Wikimedia, the non-profit organisation behind Wikipedia, has refused a photographer’s repeated requests to stop distributing his most famous shot for free – because a monkey pressed the shutter button and should own the copyright
Because the monkey clicked the shutter ?
Monkey owns it
Monkey owns it
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Monkey owns it
Wow! What a fantastic, human-like smile! It's Profound! Of course the monkey can't own the shot, how ridiculous. It was set up completely by the photographer. Probably the macaque has more sense than many humans. However, I'm glad the pic is not being removed due to copyright, as I feel this pic makes humans think hard on nature, how we treat animals & thus is good to be available for all.
Monkey owns it
If you think there's problems with a Chimp appearing in court, how about THIS Animal Photographer?
As for having the legal right to hold a Copyright. Well, there is a sort of Legal Precedent (although I'm not sure what the outcome was).
Chimps should be recognized as 'legal persons,' lawsuits claim - CNN.com
As for having the legal right to hold a Copyright. Well, there is a sort of Legal Precedent (although I'm not sure what the outcome was).
Chimps should be recognized as 'legal persons,' lawsuits claim - CNN.com
Monkey owns it
FourPart;1461504 wrote: If you think there's problems with a Chimp appearing in court, how about THIS Animal Photographer?
As for having the legal right to hold a Copyright. Well, there is a sort of Legal Precedent (although I'm not sure what the outcome was).
Chimps should be recognized as 'legal persons,' lawsuits claim - CNN.com
I might have to reconsider all my thoughts on the subject................or not...............maybe.
As for having the legal right to hold a Copyright. Well, there is a sort of Legal Precedent (although I'm not sure what the outcome was).
Chimps should be recognized as 'legal persons,' lawsuits claim - CNN.com
I might have to reconsider all my thoughts on the subject................or not...............maybe.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Monkey owns it
AnneBoleyn;1461499 wrote: Wow! What a fantastic, human-like smile! It's Profound! Of course the monkey can't own the shot, how ridiculous. It was set up completely by the photographer. Probably the macaque has more sense than many humans. However, I'm glad the pic is not being removed due to copyright, as I feel this pic makes humans think hard on nature, how we treat animals & thus is good to be available for all.
Actually, the article says the critter hijacked the camera and spent the day taking selfies.
Actually, the article says the critter hijacked the camera and spent the day taking selfies.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Monkey owns it
I meant it was set up by the photographer for being there with the intent to take photos. Thieving monkey!
Monkey owns it
AnneBoleyn;1461521 wrote: I meant it was set up by the photographer for being there with the intent to take photos. Thieving monkey!
Yeah! They got no sense of property.
Yeah! They got no sense of property.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Monkey owns it
Funnily enough, I was half listening to something on the radio last night (as I was in the process of dozing off) regarding copyright of photographs. There was mention of the copyright belonging to the person who owns the material, but even that was in doubt.
I know that standard copyright (for Music, anyway) is 100 years after the death of the copyright holder (it used to be 100 years after the writing or publication of the piece, but that was always being questioned, so it was standardised). However, if it is the property of the material owner (ie, the camera), then the copyright would remain the property of the owner of the camera in perpetuity, so long as ownership is passed from one person to the next, so I very much doubt that is the case. Otherwise ancient manuscripts of music would never be out of copyright, so long as someone (usually the Church) still owns the original handwritten copy.
Another legal point - isn't there an age limit at which someone can legally own a copyright, or does it have to be held by their parent / guardian. In which case, how old was the chimp? Wouldn't he have been classed as a minor?
I know that standard copyright (for Music, anyway) is 100 years after the death of the copyright holder (it used to be 100 years after the writing or publication of the piece, but that was always being questioned, so it was standardised). However, if it is the property of the material owner (ie, the camera), then the copyright would remain the property of the owner of the camera in perpetuity, so long as ownership is passed from one person to the next, so I very much doubt that is the case. Otherwise ancient manuscripts of music would never be out of copyright, so long as someone (usually the Church) still owns the original handwritten copy.
Another legal point - isn't there an age limit at which someone can legally own a copyright, or does it have to be held by their parent / guardian. In which case, how old was the chimp? Wouldn't he have been classed as a minor?
Monkey owns it
In EU, and US, it is traditionally 70 years after the death of author/owner.
I am wondering, though, if the Photographer got a Model Release from that Monkey.
I am wondering, though, if the Photographer got a Model Release from that Monkey.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Monkey owns it
The photographer is now claiming that the monkey was his assistant. As an assistant, the monkey would have no claim to the creations of his boss no matter who held the camera.
Monkey owns it
FourPart;1461539 wrote: Funnily enough, I was half listening to something on the radio last night (as I was in the process of dozing off) regarding copyright of photographs. There was mention of the copyright belonging to the person who owns the material, but even that was in doubt.
I had a website that I hoped to sell stuff on behalf of the manufacturer, he supplied photographs of his own products in situ, fitted by his partner, the partnership then broke up.
I was then threatened by the former partner to take down his photographs, despite the photos subject being the product of my new partner on our website.
After a minimum of research the intellectual property rights reside with the photographer, unless they sell you full rights.
So that is a potentially rich monkey.
I had a website that I hoped to sell stuff on behalf of the manufacturer, he supplied photographs of his own products in situ, fitted by his partner, the partnership then broke up.
I was then threatened by the former partner to take down his photographs, despite the photos subject being the product of my new partner on our website.
After a minimum of research the intellectual property rights reside with the photographer, unless they sell you full rights.
So that is a potentially rich monkey.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Monkey owns it
Wandrin;1461544 wrote: The photographer is now claiming that the monkey was his assistant. As an assistant, the monkey would have no claim to the creations of his boss no matter who held the camera.
That would be difficult to prove.......but a good try.
That would be difficult to prove.......but a good try.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Monkey owns it
Bruv;1461545 wrote: I had a website that I hoped to sell stuff on behalf of the manufacturer, he supplied photographs of his own products in situ, fitted by his partner, the partnership then broke up.
I was then threatened by the former partner to take down his photographs, despite the photos subject being the product of my new partner on our website.
After a minimum of research the intellectual property rights reside with the photographer, unless they sell you full rights.
So that is a potentially rich monkey.
Not necessarily so.
When my Father was alive he worked for Dunlop & in so doing had his name on many of the Patents - one being that of the Pyramid Tea Bag. Although originally being intended as an Underground Fuel Tank, the same design applies to the patent, regardless of size or material, and was also used by the old Kia Ora Orange Cartons.
The point being, of course, that as an employee of Dunlop he didn't get a penny for his patents over & above his standard salary. The rights automatically belonged to Dunlop, as his employer. Therefore if the chimp was the photographer's assistant, he could be classed as his Employee.
I was then threatened by the former partner to take down his photographs, despite the photos subject being the product of my new partner on our website.
After a minimum of research the intellectual property rights reside with the photographer, unless they sell you full rights.
So that is a potentially rich monkey.
Not necessarily so.
When my Father was alive he worked for Dunlop & in so doing had his name on many of the Patents - one being that of the Pyramid Tea Bag. Although originally being intended as an Underground Fuel Tank, the same design applies to the patent, regardless of size or material, and was also used by the old Kia Ora Orange Cartons.
The point being, of course, that as an employee of Dunlop he didn't get a penny for his patents over & above his standard salary. The rights automatically belonged to Dunlop, as his employer. Therefore if the chimp was the photographer's assistant, he could be classed as his Employee.
Monkey owns it
FourPart;1461549 wrote: Therefore if the chimp was the photographer's assistant, he could be classed as his Employee.
If my photographer had been an employee of the one that supplied me the photos.
If my Aunt had testes she would be my uncle.
It is a very big word IF
If my photographer had been an employee of the one that supplied me the photos.
If my Aunt had testes she would be my uncle.
It is a very big word IF
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Monkey owns it
Maybe they could compromise and give any royalties to animal charities.
Monkey owns it
The photographer was being interviewed on 5 Live last night.
It appears that he is actually a wildlife photographer (s opposed to a studio photographer, which previous reports tended to imply), and in order to get the shots he had been living with a group of monkeys in order to gain their trust so he could get some close ups.
It seems that he had set the camera up on the tripod with a cable shutter release & this one got curious, came up & simply pressed the shutter. He actually said that it was almost as if the monkey was his assistant & that the photo that caused all the fuss has been greatly cropped, totally changing the context of the entire photo.
It appears that he is actually a wildlife photographer (s opposed to a studio photographer, which previous reports tended to imply), and in order to get the shots he had been living with a group of monkeys in order to gain their trust so he could get some close ups.
It seems that he had set the camera up on the tripod with a cable shutter release & this one got curious, came up & simply pressed the shutter. He actually said that it was almost as if the monkey was his assistant & that the photo that caused all the fuss has been greatly cropped, totally changing the context of the entire photo.
Monkey owns it
Free publicity for his business then, worth a lot more than a single photo.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth