ShareGrid: Thanks, these are all valid concerns. Imagine when AirBnB asked people to let strangers sleep on their couch! That sounds scary, but people are now embracing it more and more. We have seen this same type of reception so far. In just a few weeks, users have uploaded more than $1.7 million in gear.
We are photographers and cinematographers ourselves, that’s why we have taken extra time and precaution to make a safe and trusted community. On top of reviews, ratings and social verification, we have made our community private. Not everyone who applies get in.
We offer an affordable damage waiver, and for the first time ever, you can buy insurance online in real time at the best rates. If you were to rent a high priced item from most online rental shops, they would require third party insurance. Its up to you to call a insurance broker, compare prices and fax back paperwork.
Our goal is to make ShareGrid feel more like a community of trusted artists vs. a rental house.
"we have taken extra time and precaution to make a safe and trusted community. On top of reviews, ratings and social verification, we have made our community private."
But your own terms of service say that all amounts to nothing when push comes to shove and disclaims all responsibility for it:
"The information presented on or through the Website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials...."
mpgxsvcd: I am guessing that it won't be long before the LX100 is banned at concerts and sporting events. This really is a professional video camera even though its lens is not interchangeable.
I think the zoom is perfect. The best concert photos I've taken were by getting up close with a 24-35mm equiv lens.
I hope not. I would like to get one of these for concerts in particular.
Even if the LX100 is specifically mentioned in the venue policy I doubt it would be correctly enforced very often. Venue door people can't even tell the difference between my small M43 camera and a point and shoot usually.
What I think is more likely to happen is cameras other than cell phones will be banned altogether eventually.
Greg Lovern: Can't wait to hear vFunct tell us all about how the Copyright Office's 1,222-page document is all wrong... :-)
...and say the exact same things over and over again no matter how proven wrong.
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.
That's not the same thing anymore because *you found* the artifact.
The point was that owning the tool used to create the product alone doesn't automatically mean you own the product. Does the human who stole your shovel have to turn whatever he used the shovel for over to you simply because it was your shovel? That is, after he gets out of jail, pays the fine, and pays you damages from the loss of your shovel?
"If I buy a shovel and use it for a job, I get all the money for that job."
Sure - because *you* used it for the job. But if someone steals your shovel for a while and uses it to dig some rare artifact out of the ground worth millions, do you deserve the millions just because it was your shovel?
Benoz: My niece's husband is a cameraman employed by a television station.Who holds the copyright to his work...the cameraman or the TV station?We all know the answer to that!The monkey took the shots with the photographer's camera already set to take those pictures.IMO the photographer has the rights to the images. The monkey wouldn't have the ability to just pick up a camera, switch it on, set it up and take selfies! :-)Whether there is any benefit or not by requesting the image to be deleted is irrelevant.
"If that were the case, anytime a photographer changed their mind at a shoot, or a director decides to retake a scene, they would lose copyright."
That's not the same thing. If they change their mind they're still conciously taking photos. All that's really changed is the length of planning.
"The idea to do this shoot was his."
Not the monkey selfies. That was entirely unintended by the photographer according what I've read.
"You don't need "pre-planning" to have a copyright."
I'm not a laywer. I'm just saying your analogies don't fit.
We'll see what happens. Wikipedia has some form of legal assistance and they're calling his bluff. It will be an interesting court case if it goes that far.
Funduro: From Huffington Post article: He added that he believes Wikipedia editors, most of whom are volunteers, "have a communistic view of life."
"It's potentially being run by people with political agendas," Slater said of Wikipedia. "The people who are editing it could be a new Adolf Hitler or a new Stalin ... They're using whatever suits their agenda."
He urged people to stop using Wikipedia. "It's important to tell people that Wikipedia should be not used as a source of truth," he said.____
I'm sort of speechless.
"Assistants take photos all the time, without work-for-hire contracts, and they don't get copyright ownership."
You don't need to have a work for hire contract in order for the work to be considered work for hire.
17 U.S.C. § 101:
A "work made for hire" is—(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or(2) ... if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire ...
The copyright for the assistant's work belongs to the main photographer because the assistant is his employee. That obviously doesn't apply to the monkeys.
"The camera didn't appear in the jungle by itself, all ready with the right lens, settings set, and so on.. It also didn't edit itself, or post-process itself."
You're right. It was in the jungle with the right lens & settings for some *other* shots, not the ones in question.
Erusbim: The article is misleading. It says the monkey "grabbed his camera and proceeded to take hundreds of photos of itself." All it really did was grab a camera renowned for its wide FOV lens and examine it while it was recording video. Even a monkey can do that.
"All it really did was grab a camera renowned for its wide FOV lens and examine it while it was recording video."
Where did you hear that? That's not what the photographer himself is quoted as saying:
"... it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button. The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it."
PaulStimac: If Wikipedia wins then there's tons of amazing work that will be up for grabs. National Geo. relies heavily on camera traps:
Marketing and the number of people seeing the photo does not make it a good photo.
Editing, sure, but not moreso than composition.
"Who holds the copyright to his work...the cameraman or the TV station?We all know the answer to that!"
The TV station does... because he is an employee and the video is a part of his employment or has a contact with a work-for-hire clause in it.
"The monkey took the shots with the photographer's camera already set to take those pictures."
The photographer set up the camera to take *those* shots? Where did you get that? Everything I've read about this says it was unexpected on his part.
But I don't think owning the tools in general means you have a right to their creative output.
"Once you advance in photography, you'll find that composition is the least important aspect of photography."
"The only thing the monkey did was point the camera and press the button, which is insignificant as far as photography goes."
Composition and moment are insignificant as far as photography goes? I know this dpreview, but... really?
"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 "
You are very wrong. The camera makers and software makers own numerous intellectual property forms concerning that stuff - patents, copyrights to the software (including camera firmware), mask works...
DBE: If this is really about deciding the legitimacy of a copyright claim, I would agree with the analogy of photos taken by a lightning or hummingbird trigger. No one would argue that the photographer who set up the rig to capture an event triggered "by nature" should be denied copyright or the right to sell the image for profit. The only difference here is that the event appeared to be an accident - the camera was stolen by the monkey - but like a "trigger photo" the camera had been switched on and the controls set by the photographer. My vote goes against Wikimedia ...
People who set up triggers at least compose the shot and have some sort of intended result in mind when they do this.
They don't just put the camera down somewhere with no intention of a photo being taken and wait for an animal to pick it up, compose a shot and pose for it.
Prairie Pal: To further the argument that the monkey did not set up the camera and process the images; it also did not own the camera. When a monkey can walk into the store, ask for a specific camera and gear, pay for it with it's OWN money, charge the batteries, learn to use it and then snap a picture..I will concede that it owns the rights to the image. Wiki is only doing this because it has money to indulge itself in this kind of legal horse play.
So you're saying owning the property directly involved in the production of the image means you own the copyright to the image?