# Monkey selfie copyright case



## AlanF (Sep 25, 2015)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34346092


----------



## Roo (Sep 25, 2015)

AlanF said:


> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34346092



Sounds typical of PETA. They should be an organisation I applaud but the way they operate I have nothing but contempt for them.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 25, 2015)

We had a long discussion here about this some months ago, and I did a bit of Internet searching on the topic. Although I'm not a lawyer, it seemed pretty clear to me that, at least in the U.S., it was impossible for him to claim copyright because he did not compose the image. For example, if you accidentally drop your camera down a hill and it takes photos along the way, you can't claim copyright because you weren't the "author" of those photos. It doesn't matter who owns the camera.

As far as this goes:


> David Slater said it took three days of hard work to get the photo


The amount of work is not necessarily relevant. By analogy, suppose he had done the same amount of work, and then handed the camera to his assistant, who took a great picture; who would own that copyright?

Before everyone gets it in a twist: no, the monkey does not own the copyright either, so PETA is grandstanding (they're good at that). Not every photo is entitled to copyright; whether it does depends on how it came to exist.

If we have some IP lawyers in the forum I'd love to hear their take on it.

And regarding this:



> He had to spend several days with the monkeys so that they became relaxed in his company.


He's not a scientist, nor was he working with one, so it was inappropriate and selfish for him to do this, regardless of the quality of the outcome. I have little sympathy for him.

Edit: Here's a previous discussion. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22140.0

And this: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/22/monkey-business-macaque-selfie-cant-be-copyrighted-say-us-and-uk


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 25, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> By analogy, suppose he had done the same amount of work, and then handed the camera to his assistant, who took a great picture; who would own that copyright?



So I design a doodad, do all the engineering files for it, calculate the stresses, and create the CNC file. I give that file to a machinist, he plops a chunk of metal into the CNC mill, and out pops the finished doodad. Does the machinist hold the copyright because he/she pushed the start button?

I think the copyright goes to the creator of the item.... the one who had the vision and made things happen... anyone could "press the button" but without the vision you have nothing.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 25, 2015)

As the PETA, nothing but distain for them.... My friend spins wool, dyes, knits, etc. She was at a craft show and one the services she offers is that she can spin your pet hair (depending on breed and hair properties). She had a touque and mittens made out of Fluffy the cat (see profile picture) and got accosted by an idiot from PETA for killing cats to make mittens. The concept of combing the animal to get the fur was beyond their comprehension.

They are also against shearing sheep as they claim it is cruel...... apparently they have never shorn sheep and watched them jump around and frolic after having the restrictive weight cut off...


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 25, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > By analogy, suppose he had done the same amount of work, and then handed the camera to his assistant, who took a great picture; who would own that copyright?
> ...



That's a patent question, not a copyright question. A better analogy is that you write a novel and a printer prints it. The novel is yours since you are the author. I'm not an IP lawyer, so I can't describe the nuances here, but I think you're missing some important differences.

The problem here is that this dude didn't do enough to be considered the author of this photo. He handed the camera to the monkeys. The details of his story have changed over time, so it's not clear what prep work he did. Here are my explanations from the prior thread:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22140.msg422324#msg422324

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22140.msg423793#msg423793

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22140.msg423838#msg423838


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 25, 2015)

This picture is no accident.

If I roll my camera down a hill over and over hoping to get some shots of what it looks like when a camera is rolling down a hill, those pictures are absolutely a product of my artistic vision.
Justice may be carried out by the law but the law does not define justice.

If I hire someone to take pictures for me, everything they take is owned by me. That's why we have waivers.
Of course the monkey can't sign a waiver, isn't a citizen of any legal system and has no legal authority. If anyone other than the photographer has rights to the picture it would be the government, in roughly the same position as a zoo. And they probably really don't care either.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 25, 2015)

9VIII said:


> This picture is no accident.
> 
> If I roll my camera down a hill over and over hoping to get some shots of what it looks like when a camera is rolling


A monkey has volition and intelligence, a hill does not. The monkeys changed the intent of the photo by adding their behavioral choices to the composition (they pointed the camera).

If the monkeys don't touch the camera and he uses a remote shutter then the dude owns the copyright. If he uses a tripwire, then it's at least a reasonable claim. As soon as the monkeys pick up the camera, that all goes away.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 25, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...




I like Alfredo's answer.....




alfredo said:


> There's a difference between the author of the photo, and the copyright holder.
> 
> When you write software for a software company, you, the individual, are the author, but the company pays you to do the job, and they hold the copyright on the software you write.
> 
> ...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 25, 2015)

PETA is a great organization, and it is one of the reasons I decided to get in to photography.

A few years back they were holding one of their protests in town, and the PETA gal was sitting naked on a street corner a few blocks from work.

Ever since I always make sure I have a camera with me to take pictures of such wildlife.

What does PETA stand for anyway? Pretty Exposed T&A? I am not sure what they do.


----------



## blanddragon (Sep 25, 2015)

There are so many selfies that I wish someone would take ownership of...


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 25, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > This picture is no accident.
> ...



If anyone owns the picture other than Slater, it's the Indonesian government.
If this were damage to a car instead of a photograph, would we be able to take legal action against the monkey? No.
The monkey has no legal rights beyond what the government says it does, which in this case is nothing. Legal rights default to the owner of the camera.
Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

Alfredo pretty much hits the nail on the head.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 25, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> I like Alfredo's answer.....



I don't, it's mostly flat-out wrong.



alfredo said:


> There's a difference between the author of the photo, and the copyright holder.


True, but irrelevant here. Not every photo has an author or a copyright holder.



> We may argue whether the monkey or the photographer are the author of the photo, but since the monkey has no will of creative production, nor it can legally hold copyright, the creative action of setting up the environment makes the copyright belong to the photographer.


False: this is a false dichotomy. Not every work has a legal author, it's not a zero-sum. The fact that the monkey is not the legal author does not mean the photographer is; it may also mean that there is no legal author, or that the Indonesian government, on behalf of the monkey (as owners) are the legal copyright holders. It all depends on the locally constructed law.



> If the button was triggered by a motion sensor, I'd say that both author and copyright holder are the photographer (as the motion sensor is inanimate).


Almost: not because it's inanimate, but because it's deterministic. The motion sensor takes a specific, pre-programmed action, based on specific input.




> In the "Bolt borrowing a camera" case, Bolt is certainly the author. One may dispute on the copyright: the camera owner may have said: "I'm borrowing you the camera to do the (unpaid) job of taking a picture, in return of using my camera, you'll transfer to me the copyright of the work you'll produce". Or, the photographer may just have decided to give up on the copyright.



This is irrelevant to the discussion since both bold and the camera owner are legal persons. That's a separate discussion.



> For the photo booth case, again, the customer pays a fee to the machine, to hold the copyright of the result.


False. A photo both is a just a complex remote shutter release. What creates copyright (for the users of the booth) is that they decide how to pose and when to push the shutter. It is the collections of decisions about framing and taking the shot that make the photo. The pre-programmed settings of the photo booth are irrelevant.



> When you go to a professional photographer, it's up to you to negotiate who holds the copyright on the session pictures.


True, but irrelevant here.

The photographer did not choose the framing or timing for the shutter release. Therefore, he has not taken enough action to be author of the photos. He cannot claim copyright by authorship.


----------



## retroreflection (Sep 25, 2015)

PETA doesn't care about copyright, they want a case to grant legal personhood to an animal. Once that precedent is established, they would work to apply it everywhere. 

Now to the copyright - the owner of the camera thought the value of the pictures could be enhanced with a good backstory. In hindsight, "blah, remote release, blah, blah, blah" could have left him in a better position. Without anyone to contest the story of the shoot, the equipment owner is the presumptive copyright holder. I'm not advocating abuse of real persons in photo shoots, but if you want to train kittens to crank out youtube content all by themselves, have at it. Just keep your mouth shut.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 25, 2015)

retroreflection said:


> PETA doesn't care about copyright, they want a case to grant legal personhood to an animal.


True


> the equipment owner is the presumptive copyright holder


No. Someone has to make a legal claim of authorship.



> train kittens


Training an animal might qualify it for authorship; the problem is that the monkeys made their own decisions.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 25, 2015)

Seems to me the point of contention here is that Orangutan doesn't like the fact that the monkey is legal property no different from the ground it walks on.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 25, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Seems to me the point of contention here is that Orangutan doesn't like the fact that the monkey is legal property no different from the ground it walks on.



Well, we non-human primates need to stick together, eh? ;D 

But to your point: if it's a property, then it's the property of the Indonesian government, and they would own the copyright, much like elephants "trained" to paint.

I will note, however, that my position is in line with decisions of the US and UK copyright offices so far. We'll see what happens if it goes to court, but I don't think this is new law.


----------



## Bennymiata (Sep 26, 2015)

To me, the monkey hit the shutter, the monkey holds the copyright.
However, as the photographer holds the photo in HIS camera and computer, he can sell or license out the photo, providing he pays royalties to the monkey.
Those royalties could be paid to the monkey by cheque (a legally recognised form of payment) but as the monkey doesn't have the wherewithal to cash it, then it's the monkey's problem.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 26, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> To me, the monkey hit the shutter, the monkey holds the copyright.
> However, as the photographer holds the photo in HIS camera and computer, he can sell or license out the photo, providing he pays royalties to the monkey.
> Those royalties could be paid to the monkey by cheque (a legally recognised form of payment) but as the monkey doesn't have the wherewithal to cash it, then it's the monkey's problem.



That sounds like monkey business to me.


----------



## Pdxphotobug (Sep 26, 2015)

I think we're all missing the essential question here...

Did the minkey have a proper lysanz? If not, then it was the minkey who was breaking the liew and therefore he is not entitled to protection under copyright liew.


Sorry... I couldn't resist


----------



## zim (Sep 26, 2015)

Pdxphotobug said:


> I think we're all missing the essential question here...
> 
> Did the minkey have a proper lysanz? If not, then it was the minkey who was breaking the liew and therefore he is not entitled to protection under copyright liew.
> 
> ...



Nailed it ;D ;D ;D
The minkey is a businessman, don't tell him what to do with his money


----------



## MrFotoFool (Sep 27, 2015)

I don't think PETA needs to be concerned too much about this particular monkey's well being. He is doing quite well with endorsement deals. ;D
http://newcameranews.com/2014/09/17/photokina-exclusive-leica-signs-macaca-nigra-as-spokesprimate/


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 28, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> PETA is a great organization, and it is one of the reasons I decided to get in to photography.
> 
> A few years back they were holding one of their protests in town, and the PETA gal was sitting naked on a street corner a few blocks from work.
> 
> ...



LOL - That's funny! Cheers!


----------

