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.