Gpruitt54: Totally stupid to assign ownership of the image to the ape. Of course, the photographer owns the image. Who’s gear was used to capture the image? Who set up the camera? Who made it possible to capture this image? Answer; the photographer.
Martian1 - The ape was not taking photos, the ape was playing with the shutter. The camera took the pictures and that camera belongs to a person who willingly allowed the ape to play with the shutter while pictures are being taken. It was a creative act of a photographer.
If a photographer gives me a professional camera, puts a blind on my eyes, and asks me to press a shutter randomly for 15 minutes - who should get credit for the outcome? To me it's clear - the photographer or at least both of us; looks like many people on this forum would disagree.
ambercool: This is so ridiculous. Of course anyone who presses the button owns the copyright, but in this case the photographer deliberately wanted the monkey to take its photo for him. I hope this turns out with just cause because things like this is ridiculous to even debate about.
It was also done at the free will of the photographer who saw creative potential of the situation and made a mental "deal" with the monkey - "Okey, you like the camera and the sound of the shutter, then feel free to play with it and I will play with the images after that." If the photographer knew he had no rights to the images he would not allow the monkey to play with the camera. The monkey didn't want the camera to take pictures, it liked the shutter sound, that's it. It's the photographer who recognized creative aspects of the situation and let the monkey play with his camera.
Jozef-S: Certainly it seems like a copyright loophole and Wikimedia took advantage of it. In cases like that the owner of the images should have first secured the ownership before releasing them.
Yes, but I think the loophole is rather flimzy and could be successfully countered from many angles. I think Wiki will lose in court and will be forced to pay damages. I also think they know that and want to gain some publicity and then remove the images rather then taking it to court.
Klarno: The photographer is the one that made the macaque selfie possible. The monkey didn't go to walmart and buy the camera, and the monkey didn't really compose any images, not knowing that any images would be captured, only seeing her reflection in the lens and hearing the sound of the shutter.
The copyright can't belong to the macaque, as the law does not provide for animals to have copyright. Nor does the macaque have power to determine whether or not any copies can be made of the photograph.
Copyright is an economic right, and if there's a profit to be made from this photograph, that right should belong to the photographer who made the photograph possible. He put himself, and the camera, in the situation where the macaque selfie ended up happening.
The only way public domain can apply in a private photographer's situation is if the copyright expires (in the UK, 70 years after the photographer's death), or the photographer chooses to place the photograph in the public domain.
All those people got paid for their services and with that they surrender any further rights to the outcomes of the transaction. It's that simple.
VadymA: So I am asking, who owns a product made on a stolen equipment and with stolen materials? Is it the owner of the equipment and materials or the producer? In my view there must be at least a joint ownership, so Mr. Slater is a rightful co-owner of the images. Case closed! :D
The act of loaning a camera would imply that I agreed to temporarily surrender the rights of ownership for the period of loan. Otherwise I would have to specify that everything my friend takes with the camera should be shared. If my friend is desparate to have a camera and this is his/her only choice, it might be a good deal for both sides. If I loan my friend the money to buy a lottery ticket and he wins 100 million, I would not be able to claim my rights to a share of it unless I specify this in the conditions of the loan. If the friend steals that money from me to buy a ticket and win the lottery, I would claim a joint ownership and demand a share of the gain. I think it would be fair.
PATaMAT: Imagine you go on holiday with your wife/GF. You own the camera, you switch it on, and then you pass it to her. Then she takes the picture.
Is it your picture or hers? I think the answer is obvious. PS : I am not suggesting my GF is a monkey in any way :)
You both should have the rights to co-ownership. Although in case of close relatives it is easier to find a compromise as both parties have common goals, not competing goals, thus it is easier to assign the ownership to just one person.
win39: What if the monkey were a person instead, who snatched up the camera and made images of commercial value? I think it would be easier to say the guy who just owned the camera did not own the copyright. Certainly it might be a very difficult court case. It is not simple. The problem is that we have a tradition of thousands of years of exploiting animals for commercial gain. Taking the monkey's creation as your own is no different than taking a rhino horn for its imagined Viagra like properties and claiming the result as your own.
This would be a case of crime and punishment. What punishment would you suggest for stealing the camera? What it the owner of the camera was just about to take the same commercially valuable images but was not able to do it because his camera was stolen? Personally, I think the owner of the camera has more ethical (if not legal) rights to the images than the thief.
When manufacturers sell their products to us, they transfer the right of ownership for that product and for its output to us, period. All they keep is the copyright rights preventing us from duplicationg thier prodicts or their specific parts. Same with us, if I sell my camera to you, or even willingly give it to you free of charge, I transfer all my rights of ownership to you.
Atlasman: Since the camera is owned by the photographer, I would say that all products derived from the equipment belong to the owner. Without the equipment there would be no image.
I am sure the guy would claim that he shouldn't be charged with murder since he didn't pull the trigger but he would most likely accept or be forced to accept negligence charges. So he would be considered partially responsible. This is my position here - he has the right to claim AT LEAST partial ownership (or co-ownership) of the images; but since the monkey cannot be legally considered as a co-owner, the photographer should become a sole LEGAL owner of the images.
I am sure if the monkey shot another human that was around, the owner of the gun would have been charged with at least careless act leading to death. So this example supports the premis that the owner of the equipment has the rights to the output.
mh2000: When someone grabs my camera and snaps photos that end up on my memory card, I do not consider them my creative property. It doesn't matter that I am the one who owns the camera. Actually, I think it would be unethical to claim credit for photos someone else took.
What if they did it without your permission? Shouldn't your ownership of the equipment be recognized in a shared rights to the product it created? Without your equipment at that time and that place the image would not exist. Are you sure you would deny any rights to the images on your machine even if someone else taking them prevented you from doing the same?
The creative act was to let the monkey press the shutter. From his 2011 interview he mentioned that it was fascinating to watch so the incident definitely sparked this creative idea to let the animal play with the camera in anticipation of unusual results. That was very creative and it was enacted by Mr. Slater deliberately.
So I am asking, who owns a product made on a stolen equipment and with stolen materials? Is it the owner of the equipment and materials or the producer? In my view there must be at least a joint ownership, so Mr. Slater is a rightful co-owner of the images. Case closed! :D
VadymA: Maybe wikimedia's decision is not against some flawed copyright law but it is clearly against basic human ethics in my opinion. The pictures by nature should belong to the photographer as they were the output of his property and his efforts, accompanied by some contribution of an animal in this case. Just be reasonable guys and respect other people property, even when there is no written law about it.
I don't see how you come to those conclusions following my logic. Camera and software makers don't own the product that I bought from them; they sold it to me and after that they have no rights to it or to its output. The monkey case is clearly a case when form is taking over the nature of the event, which is not ethical in my opinion.
Maybe wikimedia's decision is not against some flawed copyright law but it is clearly against basic human ethics in my opinion. The pictures by nature should belong to the photographer as they were the output of his property and his efforts, accompanied by some contribution of an animal in this case. Just be reasonable guys and respect other people property, even when there is no written law about it.
I liked the images but the comments spoiled the effect :(
Maybe it's time for DPR to branch out its photography tips section into a separate portal like you did with Connect. I know there are other sites for that so this is just a thought. Personally I would appreciate the convenience of having everything under one "umbrella" so I see it as a potential advantage for DPR over other competitors. Anyway, this is just a though; and nice vid for an amateur like me. Inspired me to look around the house for creative ideas ;)
Photos are awsome and the interview was great too. Didn't realize at first that there is a new question with each slide. Well worth reading.
Can somebody clarify what happens with all Aperture adjustments to RAW files (like brushes, curves, cloning, etc) when converting to another application, like Lightroom etc?
I just don't get it. I always thought the main reason people switch to Apple is for such crative and user friendly tools like iPhoto, Aperture, iMovie, FinalCut, etc. But now they are ditching everything what made Apple such a success. How are they going to differentiate themselves if not for those applications? Personally, I don't see any reason to upgrade to another iMac now. If I owned Apple stock, I would sell it now. I haven't seen anything over the last three years from Apple to boost my confidence in their furture. I think it is going to be a repeat of Apple's collapse just like when Steve left it first time in the 90th.