Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'

sandpiper wrote in post #17130156
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.

Right. So I'm trying to figure out the headline. Sounds like the Monkey wins. lol

A dingo ate the copyright.

kfreels wrote in post #17130736
Right. So I'm trying to figure out the headline. Sounds like the Monkey wins. lol

Nobody wins, as the monkey cannot hold copright. The point of the law is that neither can a human, if they did not create the work through their own intent and endeavours.

If no human created the work, it is a result of natural or random events, why would ONE human be allowed to copyright it and control how all other humans see it and use it? The copyright act is there to protect the creations of human authors, if you didn't create it then why would you have copyright (short of a contract signing it over)? The law is "on the side of humans" because it prevents individual humans from copyrighting parts of nature which should be for ALL humans to enjoy equally.

sandpiper wrote in post #17131001
The law is "on the side of humans" because it prevents individual humans from copyrighting parts of nature which should be for ALL humans to enjoy equally.

I have trouble following this part of your explanation. Monkeys are part of nature, but photographic images of monkeys are artifacts that wouldn't exist without human action.

Despite the ruling, it seems to me that Mr. Slater has a better case for profiting from the photo than I do. I didn't buy his expensive equipment and lug it into the Indonesian jungle. All humans didn't invest equally in his enterprise, why should we have equal claims to its product?

OhLook wrote in post #17131402
I have trouble following this part of your explanation. Monkeys are part of nature, but photographic images of monkeys are artifacts that wouldn't exist without human action.

Despite the ruling, it seems to me that Mr. Slater has a better case for profiting from the photo than I do. I didn't buy his expensive equipment and lug it into the Indonesian jungle. All humans didn't invest equally in his enterprise, why should we have equal claims to its product?

It's because he worded the end of his paragraph improperly. But the first part of why copyright exists is correct - it's to protect the creative works of a creator. There is no concern for the enjoyment of all humans.

CRCchemist wrote in post #17131440
It's because he worded the end of his paragraph improperly. But the first part of why copyright exists is correct - it's to protect the creative works of a creator. There is no concern for the enjoyment of all humans.

Right. I'm just picking on the way the headline is written. It sounded like a human would get the copyright and the monkey would not. But then reading the article, the human doesn't get copyright either.

But regardless, just because he doesn't have copyright, doesn't mean he still can't make money off it. It just means he doesn't have exclusive right to make money off it. And I appreciate that he drug all his equipment out there, but the fact that the best pic of his whole session was one taken by a monkey is really his failure.

Teaching my dog how to press the shutter button, she keeps trying to lick the camera instead.

kfreels wrote in post #17131601
the fact that the best pic of his whole session was one taken by a monkey is really his failure.

Well, errr, I don't consider it a failure because that was the concept of his photoshoot. The difficult thing about this ruling is that it says that every bit of preparation for the shoot - finding a location, setting up composition on the tripod, examining lighting, and a host of other things - didn't count towards copyright. You could train a monkey to press the shutter (and in this case one has!) but a lot more effort goes into a photograph.

Hypothetically, I could walk up to a photographer on the street that's busy setting up his tripod and settings... press his shutter and shout: "HA! MY picture!". Judging from this ruling, I would actually have copyright for that picture I guess? (and sue the photographer for not giving me the image or deleting it...). I am pretty sure that's not what was intended by this court!

On the other hand... You could train 1.000.000 monkeys to type at a typewriter for 1.000.000 years (replace them sometimes) and one of them will write a best seller. I guess that is what happened here? And I can see a point here that no copyright is valid as there was little to no preparation involved... other than buying a lot of paper and equipment...

*puzzled*

DoughnutPhoto wrote in post #17206563
Well, errr, I don't consider it a failure because that was the concept of his photoshoot. The difficult thing about this ruling is that it says that every bit of preparation for the shoot - finding a location, setting up composition on the tripod, examining lighting, and a host of other things - didn't count towards copyright. You could train a monkey to press the shutter (and in this case one has!) but a lot more effort goes into a photograph.

Hypothetically, I could walk up to a photographer on the street that's busy setting up his tripod and settings... press his shutter and shout: "HA! MY picture!". Judging from this ruling, I would actually have copyright for that picture I guess? (and sue the photographer for not giving me the image or deleting it...). I am pretty sure that's not what was intended by this court!

No, you haven't understood the ruling. If you set up the camera, the composition, the situation etc., it doesn't matter who / what presses the shutter button, you are still the creator of the image and hold copyright. The problem in Slater's case is the story about the monkey stealing the camera and running off with it, as that means that he had no creative input into the results, therefore cannot be considered the creator and so cannot hold copyright. This is the way it has always been with copyright, you need to have intentionally created the image, copyright requires creative input.

Setting the camera up on a tripod, choosing the scene / composition, lens, camera settings and waiting for a monkey to come up and trip the shutter is creative input and so copyright is applicable. Wikimedias argument is based on the other story that was originally released by the press, the "monkey stole my camera" version.

sandpiper wrote in post #17206939
No, you haven't understood the ruling. If you set up the camera, the composition, the situation etc., it doesn't matter who / what presses the shutter button, you are still the creator of the image and hold copyright. The problem in Slater's case is the story about the monkey stealing the camera and running off with it, as that means that he had no creative input into the results, therefore cannot be considered the creator and so cannot hold copyright. This is the way it has always been with copyright, you need to have intentionally created the image, copyright requires creative input.

Setting the camera up on a tripod, choosing the scene / composition, lens, camera settings and waiting for a monkey to come up and trip the shutter is creative input and so copyright is applicable. Wikimedias argument is based on the other story that was originally released by the press, the "monkey stole my camera" version.

That's even stranger interpretation, as Slater brought the equipment, set it up, installed the lens, charged the battery, installed the CF card, and set the camera... so, in fact, he did a lot of what made it possible regardless of the final 'push the button' ...

This is the kind of thing that happens when we graduate too many attorneys that have nothing to do -- rip of a guy that checked all but ONE check-box out of about ten to create that image -- I'd sure like to see him win this, just based on principle alone.

monkey44 wrote in post #17206956
That's even stranger interpretation, as Slater brought the equipment, set it up, installed the lens, charged the battery, installed the CF card, and set the camera... so, in fact, he did a lot of what made it possible regardless of the final 'push the button' ...

.

None of which is relevant, if the monkey stole the camera. If I charge my battery, install a CF card, place a lens on etc., and go out to take some pictures, then put the camera down and some thief runs off with it, I don't get copyright on the images he has taken when the police return my camera 6 months later, simply because I "made it possible" for the images to be taken.

Why not give the copyright to the camera manufacturer? After all they made it possible by making the camera, or the retailer who sold Slater his camera? Maybe the airline that flew him to Indonesia? Without any of them, the camera wouldn't have been there either. You cannot claim copyright because you made it possible by leaving your camera lying around and someone (or a monkey) took it and ran off with it.

sandpiper wrote in post #17206995
None of which is relevant, if the monkey stole the camera. If I charge my battery, install a CF card, place a lens on etc., and go out to take some pictures, then put the camera down and some thief runs off with it, I don't get copyright on the images he has taken when the police return my camera 6 months later, simply because I "made it possible" for the images to be taken.

Why not give the copyright to the camera manufacturer? After all they made it possible by making the camera, or the retailer who sold Slater his camera? Maybe the airline that flew him to Indonesia? Without any of them, the camera wouldn't have been there either. You cannot claim copyright because you made it possible by leaving your camera lying around and someone (or a monkey) took it and ran off with it.

Not even close to the same thing --

We can always dig up 'odd situations' where someone or something adds "weird stuff" to a situation and attempts to justify in invalidation of copyright -- we all know he intended to setup and take photos with his gear -- INTENT ... once again, attorneys with nothing to do will fight over this for years (maybe) and no one wins but the attorneys. That monkey had NO intent ... and that should become a factor here.

We're beating a dead horse here -- me gone.

gjl711 wrote in post #17080228
I have to remember to charge those couples who ask if I can take their picture with their camera as technically I own the copyright. Dang, I have been giving away my hard work for free way too long.

LOL

battletone wrote in post #17079946
Another reason I refuse to donate each time Wikipedia pops up and asks.

For the number of times I have personally used Wikipedia, my donation has bee too little and I am ashamed of that in my conscious.
I will continue to donate anytime they ask for (Right now there is a request to donate between $3-20) and I dearly hope Wikipedia be available to all and specially my kids and their kids.

Be generous and there is nothing you loss by donation in long run.

sandpiper wrote in post #17206939
No, you haven't understood the ruling. If you set up the camera, the composition, the situation etc., it doesn't matter who / what presses the shutter button, you are still the creator of the image and hold copyright.

[...]

Wikimedias argument is based on the other story that was originally released by the press, the "monkey stole my camera" version.

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.

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 arguement about Canon or the airliner (or whatever) contributing to the image is flawed in this light. Yes, Canon invested a lot in making the camera and without a camera manufacturer the shoot wouldn't exist... but you bought the camera (or plane ticket) and these third parties had nothing to do with the shoot.

monkey44 wrote in post #17207000
Not even close to the same thing --

We can always dig up 'odd situations' where someone or something adds "weird stuff" to a situation and attempts to justify in invalidation of copyright -- we all know he intended to setup and take photos with his gear -- INTENT ... once again, attorneys with nothing to do will fight over this for years (maybe) and no one wins but the attorneys. That monkey had NO intent ... and that should become a factor here.

We're beating a dead horse here -- me gone.

Having intent to "take photos" does not count as creative input to any later shots taken by another being that runs off with the camera.

I don't understand your argument against what I said. Copyright law is clear that if a monkey runs off with your camera and takes pictures, then you do not hold copyright as you have no creative input. "owning the camera" is irrelevant, taking the camera into the jungle with the intent to take photos is irrelevant. You cannot hold copyright on images taken outside your control, with no creative input from you.

If you are referring to the version of events where he set up the camera on a tripod and was in control the whole time, then I have stated that copyright is his all along, so again I do not understand why you are arguing against what I said.