So who owns the copyright ?

[Carl Hall]

In my opinion the photographer owns the copyright, regardless of the circumstances in which it was taken.

If the photographer took the time to set up the camera up on a tripod and ready it for a monkey to press a button then he is the creator and owns the copyright.

If the monkey took it's own selfie and no one owns the copyright, then the photographer has taken this non-copyright image and processed it to create a new image, which he surely now owns the copyright to.

Actually, I would argue that simply pressing a button on an already set up camera is more akin to a trigger than a shutter button, the only difference being the triggers physical location on the camera body rather than a few metres away on the floor.

 

[JohnBradbury]

I know I'll get a lot of hate for this but I'm so fed up of people who tend to shift their views based purely on what benefits them, it's so inconsistent.

How many times have people argued on this forum that 'if you pressed the button, you own it'. All of a sudden that accepted principle (one backed by copyright law) seems to be getting thrown aside by some photographers because they can see this hurting them in certain circumstances. It's the same old rubbish where you see some photographer using copyrighted music to play in the background of the Wedding DVDs they have created for a client or to play as background music on their website. To them it's only THEIR copyright that matters.

I think those who feel this photographer should hold the copyright probably need to think things through a little more and look at the possible implications. In my mind this would be a far worse legal scenario for photographers to be in.

Would you be so keen to acknowledge that the bride and groom at each wedding are entitled to share copyright with a photographer? After all they set the whole ambience for the wedding, picked the clothes, the decorations, the venue, the food, the lighting etc. Tell me the bride and groom of any wedding would not have just as much a claim to the copyright in such a scenario as this photographer. Hell even the venue could possible argue some small claim if the venue is quite unique.

The same goes for a lot of commercial photography where assistants setup a lot of the shots, the advertising people and artistic directors probably came up with the whole concept to begin with, are these people not as equally entitled to claim a share of the copyright if this photographer is?

This would apply in any number of situations and could eventually get as silly as car photographers having to share copyright with the car manufacturers who, after all spent far more time and money designing the car than the photographer did lighting the dam thing and pushing a button.

Slippery slope.

Wikipedia are on sure ground as far as I'm concerned. There are two specific states that a work can be labelled, copyrighted or public domain. The image was not taken by a human and my understanding of copyright law is that non-humans (with the exception of legal entities recognised under the law) cannot hold copyright. Therefore it's not a copyrighted work and as such automatically falls into the public domain.

/RANT

 

[StewartR]

I think @zednini and @JohnBradbury have called this right, and it's actually much more straightforward than most contributors seem to be making it.

The contemporary account of the creation of the image implies that the camera was not deliberately set up to take the self portrait, so Slater cannot claim copyright in the original image. Since the monkey cannot legally own the copyright, it follows that the original image has no owner.

On the other hand, the published image appears to be a derivative work created by Slater from the original orphaned work. Whether or not Slater can claim copyright on this depends on the extent of his post processing (ie the extent to which the image he created differs from the original). Since the original has not yet been published, so far as I'm aware, it's hard to either support or reject his claim at the current point in time.

 

[Steve Smith]

I think Whether or not Slater can claim copyright on this depends on the extent of his post processing

Whilst not an absolute determining factor, if he is the only person to have the original RAW files, this puts him at an advantage.


Steve.

 

[StewartR]

... if he is the only person to have the original RAW files, this puts him at an advantage.

Maybe. But I'm not sure.

Slater's claim of copyright in the published image hinges on his claim that he had significant creative input. If he has the RAW files, then nobody can disprove his claim. But he can't prove it either without releasing the RAW files. I wonder why he hasn't done that.

 

[JohnBradbury]

I'm certainly not an expert on copyright but if a court decides that the original image is public domain (which I believe they would) then to be considered a derivative work worthy of it's own copyright the changes would have to be significant and I seriously doubt that a mixture of rotation, crop, and colour correction would meet the legal standards of a significant alteration.

The law in this area is fairly well defined so there is little doubt surrounding it's interpretation. I doubt any court in the UK would side with the photographer. He would need an Act of Parliament to get the result he wants and such an Act would lead to the scenarios I outlined previously. It would mean a switch from copyright sitting with the 'author' (defined as the physical act of taking the image) to it sitting with those who had a creative input (a very murky definition with a lot of room for interpretation). Deciding who had creative input and how that translated to a percentage of the copyright could lead to total chaos.

 

[Llamaman]

Maybe. But I'm not sure.

Slater's claim of copyright in the published image hinges on his claim that he had significant creative input. If he has the RAW files, then nobody can disprove his claim. But he can't prove it either without releasing the RAW files. I wonder why he hasn't done that.

Because if the legal analysis is that the OOC RAW is non-copyrighted, but the edited file is his, then releasing the original shoots himself in the foot. Anyone with PS skills can take the RAW, edit it and sell the result - and he gets nothing.

Interestingly, Wikipedia acknowledge that Slater rotated and cropped the photo but not that he did any other PP.
This suggests that their lawyers think cropping is not artistic input - a flawed analysis in my mind and one I hope the courts shoot down. Photography is not just pushing a shutter button.

 

[Llamaman]

I think those who feel this photographer should hold the copyright probably need to think things through a little more and look at the possible implications.

The possible implication is that photographs taken by automated systems - pressure plates, IR etc - are no longer copyrighted.
This could be extremely damaging for nature photography.
This is a can of worms that didn't need to be opened and I'm struggling to see where the public interest is in doing so.

 

[HoppyUK]

I think @zednini and @JohnBradbury have called this right, and it's actually much more straightforward than most contributors seem to be making it.

The contemporary account of the creation of the image implies that the camera was not deliberately set up to take the self portrait, so Slater cannot claim copyright in the original image. Since the monkey cannot legally own the copyright, it follows that the original image has no owner.

On the other hand, the published image appears to be a derivative work created by Slater from the original orphaned work. Whether or not Slater can claim copyright on this depends on the extent of his post processing (ie the extent to which the image he created differs from the original). Since the original has not yet been published, so far as I'm aware, it's hard to either support or reject his claim at the current point in time.

But on the radio today, Slater described a very deliberate creative act (tripod, settings, servo AF etc) with the sole intention of the monkeys taking the bait. Copyright his.

Wiki are working to earlier reports of a total accident happening, in which case the copyright is not Slaters (harsh IMHO, but that's the law). It is 'the truth' that will decide the outcome in court.

 

[JohnBradbury]

The possible implication is that photographs taken by automated systems - pressure plates, IR etc - are no longer copyrighted.
This could be extremely damaging for nature photography.
This is a can of worms that didn't need to be opened and I'm struggling to see where the public interest is in doing so.

Neither of these two scenarios have been tested in court yet but for me they both differ significantly. In a situation where a photographer has setup a pressure plate or other trigger there has been a very deliberate process by the photographer to set in motion a chain of events which will lead to the final image. Arguably (and reasonably so in my opinion) the photographers actions lead directly to the photograph being taken, the subject simply met the trigger criteria set by the photographer. Their actions were involuntary so far as the taking of the photograph goes.

The case in question is completely different. The photographer may have placed the camera in a particular position, he may have adjusted the cameras settings but his actions did not DIRECTLY lead to the triggering of the camera, he simply setup the potential for someone/something else to take the picture indirectly.

Take out the fact that this is a monkey, imagine a photographer setup a camera in the middle of a town centre, he places a sofa in front of the camera with a manual trigger button resting on the arm. If someone walks past and decides to press that button they own the copyright to that image. The photographer was only indirectly involved in making it happen. Same here.

Semantics, but then that's what law comes down to.

 

[JohnBradbury]

But on the radio today, Slater described a very deliberate creative act (tripod, settings, servo AF etc) with the sole intention of the monkeys taking the bait. Copyright his.

Wiki are working to earlier reports of a total accident happening, in which case the copyright is not Slaters (harsh IMHO, but that's the law). It is 'the truth' that will decide the outcome in court.

Have to disagree with your first point. The scenario you've outlined wouldn't result in him owning the copyright. The image being taken deliberately or accidentally has no bearing on the copyright ownership. As it stands it's as simple as who pulled the trigger.

This is also true of pressure plates and motion detection triggers but I feel there is far more room for clarification by the courts in such a situation as the subject only involuntarily triggers the picture and probably wouldn't even be aware of a camera. This cannot be said of the monkey who was playing with the actual camera (whether it actually had any understanding of what was happening is another matter but it did make a decision on some level to play with the camera and in doing so hit the shutter button).

Things can get very messy and whilst it's not perfect assigning ownership to the person who actually pressed the trigger it is a simple solution which works out in 99.99% of situations.

 

[sk66]

I believe that when Slater originally posted the file to the web he accompanied it with the story of it being accidental; the story seems to be changing now, but I can't find any evidence... If it was accidental (and it almost certainly was) the image becomes public domain. The animal cannot own, benefit from, or otherwise manage copyright. And Slater cannot own copyright to something he didn't create.

Some want to believe that the person who causes the shutter to fire owns the copyright because copyright exists once the image is fixed in a tangible form, and they're the one who fixed it into a tangible form. Others want to believe the one who "creates the image" owns the copyright. The fact is that both can be true (at least in U.S. case law).

For copyright to exist it must be original and created by the author. It comes down who had control over the creation of the image and what it would be, it's not really about who trips the shutter (or how), and it's certainly not about who owns the equipment used.

In the "ask a stranger to take our picture" scenario. If you asked a stranger to take your picture and then they proceeded to provide direction as to location, BG, angle, lighting, choose camera settings/zoom/composition, etc., then they would own the copyright. You would have reasonably entered into a verbal/implied contract allowing you use of the image. It would be reasonable to presume the agreement included the right to do basic edits and perhaps even distribute it to friends/family/facebook. The presumption of transfer of copyright is a stretch IMO, and moral rights cannot be transferred irregardless.
In the same scenario, if you had done everything except push the shutter release (i.e. set up the entire scene w/ camera on tripod and received/followed no direction) then you would own the copyright. You've essentially used the stranger as nothing more than a remote trigger.

These same considerations could come into play if you were foolish enough to take a job without a contract spelling it out... if you were to allow yourself to be relegated to nothing more than a remote tripod/trigger by the stylists/art director/etc then the company (as employees, or the director, etc) could reasonably claim and win joint authorship; perhaps even sole authorship (there is U.S. case law to support joint authorship). I should note that accepting some guidance/input in these situations is normal and does not typically cause question as to copyright ownership. Lacking other evidence/agreement the bias goes to the one who fixed the image into tangible form (pushed the button) assuming it's not a "work for hire" situation.

This also becomes problematic for the photo-booth business. The booth owner provides the equipment, sets it up, programs/provides the computer, determines the lighting and camera settings. They certainly are the one to make the image possible. But the customer determines the outfits, props, pose, expressions, who's in the picture, perhaps selects the BG (green screen), and even causes the image to be captured. Who is "the author" responsible for it being a unique/creative image? Lacking a contract to the contrary I think the best the booth owner could hope to claim/win is joint authorship.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm better informed of the relevant U.S. laws than I am the laws of other countries... but I'm unaware of any relevant laws/cases that contradict what I've said either here in the U.S. or there in the U.K.
And regardless of what I or anyone else says (to include an I.P. lawyer), the "answer" to these vagaries would be determined by a judge on a case-by-case basis. Contracts are good... maybe Slater should have had the monkey sign one.

 

[sk66]

Or maybe Slater should have lied... if he had said that when the monkey grabbed the camera he saw an opportunity and started triggering the camera with a remote realeas, then I don't think copyright would be in question.

BTW, basic edits (i.e. "journalism accepted") of color, exposure, crop, etc., would not qualify his version of the image to be a derivative work with copyright.

 

[StewartR]

Interestingly, Wikipedia acknowledge that Slater rotated and cropped the photo but not that he did any other PP. This suggests that their lawyers think cropping is not artistic input - a flawed analysis in my mind and one I hope the courts shoot down. Photography is not just pushing a shutter button.

I think you might be inferring something which hasn't been implied.

Wikipedia's lawyers aren't saying that adjustments like cropping and rotating cannot be creative acts. But they are implying (generally) that not all acts of rotating and cropping are worthy of being called "artistic input", and (specifically) that the rotating and cropping which Slater carried out on this image didn't add up to "artistic input".

I think their analysis regarding the general issue is sound. For example I think straightening a horizon on a landscape photo isn't necessarily "artistic input". So it comes down to how much work Slater did on the image and how much the published one differs from the original one.

 

[StewartR]

Because if the legal analysis is that the OOC RAW is non-copyrighted, but the edited file is his, then releasing the original shoots himself in the foot. Anyone with PS skills can take the RAW, edit it and sell the result - and he gets nothing.

Yeah. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[StewartR]

But on the radio today, Slater described a very deliberate creative act (tripod, settings, servo AF etc) with the sole intention of the monkeys taking the bait. Copyright his.

Wiki are working to earlier reports of a total accident happening, in which case the copyright is not Slaters (harsh IMHO, but that's the law). It is 'the truth' that will decide the outcome in court.

Agree totally with your second point.

I agree with the first one from a moral standpoint, but I don't know how the law would see it. Slater had no input whatsoever into the composition of the images, and I can easily imagine that a court might consider that to be determinative.

 

[Eddzz!!]

I personally think that the photographer is being a selfish and arrogant turd! He didn't take the photograph. There was no amount of photographic skill in capturing the image and as he said himself: it was pure chance! I say let the internet enjoy the photo - stop fretting over the money that you think you've lost and go out and take some more pictures. If anything this is a giant PR stunt that has no doubt resulted in thousands of extra hits for his personal website...

 

[Steve Smith]

and as he said himself: it was pure chance!

Lots of our photographs are pure chance but we wouldn't give up copyright because of it.


Steve.

 

[Eddzz!!]

Lots of our photographs are pure chance but we wouldn't give up copyright because of it.


Steve.

Different kind of chance though isn't it? When you're not even holding the camera! His finger not on the shutter/shutter release... I'm not buying it!

 

[Steve Smith]

I think if it ever came to judgement, the facts that it was his camera, he set up the shot (put camera on tripod), was present at the time and he has the original images would be enough for a judge to say the image is his.

A monkey pressing the shutter is not enough to reverse this.


Steve.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Different kind of chance though isn't it? When you're not even holding the camera! His finger not on the shutter/shutter release... I'm not buying it!

I didn't mean to 'like' your post (I think it's cobblers) I missed the 'note' linky.

It's in the idea and intention where the skill lies as far as I'm concerned and it was the photographer's idea to let the monkeys play with the camera - which he set up.

 

[Llamaman]

But on the radio today, Slater described a very deliberate creative act (tripod, settings, servo AF etc) with the sole intention of the monkeys taking the bait. Copyright his.

I agree ... from a moral standpoint, but I don't know how the law would see it. Slater had no input whatsoever into the composition of the images, and I can easily imagine that a court might consider that to be determinative.

I think this really gets into the heart of the issue. It is possible that legally the copyright is not his (or, rather that there is no copyright). However, most people would agree that morally the image was his. Wikipedia are therefore taking the view that just because something is legal, they should do it, regardless of any moral imperative. This goes completely against the values that Wikipedia profess to have, and is thus damaging to their reputation.

I cannot understand why the Trustees are allowing the charity's money to be squandered on pointless grandstanding. I've been a charity trustee and I would be furious to see funds wasted on pet projects that are not only outside the organisation's remit, but also contrary to its ethos.

 

[TonyBronx]

I found this post on Techdirt, dated 2011. It does appear that the camera was lying on the ground.
Source: - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ys-might-take-pictures-copyright-is-his.shtml

'One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy, said Slater, 46.

'At first there was a lot of grimacing with their teeth showing because it was probably the first time they had ever seen a reflection. 'They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button.

'The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it

 

[sk66]

The original Guardian article kind of leaves him without a chance. He says he left the camera for a moment and the monkeys took it. He had no idea it was going to/might happen. "It was amazing to watch." "He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back." And it shows an image that is not dependent on him setting up the tripod/framing.

Copyright is not "ownership" of an image. It is the ownership of the right to do certain things with an image. It's a "different thing" than simple ownership. In order for a photograph to qualify for copyright it has to be unique and it has to be created with intent... i.e. it has to be "creative." The monkey photograph is unique, but it is not creative. Slater had no intent for these images to occur nor control over what they would be. He won't win copyright.

He's now changing his story a bit to make it seem like he set up the situation with the intent that the monkeys might take the pictures... if anything that will probably hurt him.

This does bring up a question though... "accidental images"... what are they? IMO they would be an image that was taken without intent and without any control over what the image would be. I.e. if you drop your camera and it goes off, that is accidental. Or if you leave it laying around and a monkey takes a picture w/ it, that is accidental. Those images would not qualify for copyright protection.
But if you set up your camera with the 10 sec timer and throw it into the air...that's not accidental. Or if you set up a remote trigger hoping for an animal to trigger the image, that's not accidental. Those images would qualify for copyright protection.

If an image qualifies for copyright the SOOC raw file is copyrighted. Standard simple edits do not make it a "derivative work." Significantly changing the image (compositing etc) do make it a derivative work and that's your sole right as copyright owner. So when you take an image you have a copyrighted image, when you crop/adjust the image it is "the same copyrighted image," and when you significantly edit it into something new/different you have a second copyrighted "derivative work" based on the original.


And if you do accidentally take a great picture... don't tell anyone it was an accident.

 

[Llamaman]

This does bring up a question though... "accidental images"... what are they? IMO they would be an image that was taken without intent and without any control over what the image would be. I.e. if you drop your camera and it goes off, that is accidental. Or if you leave it laying around and a monkey takes a picture w/ it, that is accidental. Those images would not qualify for copyright protection.
But if you set up your camera with the 10 sec timer and throw it into the air...that's not accidental. Or if you set up a remote trigger hoping for an animal to trigger the image, that's not accidental. Those images would qualify for copyright protection.

This gets really complicated if you then consider a human accidently pressing the shutter (for example, a nervous tic or sitting on a remote release). Is it really your copyright then?
What about someone really rubbish (like me) who, attempting to take a naff selfie instead - by complete fluke - takes a great shot? If it's not what I intended, am I really being creative, or just lucky? Well, that example is probably as bit reductio ad absurdum, but you get the drift.

It's clearly a very grey area. Whilst the courts will resolve this issue (probably against Slater for the reasons sk66 sets out very well), if the judges don't explain their decision very clearly, it could open up other scenarios to challenge (such as the pressure plate one). One hopes that if any good comes of this, it will be a very clearly explained legal position that answers some of the questions. I won't hold my breath for that!

 

[zednini]

The creator of a work owns the copyright. This is of course subject to any contractual relationship he may have entered into such as work for hire, commissioned work, or employer/employee relationship.

I don't think create means "being creative" which is a subjective matter but "to cause to come into being". It also has to be original but that is otiose in the current argument.(but does apply if the photographer argues that post processing has created a new copyrightable work).

99 % of the time the time a photographer takes aim and presses the shutter - no question he caused the photograph to come into being, even if it's accidental.

Sometimes he ties a camera to a tree, sets where he wants it to point, possibly selects the focal length, sets the mode, puts down a pressure plate or sets up a trigger beam. Does he cause it to come into being ? I can't find any decided cases on this but I'm sure the courts would fall over backward to decide the copyright belonged to the photographer.

Sometimes he maybe sets the camera up on a tripod, sets the mode etc., attaches a remote with a big red button just for monkeys. For good measure he cuts a hole in a mirror and points the lens through the hole so the reflection is more attractive to the monkey. Finally he seeds the area with pieces of monkey food to get them coming in. His sole intention is to get monkeys to press the remote shutter whilst looking at the mirror/lens reflection. Does he cause the photograph to come into being ? I think so but others may disagree.

Finally he leaves a camera lying about which some random monkey picks up and takes a "selfie". Does he cause the photograph to come into being. I think the question answers itself.

 

[muscleflex]

it's always about money ain't it?!

 

[sk66]

I don't think create means "being creative" which is a subjective matter but "to cause to come into being". It also has to be original but that is otiose in the current argument.(but does apply if the photographer argues that post processing has created a new copyrightable work).

Cut and paste from the U.K. law: (emphasis is theirs)

"A work can only be original if it is the result of independent creative effort."
"The term "original" also involves a test of substantiality - literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works will not be original if there has not been sufficient skill and labour expended in their creation."
"Ultimately, only the courts can decide whether something is original."

 

[zednini]

Cut and paste from the U.K. law: (emphasis is theirs)

"A work can only be original if it is the result of independent creative effort."
"The term "original" also involves a test of substantiality - literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works will not be original if there has not been sufficient skill and labour expended in their creation."
"Ultimately, only the courts can decide whether something is original."

I think there are two legs here. Firstly you have to be the creator of the work. I do not think this implies anything about skill and labour. Then the work has to be original. As you point out there is an inherent test about creative effort attached to this. However I think the bar is pretty low here. There are millions of photographs taken every day by people with no knowledge or skill who expend no more effort than to press a button or touch a screen. However I am open to the argument that most of these may not be copyrightable as not being original work.

Certainly in the second and third examples I cite above I have no doubt they pass the original test based on the skill and labour involved. The ability to copyright then rests on whether or not the person who set it up is the creator. In my view they are.

In the first example it might be that the accidental photograph has a creator but is not copyrightable because it's not original

 

[Steve Smith]

The ability to copyright then rests on whether or not the person who set it up is the creator. In my view they are.

There is no question of having an ability to copyright. It has copyright as soon as it is created.

There are millions of photographs taken every day by people with no knowledge or skill who expend no more effort than to press a button or touch a screen. However I am open to the argument that most of these may not be copyrightable as not being original work.

Nonsense. There is no test of creative input required. As soon as you take a photograph, its copyright is yours.

Also, If my camera was sitting on the table and something fell onto it, pressing the shutter, that is my picture. If someone infringes it, I will assert my right as the copyright owner.


Steve.

 

[simonblue]

it's always about money ain't it?!

Pro have to earn an living

 

[sk66]

There is no question of having an ability to copyright. It has copyright as soon as it is created.

Only if it meets the requirements of qualifying for copyright.

Nonsense. There is no test of creative input required.

It would be more accurate to say that there is no test of "quality." It must be "original" and it must be "intentional" (those requirements define "creative"). If it's not intentional, then how could there have been "sufficient skill and labour expended in their creation?"

 

[zednini]

There is no question of having an ability to copyright. It has copyright as soon as it is created.



Nonsense. There is no test of creative input required. As soon as you take a photograph, its copyright is yours.

Also, If my camera was sitting on the table and something fell onto it, pressing the shutter, that is my picture. If someone infringes it, I will assert my right as the copyright owner.


Steve.

You are quite right. Should have read ability to assert your copyright. If copyright exists it exists at creation.

I was being facetious about millions of photos may not be copyrightable.(smiley face!) However copyright applies, inter alia, to original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works. Original has been interpreted as meaning originating from the author and being based on the criteria of skill, labour, and judgement. The bar for these has been set so low that it is almost meaningless. In practical terms you're probably right. However theoretically there is an argument that where there is NO skill, labour, or judgement there is no original work and therefore no copyright protection.

 

[sk66]

I think there are two legs here. Firstly you have to be the creator of the work. I do not think this implies anything about skill and labour.

I agree, but it does require the intent to create... i.e. "independent creative effort"

Then the work has to be original. As you point out there is an inherent test about creative effort attached to this. However I think the bar is pretty low here.

I agree with this as well. Sufficient "skill and labor" pretty much means only that it was not accidental. There is no standard of "quality" or "value." The only other requirement of originality is that it is not significantly based on something else (i.e. a derivative work).

 

[Steve Smith]

The fact is that if I have a camera which created an image by some random means other than by me pressing the shutter and I asserted that the copyright was mine, no one can take that away from me unless they can show reason why they should have the copyright instead.

There are no copyright police who look at images and decide how it was created and if there is enough artistic merit for it to enjoy copyright protection.

E.g. An image showing how to attach an artificial leg for part of a medical instruction leaflet would have absolutely no artistic content and would be created without the intent to create art but there would still be a copyright issue if someone infringed it.


Steve.

 

[Phil V]

The fact is that if I have a camera which created an image by some random means other than by me pressing the shutter and I asserted that the copyright was mine, no one can take that away from me unless they can show reason why they should have the copyright instead.

There are no copyright police who look at images and decide how it was created and if there is enough artistic merit for it to enjoy copyright protection.

E.g. An image showing how to attach an artificial leg for part of a medical instruction leaflet would have absolutely no artistic content and would be created without the intent to create art but there would still be a copyright issue if someone infringed it.


Steve.

This is the practical answer, for 'someone' else to claim ownership of my image, they'd need to show some evidence, I'm holding all the cards. They'd need a compelling argument.
That said, I'm not convinced that on this occasion, the photographer hasn't already put the compelling argument on public record.

 

[Steve Smith]

This is the practical answer, for 'someone' else to claim ownership of my image, they'd need to show some evidence, I'm holding all the cards. They'd need a compelling argument.

Precisely.

In the monkey vs. photographer case, the photographer is asserting that the copyright is his and as I have said before, the fact that he has the image files and has stated what he did to set up the shot* means that the odds are stacked in his favour. Wikipedia are saying there is no copyright whereas he is saying "yes there is, it's mine".

* At least one of the monkey images looks like the camera was on a tripod so I think his initial story about the monkey picking up the camera was just a bit of nonsense intended to make the story more interesting. His more recent story of the camera being on a tripod seems to be more believable.

I'm sure a judgement on this would rule against Wikipedia.


Steve.

 

[StewartR]

There's been an interesting but different discussion about this on the Telegraph website. We're almost all focused on UK copyright law, but the readership of the Telegraph is more international. This is relevant because Slater is British, Wikipedia is based in the USA, and the photo was taken in the Philippines. So that raises the issue as to whose copyright law applies, and what the laws in those three countries say.

The trouble with Internet discussions, though, is that some people post absolute rubbish as "fact" and as a layman you can't tell whether it's rubbish. I know nothing about copyright law in the Philippines, for instance. One contributor to the Telegraph discussion sounded as if he did, and he claimed that under Philippines law Slater would own copyright because (1) their law allows animals to own property, including intellectual property, so the monkey could have copyright, except (2) the monkey lived in a national park and is the property of the state, therefore his property is the property of the state, except (3) Slater had paid for a licence to be in the national park and take photographs there, and that licence granted him copyright over images which would otherwise belong to the state, so the copyright is his. At least, I think that was the argument - I may have missed one or two subtleties. It sounds like rubbish, but who knows?

One thing I did pick up is that there is a mechanism for dealing with this, which is the Berne Convention. It defines which jurisdiction applies in which circumstances, though (as with many laws) I bet there are all sorts of edge cases arising in the digital age which aren't easily shoehorned into its framework. If different potentially-relevant copyright laws would provide different periods of protection, the one which applies is the one which gives the shortest period. I think it follows that if one jurisdiction does not grant copyright in a particular situation, the period is effectively zero, and the shortest-period rule means that trumps any other jurisdiction.

If this is correct (and it may not be) then it could be very, very messy for Slater. He would have to prove that he is entitled to copyright in the US (since Wikipedia is there and any action would have to be taken in the US courts) *and* in any other relevant country (for example the UK if the pictures were first published here).


I should stress of course that I am not a lawyer; especially not an international intellectual property lawyer; and I have no idea how much of the above is correct. I'm posting this just to try to give a flavour of the potential international dimension to this dispute which most UK-based contributors to Talk Photography may quite naturally have overlooked.

And after this one has been sorted out, Israel/Gaza ought to be a piece of cake.

 

[Steve Smith]

I should stress of course that I am not a lawyer; especially not an international intellectual property lawyer

Does that mean that you are more not an international intellectual property lawyer than you are not a lawyer?


Steve.

 

[StewartR]

Does that mean that you are more not an international intellectual property lawyer than you are not a lawyer?

Ha ha, you got me there.

"I am not a lawyer" means I believe what I'm saying is true, and hopefully that's helpful, but you shouldn't rely on it.

"Especially not" means I have no idea whether or not it's even true, and you should take it with a suitable large grain of salt.