Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'

 
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Aug 24, 2014 15:59 |  #196

Charlie wrote in post #17115110 (external link)
it's silly. Focus trapping..... nature literally triggers the camera. It's basically the same as what mr slater did. You setup a scenario that uses nature as a trigger..... so all of you hummingbird catchers, give up your photos, they belong to the public........

If you see the original language of the copyright law, it says:

"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."

this photo was NOT produced solely by nature. Mr. Slater himself said that he set it up. IMO, no different from focus trapping.

He has said that NOW, and that version where he set it up on a tripod and controlled the whole scenario, is no different from focus trapping so yes, copyright is applicable.

The problem is that the images were released with the story about the monkey stealing the camera. In that scenario, there is no human input and copyright does not apply.

The problem in Slater's case is the original story. If it is true, he does not hold copyright. If it was false, then he (or his agent) is an idiot for saying it because it removes the copyright.

Whether copyright actually exists on that image now depends on which story is true, and there is no point in us debating it as only Slater knows the truth. The fact that copyright is in doubt is entirely down to him (or his agent) trying to make more money by telling the world the original story.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jecottrell
Senior Member
324 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Nov 2012
Location: Tucson, AZ
     
Aug 24, 2014 16:05 as a reply to  @ sandpiper's post |  #197

So, if you have smile detection, does the person that smiled own the copyright?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,142 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6243
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 24, 2014 16:05 |  #198

sandpiper wrote in post #17115135 (external link)
He has said that NOW, and that version where he set it up on a tripod and controlled the whole scenario, is no different from focus trapping so yes, copyright is applicable.

The problem is that the images were released with the story about the monkey stealing the camera. In that scenario, there is no human input and copyright does not apply.

The problem in Slater's case is the original story. If it is true, he does not hold copyright. If it was false, then he (or his agent) is an idiot for saying it because it removes the copyright.

Whether copyright actually exists on that image now depends on which story is true, and there is no point in us debating it as only Slater knows the truth. The fact that copyright is in doubt is entirely down to him (or his agent) trying to make more money by telling the world the original story.

well, the only original story I've read so far, is the telegraph article that's linked to the article in the TS. You've got to take those articles with a grain of salt. It's a news publishing, and .............. yeah, they have editors that edit the crap out of stories. The fact that it's broken down section by section with quotes is a dead giveaway that the original story was dressed up a bit. It wouldnt be the first time a news organization presented half truths. He's the only guy there, and if the photog says he set it up, then he did it.

I happen to believe he set it up, otherwise, who brings a tripod to capture monkeys? Seems so cumbersome, unless he were to stage something for more intimate photos.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Aug 24, 2014 16:06 |  #199

Charlie wrote in post #17115110 (external link)
it's silly. Focus trapping..... nature literally triggers the camera. It's basically the same as what mr slater did. You setup a scenario that uses nature as a trigger..... so all of you hummingbird catchers, give up your photos, they belong to the public........

No. Triggers are ok. You are a photographer. Just as you are a hunter if you use traps to catch your animals.

You are not a photographer if the animal randomly picks up your gear and manages to take pictures. Just as you aren't a hunter if the elk runs into your car and breaks the neck.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,142 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6243
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 24, 2014 16:09 |  #200

pwm2 wrote in post #17115151 (external link)
No. Triggers are ok. You are a photographer. Just as you are a hunter if you use traps to catch your animals.

You are not a photographer if the animal randomly picks up your gear and manages to take pictures. Just as you aren't a hunter if the elk runs into your car and breaks the neck.

well sure, if I leave my camera outside all day and some monkey ran off with it and took photos, that would be pretty random. There's a video in the TS link that says this event is anything but random.

anyhow enjoy your day gents, I'm going out shooting.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
19,084 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6864
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Aug 24, 2014 16:11 |  #201

sandpiper wrote in post #17115135 (external link)
The problem in Slater's case is the original story. If it is true, he does not hold copyright. If it was false, then he (or his agent) is an idiot for saying it because it removes the copyright.

An associated problem now exists because he told two inconsistent stories. Juries don't go for that. It reduces one's credibility.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Aug 24, 2014 16:21 |  #202

Charlie wrote in post #17115149 (external link)
well, the only original story I've read so far, is the telegraph article that's linked to the article in the TS. You've got to take those articles with a grain of salt. It's a news publishing, and .............. yeah, they have editors that edit the crap out of stories. The fact that it's broken down section by section with quotes is a dead giveaway that the original story was dressed up a bit. It wouldnt be the first time a news organization presented half truths. He's the only guy there, and if the photog says he set it up, then he did it.

I happen to believe he set it up, otherwise, who brings a tripod to capture monkeys? Seems so cumbersome, unless he were to stage something for more intimate photos.

Yeah, I also happen to believe he set it up. The shot looks like a tripod shot rather than the monkey happening to hold the camera that way around whilst pressing the button. The telegraph is a broadsheet though and does have pretty good journalistic standards. However, I looked at that link again and see that the Daily Mail seems to be more at the heart of it, and they have a pretty dodgy reputation for very biased reporting where they twist things to the story they want to tell, and happily use quotes out of context to misrepresent things. They are a dodgy tabloid only marginally better than "the Sun".

But, with that story out there, Wikimedia has something to hang its argument on, that it is public domain. If Slater wants to get this sorted out, his fight isn't with Wikimedia, it is with the Daily Mail and the press. He needs to challenge them and take them to court for costing him money by causing the whole copyright issue. That will depend on what they said, compared to what was in the press release from Slaters agent.

As I say though, we don't know the truth, it is up to Slater to sort it out in the courts. It is unfortunate, but that is the way this particular cookie has crumbled.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,436 posts
Likes: 2393
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Aug 24, 2014 17:34 |  #203

Still, Slater as a working pro should have had the image copyrighted. Huge mistake on his part.


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
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
726 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2003
     
Aug 24, 2014 17:38 |  #204

Unfortunately, this issue is not resolvable in an easy manner, because of the way it came out, and all the BS after it ... I happen to be a journalist (American) as well, and it hits me to the core here that a guy can go out in the field, work hard, gets shots no one else gets, and some tweak / quirk in the way it presents ends up in the courts.

I'm a firm believe in freedom of the press, copyright issues, and all that goes with it. The only thing positive I can redeem from this situation, Slater got publicity - a ton of it - and if nothing else, that will help him in the future. AND, if he has other images as support for this one (from that trip and that event) he can create a series and story that will make him money -- that one image can be used by anyone, but the others cannot. And only Slater can use those ... so, maybe it can still work for him in a alternate way. I personally would give up the rights to one image if it gave me that kind of publicity ( :) )- but of course, that would be a choice instead of a force.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Aug 24, 2014 18:10 |  #205

gjl711 wrote in post #17115281 (external link)
Still, Slater as a working pro should have had the image copyrighted. Huge mistake on his part.

Yes, but he is in the UK. We don't have a system of registering copyright the way you do in the USA.

He could have registered it in the US, of course, but this isn't something UK photographers do unless they expect the US to be a main source of income for them.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Aug 24, 2014 18:12 |  #206

sandpiper wrote in post #17115324 (external link)
Yes, but he is in the UK. We don't have a system of registering copyright the way you do in the USA.

A significant part of the world do not have any "copyright office" for registration of copyright.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Aug 24, 2014 18:20 |  #207

pwm2 wrote in post #17115325 (external link)
A significant part of the world do not have any "copyright office" for registration of copyright.

Yes, I appreciate that. We don't generally find a need to give money to the US government for something our own government gives us for nothing. Registering our copyright in the US would only help if we decided to fight in the US courts, and that is so expensive that we just aren't going to do it, except in very exceptional circumstances.

Sure, a full time professional, shooting major shoots with big money involved will do it, but it generally is just going to be money out for no return for non US citizens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,886 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2532
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Aug 27, 2014 08:58 |  #208

Monkey Selfie Can't Be Copyrighted, U.S. Regulators Confirm


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Sep 01, 2014 16:55 as a reply to  @ PhotosGuy's post |  #209

So I'm confused. On one part it says it "comes down on the side of humans" but then later cites it as a work that isn't eligible for copyright. If it's not eligible, neither the animal nor the human can copyright it, correct? Do I misunderstand this?


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Sep 01, 2014 17:15 |  #210

kfreels wrote in post #17130138 (external link)
So I'm confused. On one part it says it "comes down on the side of humans" but then later cites it as a work that isn't eligible for copyright. If it's not eligible, neither the animal nor the human can copyright it, correct? Do I misunderstand this?

Yeah, you have it right. Works that are created by animals, with no human input, are not eligible for copyright, that is how it has been for many years (and probably always). Copyright can only reside in a work that has a human author, it needs to be intentionally created with their labour, skill and judgement.




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

27,962 views & 1 like for this thread
Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is reservengineer
987 guests, 315 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.