Monkey’s selfie cannot be copyrighted, US regulators say

Selfie by macaca nigra monkey is public domain, not owned by nature photographer.

Read the whole story

 

[ChickenHawk]

Seems to be the only logical solution to me.

Copyright is for work created by legal persons*. This work was created by a non person, as such noone can own the copyright.

Its not even that he could claim that he owned the monkey, and thus through that the work.

I dont see how the "photographer" person thought he had any claim to it because he owned the camera.

*Yes, Corporations are legal persons.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

We need laws protecting the intellectual property rights of simians! As a complement to our human-centric Copyrights, I propose we establish the broader, primate-oriented domain of Monkey-See-Monkey-Do-rights.

 

[Pluvia Arenae]

So, the next photographer whose camera is involved in a similar encounter with nature will just lie and say they physically held the camera the whole time.

 

[actua1]

Pluvia Arenae[/url]":2oca6t1f]So, the next photographer whose camera is involved in a similar encounter with nature will just lie and say they physically held the camera the whole time.

I for one welcome our new simian overlords

 

[infected]

Under UK federal law...

As a very english englishman, that just sounds so wrong.

I'm not even sure what the equivilent is, as we just have the Police, but we never say federal.

 

[Antron Argaiv]

"The minkey is an independent businessman"

 

[Meailda]

Aw dammit. And I finally was talked into promising my resident ghost to copyright his memoirs for him. Oh well I am thinking that taking that one back is going to haunt me till I move.

 

[Pluvia Arenae]

infected[/url]":2emh7jhj]

Under UK federal law...

As a very english englishman, that just sounds so wrong.

I'm not even sure what the equivilent is, as we just have the Police, but we never say federal.

Maybe because you're not a federation?

 

[ringobob]

I'm for looser copyright usage as much as the next guy, but this feels wrong to me. I can't quite put my finger on it, though.

 

[AndreaFaulds]

infected[/url]":3f9fm0cz]

Under UK federal law...

As a very english englishman, that just sounds so wrong.

I'm not even sure what the equivilent is, as we just have the Police, but we never say federal.

We don't even have states, we just have some devolution in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland.

"Under UK law" would be better.

 

[infected]

Pluvia Arenae[/url]":23wwuuau]

infected[/url]":23wwuuau]

Under UK federal law...

As a very english englishman, that just sounds so wrong.

I'm not even sure what the equivilent is, as we just have the Police, but we never say federal.

Maybe because you're not a federation?

You may be on to something there!

 

[jodyfanning]

In one other place I read a similar article where he was claiming that he deliberately set it up so that the monkey would take the camera, not that it was stolen. He had a tripod set up with the camera and encouraged the monkeys to try it out. And therefore since he cause the events that let the monkey take its own picture he should have the rights.

 

[Rand]

Does this mean that footage from surveillance cameras (taken by machines without human intervention) can't be copyrighted?

 

[AndreaFaulds]

jodyfanning[/url]":1a0rls46]In one other place I read a similar article where he was claiming that he deliberately set it up so that the monkey would take the camera, not that it was stolen. He had a tripod set up with the camera and encouraged the monkeys to try it out. And therefore since he cause the events that let the monkey take its own picture he should have the rights.

That was *after* the copyright dispute

 

[neil_w]

I'm having a hard time getting too worked up over this controversy because my brain keeps getting distracted by that picture. I am still dumbfounded by it.

 

[Pluvia Arenae]

ringobob[/url]":2wbqh7ep]I'm for looser copyright usage as much as the next guy, but this feels wrong to me. I can't quite put my finger on it, though.

Maybe because laws should be created and interpreted with an eye towards enforceability and consequences. This interpretation will encourage people to either lie about or hide the source of a photograph or not bother to publish it at all.

 

[AndreaFaulds]

Pluvia Arenae[/url]":14gfth30]So, the next photographer whose camera is involved in a similar encounter with nature will just lie and say they physically held the camera the whole time.

You could sue them for copyright fraud... but good luck proving it!

 

[infected]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":3fcdrcoe]

infected[/url]":3fcdrcoe]

Under UK federal law...

As a very english englishman, that just sounds so wrong.

I'm not even sure what the equivilent is, as we just have the Police, but we never say federal.

We don't even have states, we just have some devolution in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland.

"Under UK law" would be better.

That does sound a lot better, but I'd bet it's England and wales only, scotland makes their own rules and tend to be fairly straight forward, balanced and sensible.

 

[jodyfanning]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":2teyghbb]

jodyfanning[/url]":2teyghbb]In one other place I read a similar article where he was claiming that he deliberately set it up so that the monkey would take the camera, not that it was stolen. He had a tripod set up with the camera and encouraged the monkeys to try it out. And therefore since he cause the events that let the monkey take its own picture he should have the rights.

That was *after* the copyright dispute

After maybe, but here is the "alternative" story.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-07/i ... it-sparked

 

[AndreaFaulds]

infected[/url]":1zbjp2ka]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":1zbjp2ka]

infected[/url]":1zbjp2ka]

Under UK federal law...

As a very english englishman, that just sounds so wrong.

I'm not even sure what the equivilent is, as we just have the Police, but we never say federal.

We don't even have states, we just have some devolution in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland.

"Under UK law" would be better.

That does sound a lot better, but I'd bet it's England and wales only, scotland makes their own rules and tend to be fairly straight forward, balanced and sensible.

Copyright and the like are reserved matters, though.

 

[sorrykb1]

Forgive me if this has been covered before, but how would this impact "camera trap" photographs (such cameras equipped with infrared triggers set up in remote areas to photograph wildlife)?

 

[AndreaFaulds]

jodyfanning[/url]":jmj7ubxc]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":jmj7ubxc]

jodyfanning[/url]":jmj7ubxc]In one other place I read a similar article where he was claiming that he deliberately set it up so that the monkey would take the camera, not that it was stolen. He had a tripod set up with the camera and encouraged the monkeys to try it out. And therefore since he cause the events that let the monkey take its own picture he should have the rights.

That was *after* the copyright dispute

After maybe, but here is the "alternative" story.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-07/i ... it-sparked

It sounds like a lie, or at least bending the truth somewhat. I believe he previously claimed the monkey stole the camera and took hundreds of shots, with it just being happenstance that one or two weren't blurry messes.

 

[Polama]

Pluvia Arenae[/url]":281jnmqa]So, the next photographer whose camera is involved in a similar encounter with nature will just lie and say they physically held the camera the whole time.

It's a catch 22. The only reason this photo is of any interest is that it's a "selfie". If he claimed he took the picture, nobody would have cared about it.

 

[ChickenHawk]

infected[/url]":31eieebl]

Under UK federal law...

As a very english englishman, that just sounds so wrong.

I'm not even sure what the equivilent is, as we just have the Police, but we never say federal.

There isn't one, the UK isnt a federation.

I suppose "National" could be applied to laws that applied in EW/S/NI, but as they're three distinct legal systems even that would be wrong.

 

[Cryolithic]

United States copyright regulators are agreeing with Wikipedia's conclusion that a monkey's selfie cannot be copyrighted by a nature photographer whose camera was swiped by the ape in the jungle. The animal's selfie went viral.

It is in fact a monkey, not an ape.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

Bought what I expected. Anyway that photo looks "natural" compared to a lot of nature photos.

Has the nicest eyes too.

 

[ChickenHawk]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":3kyjakax]

infected[/url]":3kyjakax]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":3kyjakax]

infected[/url]":3kyjakax]

Under UK federal law...

As a very english englishman, that just sounds so wrong.

I'm not even sure what the equivilent is, as we just have the Police, but we never say federal.

We don't even have states, we just have some devolution in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland.

"Under UK law" would be better.

That does sound a lot better, but I'd bet it's England and wales only, scotland makes their own rules and tend to be fairly straight forward, balanced and sensible.

Copyright and the like are reserved matters, though.

Reseved matters (or Scotland making its own laws) in this case wouldnt be relevant. There isnt a "UK" Legal system, just E&W/S/NI. Acts that apply to Scotland apply as "Scottish" law. This has been the case since 1706 when Great Britian was formed, not just since devolution.

 

[CrookedKnight]

sorrykb1[/url]":1oyofvl5]Forgive me if this has been covered before, but how would this impact "camera trap" photographs (such cameras equipped with infrared triggers set up in remote areas to photograph wildlife)?

It does not, because those "traps" have been set up by a human with the specific intent of taking the pictures they took. The monkey here stole a camera that was sitting with the photographer's other equipment, turned it on and started taking pictures of its own accord, with no human intent to take pictures of anything at that time, much less simian selfies. Security cameras, infrared triggers, etc. are all set up with authorial intent.

 

[AndreaFaulds]

ChickenHawk[/url]":2ohkp12c]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":2ohkp12c]

infected[/url]":2ohkp12c]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":2ohkp12c]

infected[/url]":2ohkp12c]

Under UK federal law...

As a very english englishman, that just sounds so wrong.

I'm not even sure what the equivilent is, as we just have the Police, but we never say federal.

We don't even have states, we just have some devolution in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland.

"Under UK law" would be better.

That does sound a lot better, but I'd bet it's England and wales only, scotland makes their own rules and tend to be fairly straight forward, balanced and sensible.

Copyright and the like are reserved matters, though.

Reseved matters in this case wouldnt be relevant. There isnt a "UK" Legal system, just EW/S/NI. Acts that apply to Scotland apply as Scottish law. This has been the case since 1706 when Great Britian was formed.

True. Theoretically you might be able to get away with a crime under UK law in Scotland but not in England and Wales in court... but only theoretically.

 

[AndreaFaulds]

Cryolithic[/url]":2za0bsj5]

United States copyright regulators are agreeing with Wikipedia's conclusion that a monkey's selfie cannot be copyrighted by a nature photographer whose camera was swiped by the ape in the jungle. The animal's selfie went viral.

It is in fact a monkey, not an ape.

Let journalists have their word flair

 

[Pluvia Arenae]

Polama[/url]":5z6k5a22]

Pluvia Arenae[/url]":5z6k5a22]So, the next photographer whose camera is involved in a similar encounter with nature will just lie and say they physically held the camera the whole time.

It's a catch 22. The only reason this photo is of any interest is that it's a "selfie". If he claimed he took the picture, nobody would have cared about it.

Good point, but I don't think it changes the general consequences. If someone takes picture A manually and a better picture B through some accidental natural process, they will either publish only the inferior picture A (which gets royalties) or lie about the source of picture B.

 

[Pluvia Arenae]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":3hhu5c2h]

Pluvia Arenae[/url]":3hhu5c2h]So, the next photographer whose camera is involved in a similar encounter with nature will just lie and say they physically held the camera the whole time.

You could sue them for copyright fraud... but good luck proving it!

Exactly. It's not really enforceable in a lot of cases.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

MJ the Prophet[/url]":ujgsqnim]

Likewise, the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit

So, if you imagine that god told you to splash paint on a canvas, you can copyright that. But if you splash paint on a canvas, and imagine that you see the face of Jesus in it, that can't be copyrighted.

More like you can't get a copyright if you claim God Himself splashed the paint with His own hands.

 

[AndreaFaulds]

MJ the Prophet[/url]":2flkmlkr]

Likewise, the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit

So, if you imagine that god told you to splash paint on a canvas, you can copyright that. But if you splash paint on a canvas, and imagine that you see the face of Jesus in it, that can't be copyrighted.

If the Intelligent Design Creationists get their way, this will wreak havoc on gene patents. Although, I suppose when it comes down to it, it probably would either way, since the non-random unguided selection process that actually led to the genes in question is also not a legal person.

Edit: Yes, before you yell at me, I know patents and copyrights are not the same thing.

...does this mean religious artists deliberately and knowingly commit copyright fraud, purporting the work of their God to be their own?

 

[infected]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":14xhlxex]

infected[/url]":14xhlxex]

AndreaFaulds[/url]":14xhlxex]

infected[/url]":14xhlxex]

Under UK federal law...

As a very english englishman, that just sounds so wrong.

I'm not even sure what the equivilent is, as we just have the Police, but we never say federal.

We don't even have states, we just have some devolution in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland.

"Under UK law" would be better.

That does sound a lot better, but I'd bet it's England and wales only, scotland makes their own rules and tend to be fairly straight forward, balanced and sensible.

Copyright and the like are reserved matters, though.

I see, I wasn't aware of that but it makes sense I guess.

 

[Grashnak]

Support your local supernatural photographer! Demand copyright reform!

 

[Pluvia Arenae]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":2ja9lh50]

MJ the Prophet[/url]":2ja9lh50]

Likewise, the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit

So, if you imagine that god told you to splash paint on a canvas, you can copyright that. But if you splash paint on a canvas, and imagine that you see the face of Jesus in it, that can't be copyrighted.

More like you can't get a copyright if you claim God Himself splashed the paint with His own hands.

It has hands?

 

[conan77]

What if a human post-processed the photos, and only that version is available? Is the copyright then assigned to the human?