Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 06 Aug 2014 (Wednesday) 10:24
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'

 
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
14,805 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
Oct 11, 2014 11:55 |  #226

DoughnutPhoto wrote in post #17207015external link
I suppose it's intellectual property at the heart of this story. If you set up a shoot you invest your intellectual property into a photograph and therefore have copyright. If someone borrows your camera he doesn't benefit from intellectual property and you have no copyright.

The phrase "intellectual property" in U.S. usage refers to the product, not to your creative thoughts or your methods or anything like that. An image or a musical composition is an item of intellectual property.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
sandpiper's Avatar
7,170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2006
Merseyside, England
Oct 11, 2014 12:04 |  #227

DoughnutPhoto wrote in post #17207015external link
Ah, if the story is that the monkey stole the camera, then naturally there is no copyright for the camera owner. Same kind of deal if I borrow a camera from someone and in a fluke get a fantastic image - then the camera owner doesn't have copyright to that.

I was under the impression that the story was that the photographer set up the camera and tripod and everything (which is what I would expect) and the monkey happened to push the shutter out of curiosity. Then the camera would've been set up with this shoot in mind... different story.

Yes, there are two stories. The story as originally released by the press was that the monkey stole the camera, ran off with it, and when Slater got it back there were a large number of images on it, including a couple of "selfies" and one of the photographer trying to get the camera back. This story was supposedly put out by his agent. Obviously, it makes a much more saleable story than if Slater took the shots himself, which could explain why his agent would use it. Of course this would rule him out of getting copyright and it would be public domain.

The other story is that he set everything up on a tripod, and persuaded the macaques to come and play with the camera, so completely under his control and copyright applies of course.

In each case the copyright situation is clear, it just depends on which story actually applies. The problem is that Wikimedia have accepted the more widely publicised version ("a monkey stole my camera") as being the true one, and that the tripod version has been concocted because of the copyright issue that arose once they said the image was public domain.

My personal belief, as I have stated before in this thread, is that the tripod version is the correct one. However, the agent (if correctly quoted) has really confused the issue by putting out the other version, and thrown real doubt over the whole copyright situation, causing the whole problem.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,040 posts
Joined Mar 2012
PEI, Canada
Oct 11, 2014 12:13 |  #228

And that there IS doubt over the nature of the photo's copyright is why I feel that Wikipedia and its related organizations are in the wrong for not giving ground over the issue.

If I donate money to them, then I want them to be doing everything in their power to ensure that my money is helping them keep the lights on and legal data flowing, and not risking that my money ends up in a lawyer's pocket or as part of a settlement paid out to someone lawfully suing them over copyright violations.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Lucklessexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
monkey44's Avatar
724 posts
Joined Jul 2003
Oct 11, 2014 12:28 |  #229

Luckless wrote in post #17207094external link
And that there IS doubt over the nature of the photo's copyright is why I feel that Wikipedia and its related organizations are in the wrong for not giving ground over the issue.

If I donate money to them, then I want them to be doing everything in their power to ensure that my money is helping them keep the lights on and legal data flowing, and not risking that my money ends up in a lawyer's pocket or as part of a settlement paid out to someone lawfully suing them over copyright violations.

Luckless, you've hit on an interesting point here. When there is doubt, it should go to what makes common sense here. The monkey had no intent, Slater did have intent, and in a way, "Got Lucky" (well, now maybe unlucky) ... so in my own mind, personally, I'd think when doubt occurs (and doubt certainly exists here) ... not doubt about who and how the image exists, but a simple doubt about the copyright and intent and ownership, etc. in that regard (as in most legal interpretations of laws -- e.g. beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases) then Slater should get the benefit of that doubt.

As so often the case in legal issues -- one might think "justice is served" -- that doesn't mean the issue is ethically or morally resolved, but only 'technically' resolved because no one considered this kind of issue when copyright policy became law ...

When we consider the point raised earlier -- ask someone, or be asked, to take a photo of a couple on vacation. Altho we probably all agree it belongs to the couple, that issue could easily make a court appearance resolve it simply because a person decided to 'cash in' on a circumstance. So, then we have a legal battle, not because ownership's obvious, but because someone decided "doubt exists' in the interpretation of a law ... that's why our court system is so full, and unable to truly function as it should.




LOG IN TO REPLY
DoughnutPhoto
Senior Member
Joined Aug 2014
the Netherlands
Oct 11, 2014 14:04 |  #230

Luckless wrote in post #17207094external link
And that there IS doubt over the nature of the photo's copyright is why I feel that Wikipedia and its related organizations are in the wrong for not giving ground over the issue.

If I donate money to them, then I want them to be doing everything in their power to ensure that my money is helping them keep the lights on and legal data flowing, and not risking that my money ends up in a lawyer's pocket or as part of a settlement paid out to someone lawfully suing them over copyright violations.

I am going to play Wikipedia's advocate here. Basically WIkipedia is being accused of causing harm to a photographer. But, there is clearly reasonable doubt as to which story is actually true and if Wikipedia had any persuading evidence one way or the other. Shouldn't the law system then say "Well, you're innocent until proven guilty", and if there is doubt it's impossible to find Wikipedia guilty of any charges... This is of course my opinion and riddled with errors as I am not an attorney.

(Oh, I should've used "creative input" rather than "intellectual property" before, as copyright isn't a patent... but i got my point across which i'm happy about ;) )


Canon 5d, 60d, 17-40mm L, 30mm Art, 50mm, 85mm

LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,040 posts
Joined Mar 2012
PEI, Canada
Oct 11, 2014 14:41 |  #231

DoughnutPhoto wrote in post #17207247external link
I am going to play Wikipedia's advocate here. Basically WIkipedia is being accused of causing harm to a photographer. But, there is clearly reasonable doubt as to which story is actually true and if Wikipedia had any persuading evidence one way or the other. Shouldn't the law system then say "Well, you're innocent until proven guilty", and if there is doubt it's impossible to find Wikipedia guilty of any charges... This is of course my opinion and riddled with errors as I am not an attorney.

(Oh, I should've used "creative input" rather than "intellectual property" before, as copyright isn't a patent... but i got my point across which i'm happy about ;) )

No, they were still wilfully setting themselves up for a potentially costly court case.

People donate money to them so they can host information and media within the public domain. There are lots of people who are happy to provide work and open it to the public domain, and I have several things released under opensource and creative commons licensing. Their response to any question of copyright that casts any doubt on the legality of them hosting the material should be "Oh, someone is questioning the copyright status of this image? *DELETE*"


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Lucklessexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark0159
I say stupid things all the time
Mark0159's Avatar
12,699 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Joined Mar 2003
Hamilton, New Zealand
Oct 11, 2014 15:56 |  #232

DoughnutPhoto wrote in post #17207247external link
I am going to play Wikipedia's advocate here. Basically WIkipedia is being accused of causing harm to a photographer. But, there is clearly reasonable doubt as to which story is actually true and if Wikipedia had any persuading evidence one way or the other. Shouldn't the law system then say "Well, you're innocent until proven guilty", and if there is doubt it's impossible to find Wikipedia guilty of any charges... This is of course my opinion and riddled with errors as I am not an attorney.

(Oh, I should've used "creative input" rather than "intellectual property" before, as copyright isn't a patent... but i got my point across which i'm happy about ;) )

if WIkipeida is being a responsible company that it should be so it should be taking the high ground in this case and believe the photographer. No company should have the right over an individual.

This is showing Wikipedia to be the same as any company, self interest rather than the greater good.


Mark
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/52782633@N04 (external link)
Canon EOS 6D | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM | Tamron SP 35mm F1.8 Di VC USD | Canon Speedlite 550EX -|- Film | Canon EOS 3 | Olympus OM2 | Zuiko 35mm f2

LOG IN TO REPLY
Michael101
Member
74 posts
Joined Jun 2011
Tucson, Az
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by Michael101.
Oct 12, 2015 08:53 |  #233

joedlh wrote in post #17082075 (external link)
RichSoansPhotos wrote in post #17082069 (external link)
If the monkey owns the copyright, surely whoever is using that photo of the monkey are seriously taking advantage of that monkey

Which surely will get the attention of animal rights proponents and provocateurs. I'll be waiting for PETA to take up the cause.

Oh, they did...

Monkey who took grinning 'selfie' should own copyright: U.S. lawsuit (external link)

PETA asked the court to declare Naruto the author and copyright owner of the photos, and to award the monkey damages.

It also sought a court order letting PETA and a noted primatologist, Dr. Antje Engelhardt of Georg-August University, Gottingen, Germany, administer Naruto's rights on condition that all proceeds be used solely for the benefit of him, his family and community, "including the preservation of their habitat."




LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Alveric's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
Canada
Oct 12, 2015 09:21 |  #234

The world is full of eejits...


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark0159
I say stupid things all the time
Mark0159's Avatar
12,699 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Joined Mar 2003
Hamilton, New Zealand
Jan 07, 2016 17:50 |  #235

here is an update on this topic :)

http://petapixel.com ...ght-to-his-famous-selfie/ (external link)

A federal judge in San Francisco said yesterday that he’s planning to dismiss the case, ruling that the monkey cannot own the copyright to photos.

But this isn't the end of the case

Even though Judge Orrick plans on dismissing the case, he has given PETA permission to file an amended lawsuit, and the animal rights group says it plans to do just that.


Mark
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/52782633@N04 (external link)
Canon EOS 6D | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM | Tamron SP 35mm F1.8 Di VC USD | Canon Speedlite 550EX -|- Film | Canon EOS 3 | Olympus OM2 | Zuiko 35mm f2

LOG IN TO REPLY
Michael101
Member
74 posts
Joined Jun 2011
Tucson, Az
Feb 03, 2016 17:28 |  #236

PETA is still trying...

Selfie-Loving Monkey Has Second Chance to Sue for Copyright Infringement (external link)

David A. Schwarz, the macaque’s attorney, even “analogized Naruto’s supposed inability to own a copyright to an enslaved African-American’s inability to own a patent prior to the adoption of the 14th amendment.” To rule “in favor of the macaque,” Schwarz asserts, “would be a progressive step forward similar to women’s emancipation, or the liberation of the slaves.”




LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
52,855 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Sep 12, 2017 04:53 |  #237

ANd it looks like finally a settlement has been reached. Monkey gets 25%.
http://www.foxnews.com ...monkeys-selfie-photo.html (external link)


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

20,963 views & 0 likes for this thread
Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.0045 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is GESWhoPhoto
970 guests, 449 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016