So now the monkey *doesn't* own the copyright...

Looks like a few models I have seen.
 
Steve Smith said:
Didn't we discuss this a year ago? (or more).


Steve.
Click to expand...
The monkey yes, at the time it was ruled the copyright was owned by the monkey which caused quite a discussion.

A court has just ruled that now it doesn't and has set legal president (unless the monkey appeals). So this is a significant update on that much discussed topic :)
 
I thought that no one owned the copyright, hence why it was appearing on Wikicommons

I thought the whole argument was that the photographer wanted Wikicommons to take it down as he claimed he owned the copyright, but it was deemed as no animal can own copyright it was ok to still be hosted on Wikicommons
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
The monkey yes, at the time it was ruled the copyright was owned by the monkey which caused quite a discussion.

A court has just ruled that now it doesn't and has set legal president (unless the monkey appeals). So this is a significant update on that much discussed topic :)
Click to expand...

I thought at the time, the ruling was that as an animal cannot own a copyright, therefore it was not owned by anyone.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I thought at the time, the ruling was that as an animal cannot own a copyright, therefore it was not owned by anyone.


Steve.
Click to expand...
My understanding was that it was used without permission and the photographer tried to sue, but an animal rights group took some kind of (? Successful) legal action claiming the monkey owned the copyright as he took the photo, that's been ongoing. Either way, it's just been settled, as it only looks like the decision that an animal can't own copyright has just been made in court.

Edit - rpsmith kind of has it, PETAs lawsuit that the monkey owns the copyright has now been finalised by a judge formally saying an animal can't own a copyright. However, it took all this time until now to legally establish that but it's no clearer who does own the copyright?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/monkey-selfie-case-animal-photo-copyright
 
Last edited:
My understanding:

Photographer tells a story that minimised his involvement (because "I took a monkey photo" wouldn't get the interests of the papers) to the point that people decided he didn't pass the required test to actually own the photo (owning the camera not being enough), ergo it must be in the public domain. Then PETA get involved as a publicity stunt, starting a lawsuit to get the monkey recognised as the copyright owner. That lawsuit has failed so it's definitely not monkey-copyright. However I don't believe the issue of David Slater vs The Public Domain has ever been settled in a court.
 
This ruling is a separate issue to the original Wikipedia one

This ruling was in relation to PETA trying to claim copyright on the animals behalf in order to cash in on any royalties
 
The photographer holds the copyright for the images as far as the UK copyright law is concerned and his whole argument has been that it should be honored worldwide.

Whats the betting if the roles were reversed that the US would be screaming blue murder that one of its citizens copyright was not be honored world wide
 
Keith W said:
The photographer holds the copyright for the images as far as the UK copyright law is concerned...
Click to expand...
That hasn't been tested in court though, has it. David Slater certainly claims that to be the case, and there are good grounds for believing that a UK court probably would uphold it - but it hasn't actually been tested in court. Until it is, it's surely still a grey issue.
Keith W said:
... his whole argument has been that it should be honored worldwide.
Click to expand...
Well, again it's a bit of a grey area and he would need to test it in a US court, but I think he would lose. The Berne Convention provides for rights of copyright owners in one country to be upheld in other countries, but - crucially - only if those rights are based on the copyright laws applicable in each country. In other words, if a work qualifies for copyright under the rules of country A but not under the different rules of country B, then any copyright granted in A is not required to be honoured in B. The difficulty Slater has is that it's not obvious that the image would qualify for copyright if he were a US citizen in the US, and therefore it's not obvious that any rights he has would be upheld in the US.

There's a very good discussion of the legal issues here.
 
Photographer vs Public Domain has never been tested in a court of law. Certainly Slater claims UK law gives it to him but it's not cut and dried. In the US, the copyright office have subsequently updated their guidelines that strengthen the public domain argument but it still needs to go to a court somewhere to reach a definitive answer.

From the way the story was originally reported. Note (whether it was the Wails's choice of words or how he told it) it totally plays down his input and paints it totally as an accident - I'd have said it was in the public domain. His subsequent clarifications (a) give him sufficient creative input to qualify as a copyright holder (b) make the story less interesting.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
That hasn't been tested in court though, has it. David Slater certainly claims that to be the case, and there are good grounds for believing that a UK court probably would uphold it - but it hasn't actually been tested in court. Until it is, it's surely still a grey issue.
Well, again it's a bit of a grey area and he would need to test it in a US court, but I think he would lose. The Berne Convention provides for rights of copyright owners in one country to be upheld in other countries, but - crucially - only if those rights are based on the copyright laws applicable in each country. In other words, if a work qualifies for copyright under the rules of country A but not under the different rules of country B, then any copyright granted in A is not required to be honoured in B. The difficulty Slater has is that it's not obvious that the image would qualify for copyright if he were a US citizen in the US, and therefore it's not obvious that any rights he has would be upheld in the US.

There's a very good discussion of the legal issues here.
Click to expand...
You make some good points and the link is useful, it seems to me Wikimedia are taking the proverbial, even if they are based in US. I found this interesting

Presumably, the disputed image that appears in Wikimedia Commons is not a raw image but rather an image that was modified by Mr. Slater using photo editing software such as Photoshop. It is arguable that, through his creative use of cropping, color adjustment, and other techniques, the final image that he published qualifies as a derivative work under U.S. Copyright Law. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is considered a derivative work.[2]

So although US copyright law, unlike UK copyright law, doesn't allow protection to works created without human intervention, he should hopefully be covered by claiming a derivative work as he had done the PP.
.
 
Last edited:
so what's all this add up to

does someone have a financial claim against another?
 
Steve Smith said:
It adds up to yet another publicity stunt for the (non) photographer.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Surely the publicity stunt is on behalf of PETA not the photographer (not that i had any idea who this PETA are, so it's probably not a bad stunt as i had to google them)
 
rpsmith79 said:
Surely the publicity stunt is on behalf of PETA not the photographer (not that i had any idea who this PETA are, so it's probably not a bad stunt as i had to google them)
Click to expand...
Not in this occasion I don't think, this was all brought about by PETA.
 
Thats what i mean, it was a publicity stunt brought about by/on behalf of PETA

Steve made out it was another publicity stunt for the Photogrpaher
 
rpsmith79 said:
Thats what i mean, it was a publicity stunt brought about by/on behalf of PETA

Steve made out it was another publicity stunt for the Photogrpaher
Click to expand...
That'll teach me to read things properly :)
 
jakeblu said:
You make some good points and the link is useful, it seems to me Wikimedia are taking the proverbial, even if they are based in US. I found this interesting

Presumably, the disputed image that appears in Wikimedia Commons is not a raw image but rather an image that was modified by Mr. Slater using photo editing software such as Photoshop. It is arguable that, through his creative use of cropping, color adjustment, and other techniques, the final image that he published qualifies as a derivative work under U.S. Copyright Law. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is considered a derivative work.[2]

So although US copyright law, unlike UK copyright law, doesn't allow protection to works created without human intervention, he should hopefully be covered by claiming a derivative work as he had done the PP.
.
Click to expand...
Nope, it would be an "edited copy" as it is entirely/substantially dependent on the original work (it doesn't stand on it's own as a new/original work)... that is why, if you give a digital file and permission to make copies(duplicates) a client can make edits w/o infringing copyright; as long as it doesn't cause actual "harm" to you/your business (or qualify as "derogatory treatment" under U.K. Moral Rights).
 
odd jim said:
Copyright cannot be given to an animal. I'll tell my dogs.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/monkey-who-took-grinning-selfie-7131559
Click to expand...


Whatever will they think of next?

Aliens from other worlds land on Earth, one of them took a group photo of the other aliens, but accidently left his camera here when they left, then the photo gets uploaded to the Internet.

A judge is going to rule that despite ET being advanced race, that it is his camera, and clearly he knows how to take a good photo, not a lucky snapshot, but a professional looking photo, he is not the copyright owner because he do not live on Earth!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top