Reply to post: Re: No Slater did not intentionally set it up.

Petty PETA rapped by judges over monkey selfie copyright stunt

eldakka Silver badge

Re: No Slater did not intentionally set it up.

Further to the above post:

From Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain

US copyright office:

503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.

In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable


Under US law (we'll deal with elsewhere soon), you have to have made the creative contributions (the copyrightable aspects) to the image to have it qualify for any copyright protection (and then, it's only the creative aspects that get the copyright). Thus, you could argue that if the photographer had set up the camera, framed the shot, and simply let the monkey click the shutter, perhaps there is some copyright there (though, even then it would likely be limited to some of the framing, and not much else). But David Slater has already admitted that the monkeys found a camera he had left out by accident and that he did not have anything to do with setting up the shot. He's stated that the monkeys were playing with the shiny objects and when one pushed the shutter, the noise interested them and they kept it up. It would be difficult to argue he made any sort of creative contribution here to warrant copyright.

and also

Monkey See, Monkey Do, Monkey get Copyright, too?

However, irrespective of all the arguments around whether Slater is entitled to the copyright, my original point stands that the statement in the article is not what happened:

> Slater trekked out into the jungle and carefully set up the equipment at the right spot,

Slater in his initial statements about what happened said he accidentally left the camera lying around, the fact the camera was even out, let alone where it was, was an accident, there was nothing 'careful' about that setup.

It was only in later statements, after people like Jim Wales from Wikipedia said it was public domain did he change his story to having set it up.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019