Simian selfie stupidity: Macaque snap sparks Wikipedia copyright row When a black macaque on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi took a selfie using photographer David Slater’s camera in 2011, it broke the barrier between man and monkey in more ways than one. Yes, it showed the world that speechless beasts are as self-obsessed – and location-aware – as humans. Give a monkey a camera and, …
"but often they just happen to be in the right place at the right time"
In the case under consideration, the right place was a remote part of Borneo and the right time required a fairly prolonged stay. I'd call that fairly heavy investment, but maybe you spend months lurking in tropical rain forests as part of your day job.
I'm fairly sure that the EXIF information coded into the photo by the camera would have included at least his name and probably copyright information. That, and the fact that he published the photo online and the world knew all about it would have been a fairly strong indicator that it was his.
How about he gives a monkey some knitting needles & a ball of wool. Who owns the resulting jumper?
Would some scrote be within their rights to nick the jumper from the washing line & take it for their own use?
Very disingenuous.
I think that Wikipedia's position is mistaken. Copyright law isn't like patent law, so just providing the camera is enough to own the copyright on an image. The macaque would have to be a human who didn't sign a work made for hire contract to shake that up. Anyways, Wikipedia can't afford to waste money on lawyers, and this is not a copyright issue of a sort that affects Internet freedom.
A while ago a book of Dorothy Parker's poetry was published in the UK (sorry, I don't have a citation, but bear with me). It seems that some of the poems in the book had been punctuated by someone else, who owned the copyrighyt to the puctuation. As he had not been paid for his work, the book was withdrawn.
If Mr Slater did any editing in Photoshop, Lightroom etc. (other editing tools may be available), then he undoubtedly owns the compyright on those, irrespective of whether he can be said to have the copyright of the original image. From my own experience, taking a properly exposed image of a very dark object, such as an ape or monkey is quite tricky,
The image on the front of today's Independent newspaper has, I suspect, been subject to some post processing (I'm sure there are readers of el Reg far better able to comment on this than I). The subject is suspiciously upright in the frame, which suggests to me that some editing has been done - an ape with the ability to take a selfie properly aligned to the vertical is doing a lot better than most Homo Sapiens.
And if I record a movie with a camcorder or a concert with my phone, then I own the copyright?
Exactly, right this is not the case.
The copyright is with the person who created the item, or caused it to be created.
For example, the company I work for owns the copyright for the software or documents I write. I do not. They tell me what to create on their behalf.
> Yes, you do. Come back after you've googled "derivative work".
No, he does not own the copyright, unless a contract between him/her and the artist exists, and gives him/her explicit permission to record, and also transfers copyright. Depending on the terms of the contract, the artist may very well retain copyright, as the contract may have allowed recording, but not transferred copyright.
Without a prior written agreement, not only he would not be creating a "derivative work", but he would be infringing on the artist's copyright and may be subject to fines.
Recording a movie with your camcorder in a movie theatre is illegal in the USA, precisely because of Copyright Law. Recording devices are - by default - forbidden when you attend a music concert of any kind, also because of Copyright Law.
Look on the back sleeve of any CD containing a recording of a "live" concert. The artist, or the artist's managers still retain copyright, and the copyright is explicitly stated on the CD sleeve.
Recording a concert with a mobile phone might give you the copyright to that recording but you won't have the rights to use it anywhere since the music is still the copyright of the original author. In the case of pictures it gets tricky. You have the copyright to the photo but you probably have no model release form from the band. If the concert is considered a private event that's all there is to it - you can take the photo (and they can also throw you out) but you can't use it. If the event is a public event you might be allowed to use such photos for non-commercial purposes but it's a big can of worms. Live CD recordings are done by professionals through the venue sound system and the band management would have commissioned someone to do them so the copyright is fully retained. Professional looking photos are either taken by commissioned photographers or photojournalists who either pay or are allowed to take photos for advertising purposes.
Been there, done that. Took some photos for a band in a local pub (just before they headlined the Bulldog Bash) and while there was no formal agreement between us we did verbally agree at the time that I wouldn't release any of the photos until after they'd seen them. Copyright was mine, but they retained some rights to use of their image. A lot more common than you might think, a lot of bands won't allow any photographers in until they sign a form basically granting the band all rights to the images. Makes you wonder why anyone nowadays even bothers doing music photography anymore...
"And if I record a movie with a camcorder or a concert with my phone, then I own the copyright? Exactly, right this is not the case."
Actually the legal answer is YES, you do in fact on a copyright on that recording. And if the movie-producers or concert-performers start selling copies of your recording then you can sue them into oblivion for violating your copyright. Any court in the 1st world will rule in your favor.
Of course the fact that you own your copyright does not magically cause their copyright to stop existing. If you attempt to start selling copies then they can sue you into oblivion for violating their copyright. Any court on the 1st world will rule in their favor.
There's copyright on the monkey photo, multiple copyrights on your camcorder vid.
There are many common cases where multiple overlapping copyrights exist in this manner. And what it means is that NO ONE can do anything with it, unless they have permission from all applicable copyright holders. Perhaps the most common case is when you buy a CD containing songs from multiple artists. Not only is that CD subject to overlapping copyrights of each performer, the publisher probably has a copyright on the composition of those particular songs in that particular order. No one can manufacture and sell that CD without permission from everyone.
I base this on the grounds that anyone who made a substantial contribution to an image has a portion of rights to that image. That includes lighting staff if they decided where to place the lights and balance the settings, but not if they just put them where the photographer told them where to put them and what settings to use ... a key difference and one that I believe has been argued in various courts long before now.
Slater set up the camera, tuned the settings, etc. The monkey hitting the shutter is an utter nonsense, otherwise the camera would own the rights to any picture that was taken with an auto-shutter ... the animals would own the rights to any picture which was taken with a trip wire ... an IR sensor ...etc.
Just putting this down to who hit the shutter is just utter stupidity IMHO, and any law which supports the owner simply as the person or entity that tripped the shutter is ... as is traditional to say ... an ass.
And so do I, but for a different reason: none who is a successful, well-liked professional respected in his field goes to work for the monkeyfest (pardon) that is WMF (Wackymedia Foundlings). Just look at the LinkedIns, when there is one, of anyone working in there. :(
"Give a million monkeys in a room a typewriter each and they will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare, it’s said."
It may be said, but...
"If there were as many monkeys as there are atoms in the observable universe typing extremely fast for trillions of times the life of the universe, the probability of the monkeys replicating even a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably minute." -- Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
The alternative formulation about "an infinite number of monkeys will eventually..." is also nonsense. An infinite number of monkeys will produce an infinite number of copies of the complete works of Shakespeare on their first go. (As well as an infinite number of copies of every other book ever written, infinite copies of every book it is possible to write, and an infinite amount of gibberish.)
I give money to Wikipedia. I contribute and edit at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is BRILLIANT!
But courtesy must rule, dear beloved Wikipedia. So cut the crap and kill the monkey's selfie already. There is no point in pulling punches over the 'copyright' of third-species created content. Stop acting like a silly monkey please and just do the courteous thing. There's already tsunami waves of human on human abuse dumping on all of us every single day of our lives amidst our 'civilization'. Just be the seriously superior humane being and be kind to others when appropriate and beneficial to others.
Mmm, you're such a good friend. I know you can do it.
> I give money to Wikipedia.
You should stop doing that pronto. You are feeding those drooling bastards getting a payslip from the WMF and making you and other well-intentioned contributors look like right idiots in the eyes of the public.
Let them starve and fuck off somewhere else (civil service?), then see if you can pick up the bits and salvage your good work and that of many others.
Per article on BBC cited in one of the comments here, Slater says he's lost 10,000 lbs. of revenue due to this Wikipedia thing. Someone could start a Kickstarter to help him out, and encourage him to give Wikipedia rights once the campaign succeeds.
[Dang, no monkey icon. :( ]
... sometimes. I.e. walks around on the keyboard. The other one never does.
My pianist cat also appears to enjoy classical music; whenever I lisen to something, he listens too. The other one doesn't like music at all; whenever I play some music she goes in the other room to take a nap.
This may all sound completely irrelevant and off-topic, but I don't believe it is.
The pianist cat has been doing this for a number of years, so I can reasonably conclude that (a) he is aware of what he is doing and (b) he derives some enjoyment out of it. At a minimum, I can't attribute to accident his jumping on the piano chair, then on the keyboard, then making piano sounds.
So, two questions:
1. If I recorded my pianist cat while he's playing, would that recording be considered an original work, and, if so, would it be subject to copyright?
2. If this recording is indeed an original work and is subject to copyright, who owns the copyright? I don't believe I own it, I didn't create these piano sounds, my cat did. I only recorded the sounds. Same exact thing as a recording engineer: Deutsche Grammophon's recording engineer doesn't own the copyrights to Maurizio Pollini's recording; it's Pollini and Deutsche Grammophon who own the copyrights.
In my view, my cat's recordings - if they existed - aren't copyrightable at all. I would have a very difficult time arguing that my cat is a pianist. I can't really see how Mr. Slater can reasonably argue that the monkey who took a selfie is a photographer.
>>"2. If this recording is indeed an original work and is subject to copyright, who owns the copyright? I don't believe I own it, I didn't create these piano sounds, my cat did."
You do own the copyright. You set up the cat, the piano, the recording equipment, waited for it to happen, edited out the part you were actually after (even if that were just cutting away the sliences where the cat wasn't walking about), and you then promulgated the work. It's yours. By your logic of not owning copyright because you just recorded what was there, no-photographer would ever own copyright on their photo because they just photographed what was there.
"I'm fairly sure that the EXIF information coded into the photo by the camera would have included at least his name and probably copyright information. That, and the fact that he published the photo online and the world knew all about it would have been a fairly strong indicator that it was his."
If you borrow my camera and take a picture with it, the EXIF data will say the photo belongs to me. The EXIF data will be wrong, because the camera does not know who is operating it or understand copyright law. Ownership of the camera is wholly irrelevant: even if I happen to use a stolen camera, the copyright in any photo I take belongs to me. The legal question here is quite simply: who "took" this photo, the hairy primate who pressed the button, or the (presumably less hairy) primate who adjusted the settings beforehand? The answer to that is difficult. Had the subject of the photo been human, the court would rule robustly that copyright belonged to them (or, if employed, to their employer).
(I have a barrister friend who specialises in copyright and patent law, I wonder what her take is, and how much it would cost?)
I remember the original story from 2011. When it first appeared in the Mail, the story was that the photographer had left his camera lying around, and was astonished to discover the selfie when he came back for it. Now he was present when it was taken.
If his original story was true, then the monkey has a good claim to be the photographer (and hence the copyright). If his new story is the true account then he has a good claim to the copyright.
Anyone know why the original story was different from his new account?
Who owns it if you take my phone I left laying out while I went to the bathroom and took it without my knowledge? Who owns it if you break into my house at night and take a selfie of yourself robbing me, but I later get back the phone?
I think the answer to these questions matters more than whether a monkey can hold copyright, since the monkey could only take a selfie with the camera the photographer owned.
> We’ve been here before with the open rights mob
Well, we've all been there before with the sensationalist journo mob, haven't we?
Tar us all with the same brush not, please. The very reason you could adorn your article with a photo of a macaque is because of its CC licence.
A different story are the utter drooling retards over at Wankypedia. Not necessarily those (few?) well-intentioned contributors, but the whole lets-suck-each-other's-dicks adminship and blood-sucking WMF employees. They all really should go and get themselves a real job someday.
Give the monkey a banana, and the photographer is the owner. The same thing goes if I'm paid for my work, and the person who pays me gets the benefits.
Such monkey business.
Of course, the owner could "license" the work and pay the monkey royalties for the use, but that is a subject of another story.
Incorrect. Transfers of copyright agreements must be signed and in writing.
You can't expect a monkey to understand a written agreement so you can't expect the monkey to sign a contract or agreement.
Anyway, as stated before, if the author is not human, it is not eligible for copyright protection. So there is no copyright to transfer.
1) The dispute over copyright is international; it is an arguable question whether to apply US, UK or Indonesian IP Law
2) Where copyright disputes are international, the "law of the shorter term" applies i.e. the duration of any copyright is the shortest of all the jurisdictions
3) The Monkey was the author of the photograph. It took the photograph, and the owner of the camera had no significant creative input into the work.
4) Under US law (and possibly other jurisdictions), only Humans can hold copyright. Since in this case the Monkey is the author, the work is Public Domain under US Law
5) Since in international disputes copyright is the shortest duration of all jurisdictions, the US law prevails and it must be accepted that the work is Public Domain
I'm with wikimedia on this one. the photographer set it up, but was not the author for copyright purposes. I'm not disputing the fact that it is unfair, unjust or that the photographer didn't put a significant amount of effort in to allow the photograph to be created, but if the monkey would have been the author (if they were human, for instance) and legally cannot be, then there is no author. We all know the law is an ass. This is a prime example.
If this photographer wanted the copyrights on these images then he should have taken the photographs. Classic catch 22 - as the percieved value in these images is that they were monkey selfies, and their actual value, because they are monkey selfies is 0. If he had taken the exact same images then they'd hold less percieved value, but more actual value. It's a technicality - but in law, technicalities matter.
Regardless, the photographer has finally got his front page and hence managed to get the full legal value of these images in terms of advertising. Watching him on the Beeb last night - I agree with him that copyright needs reform and is unfit for purpose in the 21st century. I hope he sells a lot more of his portfiolio due to this, sparks a proper debate on copyright and assists in inspiring others to get copyright reformed properly.
When challenging my IP qualifications, its a good idea to show me yours before I show mine. :-)
However, I said it was an arguable case - I didn't say anything about my IP qualifications, nor did I say that the argument I was making was guaranteed to win. However since I was a joint author of DeCSS (see bottom of http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Kesden/index.html) I did get some exposure to US Copyright law.
The requirement for a human author to be eligible for Copyright registration can be found in S.503.03 ("Works not capable of supporting a copyright claim.") of the regulations. The section on copyright.gov is down but there is a copy on copyright compendium (http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#503). Read the section 503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.- the title alone should be a big enough clue.
The main thing for me is he is claiming he could have sold copies of the picture for 10k over these few years. I call that complete bullshit. He may have got 2k in the first year, true, on a novelty factor. But, once that pic showed up in a couple of trendy magazines no one would have paid 10p for it afterwards...
So, copyright or no copyright, his claim is an attempt at wringing some cash out of an exhausted asset at someone else's expense. This kind of behaviour is what gives "copyright" a bad name.
True, however if the courts can ask for $9250 per song from someone found guilty of violating the copyright of others, then I don't think asking £10k total off of multiple defendants is actually much of an ask :)
Not arguing the rights or wrongs, simply pointing out the precedents for (inflated) damages in copyright cases.
> So, copyright or no copyright, his claim is an attempt at wringing some cash out of an exhausted asset at someone else's expense.
As long as that "someone else" is the Wankypedia Foundation, I'm totally up for it. Everyone else is getting a cut while doing sweet fuck all anyway.
Photographers have been arguing for decades that the person that presses the button own the photograph. This allows lazy bastards like Annie Leibovitz to sit on their arses issuing commands like "light that scene; put the props in an interesting arrangement; sort out the filters; calculate the exposure" and then step in at the last moment so that none of their army of actual creative people can claim to own the result.
Well, which is it? Is the owner the person that did all the work in preparing for the photograph, or the person that literally only lifted a finger?
"Can you point to one such claim, please?"
I can't point to one in print off the top of my head, but I have seen David Bailey, Leibovitz, Hill, and others make the statement either in real life or in interviews on TV. I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in the BBC series "Genius of Photography" in connection with a photographer who used a lot of props and extras.
Which is not to say that they're right under the letter of the law, but it is a common belief among professional photographers that it is dangerous to allow assistants to actually take the photograph.
I'm going to assume the photographer did all the post processing of the picture that Wikipedia are distributing for free & thus surely owns copyright of that evolution of the picture. The same as if someone creates a Pop Art version of the Mona Lisa & sells it....
Wikipedia may well be able to distribute the unprocessed picture taken by the monkey - if it's ever been posted online!
> I'm going to assume the photographer did all the post processing of the picture that Wikipedia are distributing for free & thus surely owns copyright of that evolution of the picture
If he doesn't, someone else does. The pictures in question contain no EXIF data whatsoever so could not be the originals from his camera. Those pics have been processed by someone else before they were uploaded to Wackpedia.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
