califleftyb: "Copyright law states that works not originated by a human author can't support a copyright claim...'
This would make sense IF is could be demonstrated that there was no human intervention at some point, either in pre or post, because until the point of completion it simply is not yet a "work". I assert that is impossible without human intervention. Since only a human can have legal standing the right to register the work falls to Mr. Slater.
The copyright office says that photos taken by monkeys (or any other animal) cannot be registered. The office considers this photo as being taken by the monkey.
Whether you call the monkey an "author" is just semantics, because they key thing is that photos taken by monkeys cannot be registered.
If you prefer, you can consider there to be "no author" and therefore no copyright.
The copyright office considers the monkey to be the author therefore the work cannot be registered.... the end. There is no concept in copyright law that says the right "falls" to the next associated human.
Kipplemaster: The fact that the copyright office say they will not register copyright to an animal does not mean they are taking Wikimedia's side, it just means they will only register copyright to a human being, which I would have thought was blindingly obvious. It supports the photographer's case if anything.
I should mention, unlike the other 1465 people who have commented seemingly thinking that common sense is the same thing as the law, that I am not qualified to advise on this (I am a qualified lawyer in the UK but not a copyright lawyer).
They said they will not register a photo taken by an animal and specifically referenced photos taken by monkeys. That means they will not register it to ANYONE (animal or human). So according to the US copyright office, anyone in the USA can copy the monkey selfie, including Wikimedia (a US registered website).
Digital Mike0697: My thoughts on this subject would be that Zoo owns the pictures not the photographer. Why I say this is because they owns the primate, the photos where taken on private property and the list goes on.
Yes the photographer owns the camera, but my impression on the copyright laws, you have to physically taken the photos yourself not anyone else or in this case a animal (primate). True the photographer may have setup the camera to take pictures, but in this situation the Zoo owns images.
I have a question, If the photographer owns the rights pictures, should he/ she ask the Zoo to sign a modeling release and will the Zoo be compensated to allow the photographer to make money off of images?
The issue is whether Slater's input meets the legal concept known as the "threshold of originality". When it comes to US law (Wikimedia is a US company), its never been ruled whether things like security cameras, web cams, or camera traps meet that requirement. When it comes to security cameras, the general opinion in the US seems to be that they are not covered by copyright because there is no creative input. So if you set a camera out and let nature take its course, its currently a legal grey area whether you own the copyright.
If this goes to court, the ruling will create a precedent for future cases.
Its not the pushing of the shutter button, but the claim of authorship. Claiming authorship requires a minimum level of creative expression:
"a photograph [etc] must contain at least a certain minimum amount of original expression.... original photographic composition capable of supporting registration may include such elements as time and light exposure, camera angle or perspective achieved, deployment of light and shadow from natural or artificial light sources, and the arrangement or disposition of persons, scenery, or other subjects depicted in the photograph"
Nobody at the zoo can claim to have controlled any of the above factors, so they have no claim of authorship. The monkey is an animal and has no claim of authorship. Slater has some claim (he set the exposure and selected the lens), but whether its enough will have to ruled upon by a judge.
VadymA: 202.02(b) Human author.The term "authorship" implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable.
How hard it is to trace the origin of the monkey's pictures to a human being after all that work the photographer has done to make it happen (planning and making a trip, living with the tribe, gaining their trust, letting them play with equipment, bringing the pictures back, processing them)? Who if not Mr. Slater is the author of those highly original pictures?How can someone claim that they were produced SOLELY BY NATUTE, BY PLANTS, or BY ANIMALS?
" Who if not Mr. Slater is the author of those highly original pictures?"
Its either Slater's or nobody's.
"SOLELY BY NATUTE, BY PLANTS, or BY ANIMALS?"
The monkey is an animal and therefore an animal took the photo. So it can be argued that the copyright practice you quoted explicitly states creative works by animals cannot be copyrighted.
If Slater gives me his camera and says "take a selfie" and I comply, *I* own the photo. The fact it was his idea is irrelevant. The fact it's his camera is irrelevant. The fact he handed the camera to me is irrelevant. The fact I'm using his camera settings is irrelevant. The fact he might have spent weeks pretending to be my friend is irrelevant. The only issue is that I'm the author and I'm human therefore the copyright belongs to me.
Now substitute me with a monkey and its reasonable to argue that the author is the monkey, which is an animal, therefore there's no copyright per the copyright practice you quoted.
120 to 35: The photos are conceptual art.
Copyright belongs to the artist. In conceptual art, the artist does not usually create the work himself. He provides the concept, gets his associates to produce the work, and presents the end results as his work. The photographer is the conceptual artist who made the monkey take the pictures with his camera. He therefore owns the copyright.
What you are describing is work for hire. A work made for hire belongs to the person who ordered the work created. But this only applies in two cases:
1) If your employees produce something under your employ, then you own everything they make regardless of whether its your concept or not. Everything is assumed to be work for hire unless otherwise specified in writing.
2) If you give a concept to contractor or freelancer and they produce something based on that idea, *they* own the resulting copyright unless they agreed in writing to work for hire. If they make a sculpture for you according to your specifications, you'd own the statue, but they'd retain the copyright unless they agreed to work for hire.
The photographer can't claim the monkeys as employees or contractors who agreed to work for hire, so it doesn't apply.
The question is the authorship: the photographer or nature. A judge will have to interpret the law to the best of his abilities and make a decision.
drummercam: Mr. Slater owns the work. Once he saw what was happening and allowed the macaque to continue what it was doing, the macaque became a mere assistant. This is a shameless power grab by a huge organization with money to pay a slick lawyer to present a wholly specious argument if it comes down to a court case. Wikimedia should take the photo down, and Mr. Slater should pay the macaque a banana.
I'll need to see a signed statement from the monkey saying he was acting as an assistant, otherwise you're just assuming the monkey relinquished creative control over his photos....
(unknown member): I agree with everyone else who said: 1) never knew he existed; 2) still don't care he existed; 3) very angry, and very little to do with photography; 4) DPR has degraded their own reputation by saying anything about this hateful person.
If you never knew he existed and still don't care, how do you claim to know so much about this person and what he posted (ie. wasn't humorous)?
bobbarber: It's interesting to see all of the outrage on this topic.
What else do you truly get offended about? N.S.A. breaking into your computer? Bankers selling bad mortgages and taking people's homes? Anything like that, or only a college kid doing the dumb kind of thing that college kids do?
It'll be hard, but I'll try to get over this one.
"Enjoy your pedantic argument."
Nice. Accuse people of being "cool with robbery", then accuse them of being pedantic when they point out your false equivalency.
"It does seem that a lot of people think it is okay to do this but what happens if this happened to you"
Lack of outrage is NOT an approval. Throughout the course of a week I am wronged in a number of ways and I refuse to live my life constantly outraged when the only harm is my ego.
On topic, I've been the victim of both copyright violation and theft (the real kind). Based on this real-world experience I can say that the theft was a worse experience by several orders of magnitude.
"Force was used to change something..."
That's not what force is. If you're wondering why people are not as shocked as you, its because you don't understand the terms. Robbery is using threat against a person, which shows contempt of human life, which is more serious than contempt of copyrights.
"Nobody lost money, right?"
It depends on the situation. Let me use property rights instead of "copying rights" for an example:
I wake up in the morning and a kid is standing on my lawn. There is a sign saying "no trespassing". My rights have just been violated. Have I suffered financial harm? Probably not. I can kick him off the lawn, but if I pretend I was just robbed then I'm a loser because its not true.
But what if there was another sign saying "Entry: $20"? In that case, perhaps I did suffer financial harm. Some businesses depend on their right to control entry onto their property to make a living (eg. theme park, concert hall, etc).
" it's surprise that so many people are cool with robbery"
Copyright violation is not robbery. If you expect others to follow the law, then you should show equal respect of the law by using the correct terms.
Theft is when somebody takes an item that belongs to you without your permission. For a person to "steal" photos from you, they have to take actual physical photos. In that case, it would be theft and not copyright violation.
Robbery is when a person steals from you using force or the threat of force.
Copyright violation is a violation of a right. Its similar to something like trespassing, which is a violation of your property rights. If you own the copyright to a photo, then you have the right to control the copying of the photo. If somebody makes a copy without your permission then they've violated that right, but they have not robbed you.
balios: Sneaky. They've split the images into a checker-board pattern. A right-click save-as only gets you a tiny portion of the image. Adding to my Monet desktop backgrounds is going to take some work...
That solves it. Click on the download icon at the bottom (instead of on the picture) and you get a regular jpg file. Thanks.
Sneaky. They've split the images into a checker-board pattern. A right-click save-as only gets you a tiny portion of the image. Adding to my Monet desktop backgrounds is going to take some work...
Artistico: The Met states that the images are public domain - in fact they even point it out that that is what they believe.
As far as I can tell they therefore cannot legally prevent anyone else from making money from them. They have no copyright protection (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp), no database protection or sweat-of-brow protection (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). As long as the images are faithful reproductions, no new copyright exists.
What they could claim, though, is that by using their image database you are signatory to a contract stating that you cannot use them for commercial purposes. If this is in small print and not something you are forced to look at or acknowledge when entering the database, however, that would not really work either - and in any case, they cannot claim for more than breach of contract, not for breach of copyright. Since there is no money involved in the contract, I can't see how that would be legally feasible.
Your allowed use will be determined by the copyright laws of your country in regard to public domain images and not the T&C or FAQ of the website. If the image is in the public domain, then the museum has no legal rights to control other people copying the image. The museum is not a legislative body and cannot take away your legal rights in regards to public domain images.
Second, the museum never held the copyright to begin with. When you purchase a painting (even an original) you are only purchasing the physical painting and not the copyright. The copyright remains with the artist who painted the image. So the only reason these images are on the website is because they are public domain. Otherwise the original artist could have sued the museum for copyright infringement.
Any lens cap I remove gets put into a pant pocket, then gets replaced when I'm done. Never lost a lens cap. Cost $0. The trick is to be consistent with where you put it.
If you're squeezing through a crowd of people, this seems like a liability. If you bump into something or somebody, I'm sure its not that hard to knock the cap off the magnet.
stratplaya: This could be a new ad campaign for Nikon.
"The D600, it won't burn your face and blind you".
"but if it did, we would deny it"
Eiffel: Sad, I though this site was about photography not fashion
DPR is a website for reviewing camera gear.
D200_4me: Meanwhile...the magical unicorns controlling the in-body VR inside my E-M1 continues to do a better job than my former Nikkor lenses. :-)
If you're counting "equivalents", then you can crop FF images to whatever "equivalent" you want... So you can take a 800mm/5.6, crop the image by half and its like you own a 1600mm/5.6 lens (omg!). But that would be a silly way to look at it because it wouldn't have the IQ of a 1600mm FF lens.
JohnEwing: I can't imagine a serious photog tarting up his kit with this sort of thing, but if Fuji can milk the decadent to keep the company producing superb cameras, more power to them. It's not as if they were producing pearl-handled rosewood-gripped hyperuglified models of someone else's cameras.
An artist who cares about aesthetics? What's next? People hanging pictures on their wall because they look nice? People spending money on photos which are only good to look at? Crazy!