation, postprocessing, and distribution not constituting essential production. As an example in contrast, wildlife photo traps are almost completely produced by the photographer. In the case of Mr. Slater, as an animal cannot hold a copyright, no copyright protection can be applied. Mr. Slater can, of course, distribute and profit from the images, as can anyone else. He has no legal basis to demand that Wikimedia take the images down.

vfunct.
You can't claim creative ownership if the camera operator ignores your direction and does what they like DESPITE you.
I rather think that the monkey did more his own thing and less of the photographer's in the scenario given.

Can you please describe another situation where merely making a camera available vests you with ownership of the images.

Can yor for example explain how the monkey using the Mr Slater's camera is different to the notional scenario of Mr Slater hiring a camera from a hire company and taking an unplanned image as he walks out the door?

Would the camera rental company own the copyright in that case?

Mere ownership of the means of production does not grant you a share of intellectual property rights. The transfer or initial vesting of copyright belong to the author not the owner of the equipment used to create the work.

What did Mr Slater contribute to the image that would suggest he authored it(them)?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: OK, OK, OK .... now I am getting quite tired of all that are talking about photo traps and assistants.

Photo traps have nothing to do with this situation. Of course, you get the Copyright if you set up a photo trap.

A monkey can never be considered an assistant or have a Copyright.

Please - read the thread - or think!

I'm amazed at how little you know about copyright.

But the monkey didn't use any of the photographers work.
He didn't use the photographer's concept, crew, scouting work,market research, marketing or all the other things that make a pro a pro (and which have not much to do with being an author).

The monkey used his camera.
The photographer effecitvely played the same role as lensrentals.com in the execution of the shots in question.

Now lensrentals.com plays an important role for some shoots.
But they are not the authors of their client's work.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 05:47 UTC

So if a computer programmer writes a program, that based on sensor input and past experience encoded ina database and that program decides the exposure settings for a camera, and calculates the subject to focus on and then controls the lens to actuate the focus and even actuates the shutter when it decides that focus is correct, then isn't that computer programmer making most of the creative decisions?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 03:57 UTC as 123rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: If you train an animal to push a shutter button -- is it any different from pushing a remote shutter button yourself? He created the "studio" in nature, worked hard for the opportunity, he chose the camera settings, he chose the photo, he edited it significantly, he processed it professionally, he presented, and it was his gear. He did AT LEAST 50% of the art work. More, IMO.

If a dog walks on a wet painting -- does the painter not get credit?

The photographer here neither trained the monkey or initiated the shots.
And the monkey's role was greater than simply pushing the button.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 03:51 UTC
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: If a child takes his own photograph using settings provided by a parent -- and a parent selects that photograph, crops it, processes it, markets it, does the child or the parent own the copyright?

How many photographers with children have used their children's works illegally if that's the case? The fact is that the parent did more than 50% of the image creation. It was a team effort.

Same with this monkey case; it was a joint effort.

But in this case, the monkey has no legal status and is happy to get bananas. The photographer should get his fees.

Parents are legal guardians.
They can do what they like, with their child's property while they are the guardian until the kid is legally independant.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 03:50 UTC
In reply to:

skyfotos: In days of yore - unless commissioned - copyright is vested with the photographer if he/she purchased, and therefor owned, the film on which the image was made. The same should surely apply to the owner of the sensor!

I own the harddisk that the image resides on.
Or one of them.
Can I sell it?

Hint: ask a hollywood studio's legal department.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 03:48 UTC
In reply to:

Andy Galeati: My thing is guy should just be a good sport about it, who GAS about any copyright... This monkey selfie is hilarious.

My income stream is reduced because of other people's actions.
Its called society, community and government.
It applies here.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 03:47 UTC
In reply to:

Anastigmat: If I set a camera trap and the shutter is tripped when someone or some animal interrupts a beam of light, then who owns the copyright to the photo? I would say that I did because I did everything that is needed to create the photograph except tripping the shutter at the moment of exposure. Similarly, if I use trap focus to take the picture, and the shutter is tripped when a bird comes into focus, then the bird is not the copyright holder. I am.

vFunct.
Extend your logic.
Yes you own copyright on random images you take.
The monkey took these shots. Randomly or otherwise.
The monkey owns them.

Trés simple.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 03:45 UTC
In reply to:

Badger1952: Common sense, not the law, should prevail - as is pointed out below, the monkey clearly cannot own or have copyright to the images, copyright bellows to Mr Slate. We all know that the law is an ass!!!!

Apparently in some countries property can be held in trust for animals.
E.g. those millionaires who leave everything to their dog.
So the idea of an animal with property is not beyond possibility.
In any case, if the monkey can't own property it probably is property of a govt dept or a zoo or an entire nation.
In which case I'd guess the copyright vests with the monkey's owner/custodian.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 03:43 UTC
In reply to:

hc44: "'a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable.' "

A hypothetical contraption: A random number generator uses the current wind speed as a seed (random 'shuffle') and produces random numbers once per time interval (say 1 minute). The number is between 1 and 100; every time a 1 is generated a photo is taken.

Does the creator and initiator of this contraption have copyright ownership of the photos taken?

Yes the author of the software owns the copyright, just like a painter using photoshop and tablet instead of brush and pallete.

And by the way, I had this idea ages ago.
My idea was to create every possible movie frame and image and annoy the heck out of hollywood when they started suing little old ladies with 28k modems.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 03:40 UTC
Total: 323, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »