# Who owns the photo?



## thepancakeman (Aug 7, 2014)

I know we've had this discussion here before but couldn't find the old thread. Sounds like we may get some legal clarification after this:

http://news.msn.com/offbeat/who-owns-this-monkey%E2%80%99s-selfie-1

Short version: monkey took selfies, Wiki argues that makes it public domain. Photographer, or more accurately in this case--camera owner--says he owns the rights.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 7, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> ....Wiki argues.....


^^ Key phrase.

Remove Slater's camera from the chain of events and there are no photos.
Had Slater and his camera not been on scene, there'd be no photos.
Has B&H or Adorama ever made a single sale to any crested black macaque?
Has anyone ever sold even a single banana or peanut to a crested black macaque?

Or, had Slater kept the photos to himself, wikiwhatever wouldn't have them to publish.
Doesn't seem to me that the wikifreetards have any reasonable logic to argue with.

Crested black macaques don't kill people take photographs, photographers with cameras do.

If you set up a remote camera with a motion sensing trigger, does the trigger (if inanimate objects could) own the rights? The trigger maker? The camera maker? The owner of the camera and the trigger?

Back in some Olympics or another, immediately following a major event, Usain Bolt 'borrowed' a pro photographer's camera, shot a few frames, his Body English implied, "_here, let me get you a few shots from a perspective not available to you, I'll give it right back_". Of course I have no idea what was actually said by Bolt and the photographer. Who owns those?

wikigreedia, can't get their own so steal. Sounds like bullying to me.

Photos are Slater's.
Wikipedia, you took them and used them using flawed self interest based logic, step up, compensate, admit, apologize in that sequence and order of importance. Freeloading another's work is theft.

The only thing public domain about these photos is wikipedia's contention that they are so.
Supporting, promoting and engaging in unauthorized appropriation of another's work and/or property is not fighting against censorship, it's theft

Lawyers don't argue for truth, honor, justice, integrity or even Law, they argue to win. 
The best debaters can argue either side of an issue and still win either way. Both conclusions cannot be correct.
The best lawyers are the best debaters, the best debaters can make the best lawyers.


Some exif data extracted from.....
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg

Filename - Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg
ImageWidth - 2912
ImageLength - 4368
BitsPerSample - 8 8 8 
Compression - 1 (None)
PhotometricInterpretation - 2
ImageDescription - PIC BY A WILD MONKEY / DAVID SLATER / CATERS NEWS - (PICTURED: One of the photos that the monkey took with Davids camera. 1 of 2: This photo was the original photo the monkey took) - These are the chimp-ly marvellous images captured by a cheeky monkey aft
StripOffset - 31086
Orientation - Top left
SamplesPerPixel - 3
RowsPerStrip - 4368
StripByteCount - 38158848
XResolution - 72.00
YResolution - 72.00
PlanarConfiguration - 1
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
DateTime - 2013:11:01 13:55:43
Artist - David J Slater
Copyright - Caters News Agency Ltd
IPTC/NAA - 20620
ExifOffset - 31236
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 1085
ExifImageHeight - 1500

Thumbnail: - 
Compression - 6 (JPG)
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 31374
JpegIFByteCount - 6216


----------



## agierke (Aug 7, 2014)

Great summary tolusina! This is my understanding of intellectual property as well. Its shameful what wikigreedia is trying to argue in this case.


----------



## infared (Aug 7, 2014)

I think that the black crested macaque owns the photo....I have always said anyone taking shots off an LCD screen and not a viewfinder is "monkeying and image". Our furry friend obviously thought so, too!!!!!! He looks like Steve Huff doing another selfie!!! :
(all kidding aside I think if the black crested macaque cannot own the photo, then the photographer who owns the camera certainly does. Right???).


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 7, 2014)

<IANAL>
If you give paints, paintbrush and canvas to an elephant do you own the resulting painting or does the elephant's owner own the painting? It was the macaque's use of the camera that was transformative. Since animals are generally considered property, it seems likely the macaque's owners own the photos.
</IANAL>


----------



## tolusina (Aug 7, 2014)

Some more.....

The MSN article linked above states in part....
_"......When a monkey commandeered a nature photographer’s camera on a small Indonesian island a few years ago, the results were extraordinary....."_
- - -
wikimedia's page at http://transparency.wikimedia.org/content.html
states in part......
_“.......A photographer left his camera unattended in a national park in North Sulawesi, Indonesia........ “_
- - -
David J Slater's website, 
http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/Tropical%20Forests/Sulawesi%20Macaques.htm
remember, he was the guy that was there, states in part....


"_…...So I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play. I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens. I was then to witness one of the funniest things ever as they grinned, grimaced and bared teeth at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens. …..
…....They played with the camera until of course some images were inevitably taken! I had one hand on the tripod when this was going on......"_

- - -
Slater's version does not sound at all like MSN's “_commandeered_”, nor wikimedia's “ _unattended_”.




Orangutan said:


> ... macaque's owners....


The macaque is wild, owns its own self.

---
Hey Slater!!
Should you happen to stumble on this, GREAT PHOTOS!!


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 7, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Slater's version does not sound at all like MSN's “_commandeered_”, nor wikimedia's “ _unattended_”.


Depending on Indonesian law, that may be irrelevant. Even if it was intentional, the critter framed and clicked. For example, consider a "free" photo booth. You set it up and people go inside and take photos of themselves. Does the owner of the photo booth own those? Not likely. Setting up the gear may be irrelevant; it's probably a question of who frames the shot. In this case, it was the critter.



> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > ... macaque's owners....
> ...


In those cases, animals are generally presumed to be owned by the sovereign government, so Indonesia likely owns the photos. In the absence of an international treaty, it seems likely they'll win the case in an Indonesian court.


----------



## Lurker (Aug 7, 2014)

The one pressing the shutter button owns the photo, it is their creative property.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 7, 2014)

Lurker said:


> The one pressing the shutter button owns the photo, it is their creative property.



So if you set up a shot on tripod, and your assistant does nothing more than press the button on a wireless shutter release (and doesn't even look through the viewfinder) then the assistant owns the shot? I find that very hard to believe.


----------



## pablo (Aug 7, 2014)

I do timelapse videos. I press the timer start button once to start it and once to stop it.

Do I own frame 1 of the finished video and the timer owns the remaining 249 of a 10s sequence?


----------



## alfredo (Aug 7, 2014)

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.

Of the several cases cited in this thread, I think making the distinction between author and copyright holder helps cleaning up the scenario.

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.

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).

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.

For the photo booth case, again, the customer pays a fee to the machine, to hold the copyright of the result. When you go to a professional photographer, it's up to you to negotiate who holds the copyright on the session pictures. Typically prices are much higher if the customer goes away with the copyright, because it means the photographer won't be able to resell those pictures.

Interesting reading: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HowIGetCopyright

I'm a big open source fan, and even more I appreciate Wikipedia, but I'd say this time they went a bit too eager.


----------



## alfredo (Aug 7, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> So if you set up a shot on tripod, and your assistant does nothing more than press the button on a wireless shutter release (and doesn't even look through the viewfinder) then the assistant owns the shot? I find that very hard to believe.



I'd say both the photographer and the assistant are co-authors of the photo (in that order). The photographer holds the copyright; the assistant was paid to do the job, transferring her share of the copyright to the photographer, as part of the contract.


----------



## RGF (Aug 7, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> <IANAL>
> If you give paints, paintbrush and canvas to an elephant do you own the resulting painting or does the elephant's owner own the painting? It was the macaque's use of the camera that was transformative. Since animals are generally considered property, it seems likely the macaque's owners own the photos.
> </IANAL>



Agree, from a non-lawyer, I would vote for the owner of the animal owns the picture.


----------



## anthonyd (Aug 7, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Lurker said:
> 
> 
> > The one pressing the shutter button owns the photo, it is their creative property.
> ...



You have an assistant for pressing the button on a wireless release? wow you must be a busy photog. :-D


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 7, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Lurker said:
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 7, 2014)

You're making a lot of assumptions.



alfredo said:


> nor it can legally hold copyright


The *owner *of the macaque can own copyright. In this case, they probably do.



> the creative action of setting up the environment makes the copyright belong to the photographer.


But he didn't: he set up the camera, not the creative environment. If the camera had been fixed with a tripwire of some kind, then the photographer could claim ownership. As soon as the macaque takes physical control of framing the shot, it's no longer the photographer's.



> 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).


Correct result, wrong reason. The reason is that your setup of the motion sensor is deterministic: it's known, with a very high degree of certainty, what the framing of the shot will be. The fact that you determined the framing (even if that's in advance) is what makes you the creative force of the photo.



> the customer pays a fee to the machine, to hold the copyright of the result


You're assuming an implicit contract, which would require explicit statutory language, or a long history of common law. I wouldn't accept that assertion from anyone short of an IP lawyer.


----------



## Besisika (Aug 7, 2014)

It is just my interpretation and hope you take it that way. I am not a lawyer of any kind.

It is not that obvious. 

According to CAPIC, quote: 
"Copyright is comprised of international laws that protect “intellectual property.” These laws, which vary from one country to another, also apply to patents, trademarks, industrial designs and trade secrets.

In short, Copyright protects the expression of original ideas, but not the information itself. This expression is referred to as “work” or, in the case of photos and illustrations, “artistic work”. Copyright consists of a set of rules on how the “work” can be used."

The photo is that good thanks to all the "creativity" parameters and events that took place, whether they are on purpose or circumstantial. If any of these factors was different it would be a different photo, a better or worse. Among other things; the choice of camera, the lens and focal length, the aperture and shutter speed, the ISO, the vantage point, the distance from the subject and so on.

On one hand, who ever chose the camera, the lens, brought the it there, turned it on, configure its parameters and so on takes part in creating the result. If he configured it differently, the photo would be totally different and might or might now win anything.

On the other hand, who ever chose the vantage point, the stability of the camera, its distance from the focusing point and so one contributed to its success as well.

My opinion, there are 3 key components in the content of the copyright law: 1- action, 2 - artistic creativity, 3 - intellectual property. Finally, let's not forget its purpose which is to promote creativity.

Unfortunately, the photographer had the idea and contribute greatly in the "artistic creativity, but didn't take the photo and as such is not the sole creator of the tangible art, despite the creative contribution.

On the other hand, giving to the monkey the right to the photo doesn't promote any creativity at all. No photographer would work that hard so that his right would be given to a Monkey. No photographer, no creativity, no photography, no improvement, nothing to promote, empty law.

Besides, I don't recognize any intellectual contribution that is worth protecting in the monkey act (or the assistant just pressing the button of a camera on a tripod).
My opinion, the photographer owns it, at least for the sake of encouraging him to push monkeys for selfie.
Anyone else wanting to take that privilege is just a thief wanting to take advantage of his hard work.

In Canada, the photographer owns the copyright, not the employer - See CAPIC website for detail:
"The Copyright Act was amended in the spring of 2012, under Bill C-11, rectifying the injustice that prevailed hitherto, while the copyright of photographs that were ordered belonged to the client by default.

Canadian photographers are now, by default, the first owners of the copyright of the images they produce, as are illustrators, musicians, painters and writers with their respective work. This applies to both photographs commissioned and paid by a client, and to photographs taken for non-commercial purposes."


----------



## unfocused (Aug 7, 2014)

It would be entertaining to see how this plays out. 

A big question is whether or not the photographer actually went to the trouble of getting a copyright on the photo in the first place. (Yes, lots of people put the copyright symbol on their photos but never bother to file the paperwork. Doing so preserves some rights, but it's not an absolute guarantee of copyright)

I suspect that in this case, had the photographer actually copyrighted the picture, then Wikipedia would be in quite a weak position because the copyright would serve as an official designation that the government has declared that the right to the photograph belongs to the photographer. If you have an official copyright from the Government, it's unlikely that a court is going to say that is invalid. 

But, if the photographer simply placed a copyright on his files and never followed up with paperwork, well, then that's another question. If that's the case, then Wikipedia could well argue what they are arguing now -- which is that he never had the ability to secure the copyright. Under that situation, the photographer is likely to have to prove that he does indeed have the right to a copyright. 

First situation, Wikipedia would have to prove he never had the right to the copyright -- burden of proof should be on them to show that the government erred in awarding the copyright.

Second situation, photographer must prove he has the right to copyright the photo -- burden of proof likely to be on him to prove that he should be awarded the copyright.

Now, the other question might be just what exactly does that copyright protect? If the photograph has been widely circulated without any copyright designation, the photographer might be in a weak position to now claim copyright. 

Additionally, since the copyright protects the photographer's financial interest and is not an absolute bar to using the photo, court might have to determine what his financial loss is from the violation. He could win the copyright case and be awarded $1.

And, finally, copyright is not an absolute bar to reproducing a creative work. There are exceptions for educational, critical and artistic uses. Might not apply in this case, but it can apply in others.

This may never be litigated, but if it is, it will be interesting.


----------



## Lloyd (Aug 8, 2014)

You guys are overanalyzing this. An elementary legal analysis reveals that justice will likely be on the side of Wikimedia, with Mr. Slater having a small chance and the monkey having no chance at all of gaining rights to the photo.

The Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, the entity which distributed the photo without recognizing Mr. Slater’s claim to a copyright, has revenues of US$48.6 million and cash equivalents of $22.2 million. It can retain many lawyers.

Mr. Slater, from Coleford, Gloucestershire, is a nature photographer and his revenue is probably less than US$48.6 million. He can probably retain fewer lawyers.

Mr. Macaque has no revenue or cash equivalents. He throws feces at lawyers.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 8, 2014)

unfocused said:


> It would be entertaining to see how this plays out.
> 
> A big question is whether or not the photographer actually went to the trouble of getting a copyright on the photo in the first place. (Yes, lots of people put the copyright symbol on their photos but never bother to file the paperwork. Doing so preserves some rights, but it's not an absolute guarantee of copyright)
> 
> ...



Now I thought I understood the basics of photography copyright (cos it's useful for us snappers!), and that was that copyright does not need to be applied for. The creator of the work (let's ignore for now this case, and cases where you do a job for someone else, contracts etc) owns the copyright. I take a photo, its copyright belongs to me. I can release my claim to it, but doing nothing means I own the rights to it. I don't have to file paperwork. If down the line someone uses it without my permission, all I need to do is demonstrate it was me who took it, say by providing the raw image, or proving I was there and the other person wasn't.

Is that not right? Is that only the case in the UK?

PS on this story, animals aren't generally treated as people, so I don't see how the monkey can own anything. As for the other parties involved, I'll leave that to the lawyers.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 8, 2014)

Yes, you are correct. Copyright does not have to be applied for. It belongs to the photographer, unless he is working under contract and it belongs to his employers. If two or more people are involved in taking the photo, the copyright belongs to all of them. In the case of the monkey, the owner of the photo has no claim to copyright as he did not make any intellectual contribution to the taking of the photo or its composition. The argument that he provided the equipment does not make any difference to ownership of copyright, legally and also logically - you might as well as argue that the photo could not have been taken without the manufacturer of the equipment - the lens, the sensor etc.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 8, 2014)

alfredo said:


> 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.*


I agree with all of your other conclusions except this one, and it depends greatly on how a court would interpret Slater's intent. If he intended to get those shots, then yes, he would own copyright. If they believe he didn't intend and it was sheer luck, then nobody would own the copyright, and Wikimedia would be right in claiming them public domain. If he had set up the camera on a tripod knowing the monkeys would go to it and take photos, then he'd have a reasonable claim. But that doesn't sound like its the case

Obviously a monkey cant own a copyright, but, that doesnt mean the copyright goes to the next in line. As there was no contract, and possibly no creative intent, its quite possible nobody owns the photo


----------



## anthonyd (Aug 8, 2014)

Lloyd said:


> ...
> Mr. Macaque has no revenue or cash equivalents. He throws feces at lawyers.



Priceless!


----------



## preppyak (Aug 8, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Now, the other question might be just what exactly does that copyright protect? If the photograph has been widely circulated without any copyright designation, the photographer might be in a weak position to now claim copyright.


Yep, unless he has asserted his rights to other publications, it may not ultimately matter. Copyright partially relies on your willingness to defend it.

That said, if he does have the copyright to this photo, Wikipedia could be sued for quite a bit of money. They willingly subverted his copyright (multiple takedown requests, now articles on it), which carries a much heftier fine that unknowingly violating copyright.



> And, finally, copyright is not an absolute bar to reproducing a creative work. There are exceptions for educational, critical and artistic uses. Might not apply in this case, but it can apply in others.


There's also the interesting argument that he created a derivative work (which he would own copyright to), and people are stealing that.

But, the act of cropping, color correcting, and rotating are probably not enough to make that claim


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 8, 2014)

I'm voting for Slater in this case. Especially after reading what he put out on his site when this shot was first published, and from the looks of the Exif in the photo. I don't know what the laws says in his country, but if anywhere near ours it should still go to Slater, or the company for which he worked then.

Slight sidenote: After reading Lloyd's comment in this thread, it's quite obvious that I could change my nickname to "Mr. Macaque" - at least two, maybe three, statements from that fits a description of me.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 8, 2014)

Based on the photographer's story, it does seem that he had a big role in creation of the image. He set it up with the relevant settings and the whole thing happened completely under his 'direction'. If you set up a camera so that it is likely to be tripped by curious macaques, isn't it similar to setting up a camera to be tripped by motion, or by automation (timers, etc.). It is pretty silly to say you have to have your finger on the shutter to own the image. 

On the other hand, considering the downsides to being sued and losing, I doubt if Wikipedia would have done this unless they were absolutely sure they can't be touched. I will call them jerks, because here is a photographer who has contributed to these images being captured (and I believe him, what are the chances that a macaque comes upon a camera with wide angle and predictive AF set up just accidentally?), and shared his images for everyone to see- why would you want to yank him around? Why would you deprive him of revenue?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 8, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Now I thought I understood the basics of photography copyright (cos it's useful for us snappers!), and that was that copyright does not need to be applied for. The creator of the work (let's ignore for now this case, and cases where you do a job for someone else, contracts etc) owns the copyright. I take a photo, its copyright belongs to me. I can release my claim to it, but doing nothing means I own the rights to it. I don't have to file paperwork. If down the line someone uses it without my permission, all I need to do is demonstrate it was me who took it, say by providing the raw image, or proving I was there and the other person wasn't.



Well, I did a little reading up, to see if my memory served me correctly. It does seem some things have changed a bit since I was in school and generally things are now more favorable toward the creator of a work.

From what I can tell, the key distinction is that while the copyright does not have to be applied for, as you state, it may be difficult to enforce the copyright if you do absolutely nothing. At a minimum, it seems a good idea to use your software's ability to embed the copyright in the electronic file and to display a copyright symbol when practical. 

I guess I would err on the side of caution and at least include a copyright claim in the electronic file. A simple and automated step that could help prevent confusion down the road.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 8, 2014)

unfocused said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Now I thought I understood the basics of photography copyright (cos it's useful for us snappers!), and that was that copyright does not need to be applied for. The creator of the work (let's ignore for now this case, and cases where you do a job for someone else, contracts etc) owns the copyright. I take a photo, its copyright belongs to me. I can release my claim to it, but doing nothing means I own the rights to it. I don't have to file paperwork. If down the line someone uses it without my permission, all I need to do is demonstrate it was me who took it, say by providing the raw image, or proving I was there and the other person wasn't.
> ...



It's my understanding that in the U.S. you gain copyright protection automatically; however, if you don't register a particular photo you can only recover "actual damages" -- i.e. what you could have charged for the photo in that situation. If you do register you can also collect "statutory damages," which amounts to a much larger, punitive claim.

*CAUTION:* Never take legal advice from some random guy on the Internet!!


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 8, 2014)

I heard a rumour that when the monkey picked up the camera he changed the settings. It is not clear whether he changed them more than once, nor what the actual settings were before... ;D

Only that big man in the sky knows whether the monkey did it intentionally, or not.

Quite amazing the stuff some media will cover these days! I am sure the photographer is benefitting from all the exposure anyway.


----------



## Daniel 78d (Aug 8, 2014)

So if somebody steals my camera and takes a picture of themselves (they) have right to the picture? No. It sounds like wiki was playing the "he makes a good point" game and won.


----------



## Daniel 78d (Aug 8, 2014)

Also if a man goes in with the intent of a "monkey" picture and comes out with a "monkey" picture then where is the real argument?


----------



## alfredo (Aug 8, 2014)

> alfredo said:
> 
> 
> > nor it can legally hold copyright
> ...


I don't know whether the pics were taken in the wild, or in a zoo/park. In the latter case, I agree the zoo/parc owner and the photographer may dispute about copyright, and probably be entitled to share it.



> > the creative action of setting up the environment makes the copyright belong to the photographer.
> 
> 
> But he didn't: he set up the camera, not the creative environment. If the camera had been fixed with a tripwire of some kind, then the photographer could claim ownership. As soon as the macaque takes physical control of framing the shot, it's no longer the photographer's.


The photographer, according to his version, did make the camera available to the monkeys in a "ready-to-shoot" mode. I claim he was creative enough, up to the point that he's the first man having intentionally made monkeys take a selfie.



> > 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).
> 
> 
> Correct result, wrong reason. The reason is that your setup of the motion sensor is deterministic: it's known, with a very high degree of certainty, what the framing of the shot will be. The fact that you determined the framing (even if that's in advance) is what makes you the creative force of the photo.


I disagree (respectfully! ;-) ). According to your definition, if I set a random timer, and put my camera on a motorized dolly with random movements, then I give up copyright, because I give up on deciding the timing and framing of my picture. On the contrary, I claim that my act of will of setting up a random timing and framing in a particular environment is my act of creativity, for whose result I own the copyright.



> > the customer pays a fee to the machine, to hold the copyright of the result
> 
> 
> You're assuming an implicit contract, which would require explicit statutory language, or a long history of common law. I wouldn't accept that assertion from anyone short of an IP lawyer.


Right, I agree I don't remember reading a contract before jumping into one of those automatic booths. (Maybe there's one in small letters somewhere?)


----------



## alfredo (Aug 8, 2014)

preppyak said:


> alfredo said:
> 
> 
> > 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.*
> ...


Yes, I agree. I'm implicitly buying the photographer statement, in that he went out to make a photo session, he set up the camera, put it in a position accessible to monkeys, then waited for them to get hold on the camera. If he lost his camera, then found it back with those pictures on it, that would be different, and would likely put the pictures in the public domain.


----------



## charlesa (Aug 8, 2014)

No DSLR near the monkey, no selfie ever possible. Quite straightforward reasoning I would assume...


----------



## scyrene (Aug 8, 2014)

unfocused said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Now I thought I understood the basics of photography copyright (cos it's useful for us snappers!), and that was that copyright does not need to be applied for. The creator of the work (let's ignore for now this case, and cases where you do a job for someone else, contracts etc) owns the copyright. I take a photo, its copyright belongs to me. I can release my claim to it, but doing nothing means I own the rights to it. I don't have to file paperwork. If down the line someone uses it without my permission, all I need to do is demonstrate it was me who took it, say by providing the raw image, or proving I was there and the other person wasn't.
> ...



Phew! I felt a bit stupid putting my name into the copyright exif setting, but now I'm glad I did! Although some editing software strips out all the exif anyway.


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 8, 2014)

That's why I think the whole scenario is quite strange. The EXIF data_ does_ contain copyright information. I think the person who uploaded the photo to Wikimedia was very brave.


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 8, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> Lloyd said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I'd actually say that's the most compelling argument here. I award everything to Mr. Macaque, even the monkey picture for that reason alone!


----------



## Lloyd (Aug 8, 2014)

I am going to have to amend my previous post concerning Mr. Macaque’s chances of success. It seems that he managed to file suit in a favorable venue. The jury, as pictured below, has been selected and things are looking up for Mr. Macaque.


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 9, 2014)

*Copyright*

Hi Folks. 
As no one else has asked, who owns the copyright, the Photographer, the Monkey or no one? 

http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/06/wikipedia-photographer-and-presumably-monkey-in-copyright-row-over-black-macaque-selfie-picture-4823588/

My view is the monkey didn't own or set up the gear and could not have taken the picture without the camera setup ready!
Would like your thoughts on this. 

Cheers Graham.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2014)

*Re: Copyright*

Yes it has been asked. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22140.0

Besides, nobody is saying the monkey does, well nobody with any idea of how copyright works, the argument is that the camera owner does not own it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2014)

*Re: Copyright*

If it were on a white background, obviously Amazon would own it. But in this case, it's a puzzler...


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 9, 2014)

*Re: Copyright*

Hi privatebydesign. 
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Should this thread be pulled as it is a duplicate! Any idea if I can do that or is that a moderator job, does deleting the first post kill it or just make a mess? I'm really surprised it wasn't in the general section, but then I guess it is a business related question. 

Cheers Graham.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 9, 2014)

*Re: Copyright*



neuroanatomist said:


> If it were on a white background, obviously Amazon would own it. But in this case, it's a puzzler...



Oook!


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2014)

*Re: Copyright*

Neuro, 

Only if the monkey was on an elevated platform and the background was lite by lights from the back of that platform as well as other places. 

Vavebounce,

You can't delete the first post in a thread, so it is mod only. But it was easy to miss so don't feel bad.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2014)

*Re: Copyright*



privatebydesign said:


> Neuro,
> 
> Only if the monkey was on an elevated platform and the background was lite by lights from the back of that platform as well as other places.



That all depends on the relative legal acumen of the monkey's lawyers vs. Amazon's. Since monkeys don't have pockets, Amazon's are bound to be deeper...


----------



## serendipidy (Aug 10, 2014)

Lloyd said:


> I am going to have to amend my previous post concerning Mr. Macaque’s chances of success. It seems that he managed to file suit in a favorable venue. The jury, as pictured below, has been selected and things are looking up for Mr. Macaque.



;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Joe M (Aug 10, 2014)

Lloyd said:


> I am going to have to amend my previous post concerning Mr. Macaque’s chances of success. It seems that he managed to file suit in a favorable venue. The jury, as pictured below, has been selected and things are looking up for Mr. Macaque.


Slater will simply appeal as obviously someone has tampered with this jury. It's obviously rigged as there are 14 members.


----------



## Lloyd (Aug 10, 2014)

Joe M said:


> Slater will simply appeal as obviously someone has tampered with this jury. It's obviously rigged as there are 14 members.


Mr. Macaque is a clever monkey, not only with a camera. He has selected two alternate jurors, just in case two of them become ill or just go ape.


----------



## RobertG. (Aug 11, 2014)

Hi, in Germany the situation would be quite clear. When a human take a picture, he/she owns the copyright, if the picture is a "personal intellectual creation" (§ 2 copyright law). But a monkey is no human and according to German law an animal is just a thing. A thing cannot have a copyright, so neither the monkey nor his owner have a copyright of the picture.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2014)

RobertG. said:


> Hi, in Germany the situation would be quite clear. When a human take a picture, he/she owns the copyright. A copyright cannot be sold or resigned. Only user rights can be sold. But a monkey is no human and according to German law an animal is just a thing. So this monkey or his owner do not have the copyright because a thing cannot have a copyright.



Robert, you are missing Wikipedia's point. They are not saying the monkey owns the copyright, and they never have, they are also not claiming the "owner" of the monkey owns the copyright. What they are asserting is that the owner of the camera did not take the photo so he does not own copyright.

Or to put it more clearly in your terms, a human did not take the photo, so how can a human claim copyright? It is a bit more nuanced than that, but that is the core of the assertion.


----------



## Joe M (Aug 11, 2014)

Lloyd said:


> Joe M said:
> 
> 
> > Slater will simply appeal as obviously someone has tampered with this jury. It's obviously rigged as there are 14 members.
> ...


Cracks me up. Nicely done Mr. Macaque.


----------



## klickflip (Aug 11, 2014)

My understanding is if the photographer instigated the scenario then he owns the copyright regardless who takes it. 

As an assistant i have shot many frames that were used for commercial purposes.. and I was happy to. I was only getting paid assistant rates not getting any of the bigger creative usage fees. Sometimes it was as simple as pressing the shutter for a still life which the photographer had directed and I set up, this was fairly common practice in the 80s and 90s when using 5x4 & 10x8 cameras. The Assistant basically did everything while the photographer directed everything and talked to the art directors and sometimes models while I shot the frames. 
On some occasions I have shot more 'freeform' using my framing / timing and judgement when the photographer is busy consulting with AD's or feels its in his interests to be taking care of something else on the shoot wind machine etc. 

Plus there are many photographers that often don't shoot the actual shot themselves - Many fashion photographers, car photographers are as I mentioned busy doing other tasks that bring the shoot together more than pressing the shutter. 
Terry Richardson, often gets his assistants to shoot as he directs and engages with the models (this is a mild way of putting it if you know his work!!!!) Plus the models often have shot kinda selfies of themselves with Terry . 

Thesedays on still life shoots I often get assistants to shoot for me while I move lights and reflectors around, as its quicker and better me doing this than taking time to describe to assistant exactly what to do. 

Wedding photographers often employ assistants / interns and get them to run around shooting 2nd cam reportage work. This is normally all part of the industry and great experience and learning to the assistants. 

Now .. did the monkey happily gain from this experience ? In some sense I would think it was at least stimulating to it - did he understand the situation that anything he shot would be used and creative credit taken by the photographer .. of course not! 

But I firmly believe that the photographer had sufficient input and insight to let the monkey take the camera and see what happens which is a creative decision to me. 

Many artists don't produce certain aspects of their work, many sculptors and fine artists employ arttist assistants and technicians to actually craft certain or all parts of their artworks. 
Do architects build the building.. ? 
Many more examples


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2014)

klickflip said:


> My understanding is if the photographer instigated the scenario then he owns the copyright regardless who takes it.
> 
> As an assistant i have shot many frames that were used for commercial purposes.. and I was happy to. I was only getting paid assistant rates not getting any of the bigger creative usage fees. Sometimes it was as simple as pressing the shutter for a still life which the photographer had directed and I set up, this was fairly common practice in the 80s and 90s when using 5x4 & 10x8 cameras. The Assistant basically did everything while the photographer directed everything and talked to the art directors and sometimes models while I shot the frames.
> On some occasions I have shot more 'freeform' using my framing / timing and judgement when the photographer is busy consulting with AD's or feels its in his interests to be taking care of something else on the shoot wind machine etc.
> ...



Your understanding is wrong. Every one of your scenarios, where you are a second shooter, where your assistants shoot for you, artists assistants etc all sign away any rights they might be granted under the law when they work under contract to the employer.

So take these scenarios, your camera is stolen but it is found a month later, some funny guy took it on holiday with him and took photos of a garden ornament all over the world, do you own the copyright? Of course not.

You leave your camera as a remote camera in the woods with a trigger, somebody moves it and takes a different shot to the one you had set up, do you own the copyright? No, you do not.

You leave your camera in the woods by accident, a branch falls on it and just presses the shutter button, do you own the copyright? No, you do not.

You leave your camera in the woods with the intention of wireless remote shooting, a child comes along and moves your camera and in the process pushes the shutter button, do you own the copyright? No you do not.

Take the last scenario and exchange a child for a monkey, you still don't own the copyright, you did not frame or take the photo. 

Somebody does not have to own the copyright, an image can be copyright free, that is what Wikipedia are asserting, the image does not have copyright on it so they are free to reproduce it without restrictions.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 11, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Your understanding is wrong. Every one of your scenarios, where you are a second shooter, where your assistants shoot for you, artists assistants etc all sign away any rights they might be granted under the law when they work under contract to the employer.
> 
> So take these scenarios, your camera is stolen but it is found a month later, some funny guy took it on holiday with him and took photos of a garden ornament all over the world, do you own the copyright? Of course not.
> 
> ...




THIS ^^^^^^^ +10


If you don't frame the shot, then you don't own the copyright. Personally, I think the macaque should own copyright, but then I'm biased in favor non-human primates. 8)


----------



## Besisika (Aug 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Your understanding is wrong. Every one of your scenarios, where you are a second shooter, where your assistants shoot for you, artists assistants etc all sign away any rights they might be granted under the law when they work under contract to the employer.
> ...



Just out of curiosity, I am not saying who is wrong or right, just curiosity.
How would you prove that they pressed the shutter? On the photo, it is the name of the photographer that appears, he owns the raw file, the lens was rented on his credit card and so on...
What prevents a thief from saying that he pressed the shutter of an award winning photo? Not sure about that law.
I must admit, the example of the branch is funny.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 11, 2014)

Besisika said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Misrepresentation of intellectual property is a real problem, but is a separate question. Presumably the photographer's integrity comes into play somewhere. Also, if metadata shows 12mm FL and a simian face fills the screen, with a furry arm reaching toward the camera body...well...um...that might give it away. You may ask about altering the metadata to show different focal length, and I would ask how that differs from changing the copyright owner in the metadata.


----------



## agierke (Aug 11, 2014)

So i just went back and read the ex if data that tolusina provided on the first page.



> DateTime - 2013:11:01 13:55:43
> Artist - David J Slater
> Copyright - Caters News Agency Ltd



It appears Caters News Agency owns the copyright. After considering this further, the biggest question looming is how did Wikipedia come to acquire the image? Did the news agency release it? (Doubtful) or is it more likely that Wikipedia "lifted" the image off the internet?

Based on the exif data, mr Slater has no claim. Caters News Agency on the other hand does...if they even care to take action, which I doubt they do.


----------



## Besisika (Aug 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


----------



## Skulker (Aug 11, 2014)

The image was created in Indonesia. Therefor Indonesian law would decide who owned the copyright originally, if anyone did. Who it was transfered to later is another question.

Is it worth going to court to sort it out? Not a chance, Wikipedia are banking on it.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 11, 2014)

Besisika said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Misrepresentation of intellectual property is a real problem, but is a separate question. Presumably the photographer's integrity comes into play somewhere. Also, if metadata shows 12mm FL and a simian face fills the screen, with a furry arm reaching toward the camera body...well...um...that might give it away. You may ask about altering the metadata to show different focal length, and I would ask how that differs from changing the copyright owner in the metadata.
> ...




Let me see if I can clarify. First, it's not pushing the shutter button, it's framing the image that (in my opinion) is the defining act. To my mind, a timed or tripwire shot does belong to to the photographer if the framing of the resulting image is what the photographer specifically set up. That's not the case here: the macaque re-framed the shot.

Imagine that a writer (or publisher) gave 10,000 (very durable) computers to 10,000 macaques, and collected everything they typed. That writer/publisher would have had a great idea for provoking content from the critters, and can be credited for creating the environment. But that writer/publisher didn't actually set down the words that emerged from the primate fingers. At most, that writer/publisher could be considered the muse that inspired the creation.

Similarly, the photographer here created a fertile environment, but did NOT create the shots themselves. He was, at best, the macaque's enabler or inspiration. The photos were framed and shot by the macaque. To repeat: it was a creative act to enable the macaque, but that is a separate act of creativity from the photos themselves.

<added as edit>Think of all the photographers who lead workshops to photogenic locations, and set up good material in advance for the students to point-n-click. Even though the teacher set up everything (location, perspective, time of day, subject material) the photographer is not entitled to copyright for those photos.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 11, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ........
> You leave your camera in the woods with the intention of wireless remote shooting, a child comes along and moves your camera and in the process pushes the shutter button, do you own the copyright? No you do not.
> 
> Take the last scenario and exchange a child for a monkey, you still don't own the copyright, you did not frame or take the photo. …...



Paraphrasing from The Big Lebowski.........

_tolusina: Did you read David J Slater's Sulawesi macaques blog, PBD? 
PBD: What? 
tolusina: Did you read David J Slater's Sulawesi macaques blog? 
PBD: I was posting. 
tolusina: So you have no frame of reference here, PBD. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know... _
- - -
Your premise quoted above as well as the rest of the hypothetical examples you posted above make it appear you've not followed the story but prefer to blather in support of your studied ignorance.

How about if the camera is in your hands, someone comes along and grabs it while you still hold it, then presses the shutter. Or a tree branch falls on your camera holding hand? Or the thief is also a kidnapper, forces you to shoot with your camera on his demand. You sleep with your camera on a wrist strap, a dog nuzzles your hand to wake you, a photo is taken, are any, all of these photos then public domain?
For the successful photos in question the camera never left Slater's physical control. 

I will concede your one scenario, you absentmindedly forget your camera's value and your emotional attachment to it and carelessly leave it completely unattended, photos get taken. Ownership of these photos could get argued, though not by me, thank you no in advance should you be so inclined.
The camera never left Slater's physical control. 

Your arguments are as logical as a photo bomber jumps into the frame just as you shoot, adding an element that was not part of your intended composition. By your logic, the photo bomber owns the copyright with no regard to the years of education and experience as a researcher, adventurer and trekker, the addition of photography knowledge, skills and experience, travel planning and expenses, getting to the site and setting up the scene, all is for naught according to you and Jimbo Wales, the photo becomes public domain.

Slater had the camera attached to an accessory tripod, was holding the tripod, by extension holding the camera as a temporarily integral part of the camera, the shutter was released capturing exactly the image he had set up for.
Think on that for a little, imagine yourself in a situation that you have prepared years for, made such situations a large part of your life work, you plan for, spend for and reach your destination, establish a rapport of sorts with wild and currently gentle and inquisitive creatures, encourage the creature's inquisitiveness to the point they'll come up and handle the camera amused by their own reflections, you still retain some control of where the wide angle lens is aimed by virtue of your hand on the tripod, then are denied copyright of the resulting images only because your finger did not actuate the shutter.

Read the blog. Slater had left the camera out of his control, the macaques scampered away with it, the guide had to chase them down and retrieve the camera. This was not when the contentious photos were taken.
Slater learned quickly to maintain physical control of the camera, then and only then, with his guiding had on the camera/tripod assembly were the successful and contentious images captured.

I do hope Slater has the only and original file of the RAW.
Further, I'm hoping that in a roundabout, Mark Twainesque way, Jimbo Wales has recognized a loophole in copyrights vs. public domain issues and is using this particular issue to raise public awareness of the issues in order to effect change, change hopefully to artists' behalf and benefit.

And please, make no argument that one must be viewing through the finder or live view, shooting blind is an acceptable technique that can produce useable results, especially with a wide angle. If you've never tried but let the shot go making no attempt, sorry for you and your photographic subjects.

edit........ by the EXIF, Slater has conveyed copyright to Caters as noted in an earlier post. Has Caters released copyrights to the public domain? I doubt it because if Caters had released, there'd be no international story.






.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 11, 2014)

tolusina said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ........
> ...




You obviously didn't read it. It says right in the blog that it absolutely left his control.

_So I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play. I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens _


He put it on a tripod
He set it to auto
He moved away
 That's out of his control.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



You gonna share the fried crow with PBD? Maybe you prefer yours deep fried.
from 
Sulawesi macaques...

_"......I wanted to keep my new found friends happy and with me. I now wanted to get right in their faces with a wide angle lens, but that was proving too difficult as they were nervous of something - I couldn't tell what. So I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play. I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens. I was then to witness one of the funniest things ever as they grinned, grimaced and bared teeth at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens. Was this what they where afraid of earlier? Perhaps also the sight of the shutter planes moving within the lens also amused or scared them? They played with the camera until of course some images were inevitably taken! *I had one hand on the tripod when this was going on,* ..."_


----------



## Besisika (Aug 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > Let me see if I can clarify. First, it's not pushing the shutter button, it's framing the image that (in my opinion) is the defining act. To my mind, a timed or tripwire shot does belong to to the photographer if the framing of the resulting image is what the photographer specifically set up. That's not the case here: the macaque re-framed the shot.
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 12, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > tolusina said:
> ...



Is that the best you can do? I read that, but how many photographer's assistants have had "one hand on the tripod" to steady it, and there's no way you'd give them copyright. That's an absurdly weak claim on an image. If he had had one hand on the tripod and one on a remote shutter release that would do it. But the monkeys framed the shot when they "grinned, grimaced and bared teeth at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens." Then "They played with the camera until of course some images were inevitably taken."

Nope, you are still badly mistaken. Slater doesn't own the shot: it's either nobody, or it's the Indonesian government.


----------



## gbchriste (Aug 12, 2014)

unfocused said:


> It would be entertaining to see how this plays out.
> 
> A big question is whether or not the photographer actually went to the trouble of getting a copyright on the photo in the first place. (Yes, lots of people put the copyright symbol on their photos but never bother to file the paperwork. Doing so preserves some rights, but it's not an absolute guarantee of copyright)
> 
> ...



It's not correct the "filing a copyright" would seal the deal, at least under U.S. law. In the U.S. copyright is established at the moment the artistic work is created. From that point on, any actions the author takes to mark or register the copyright are simply means of documenting the copyright that already in fact exists.

If I take a photo and never watermark it or register it with the U.S. Copyright Office, and later discover an infringement, I can take all legal action to enforce my copyright. The only issue remaining is how to I prove that I am in fact the author of the work. Perhaps all that is necessary is for me to produce the original RAW, date-time stamped image file. Of course, the task of proving my authorship becomes easier if I have in fact registered my copyright but it is not essential to establishing my copyright.


----------



## tolusina (Aug 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> ......
> Slater doesn't own the shot: it's either nobody, or it's the Indonesian government....


From the first page.......


Orangutan said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...


Presumed, nice, vague word. Specious argument material.
Macaque's are issued no birth certificates, there's no census unless conducted by researchers that the rulers have no interest in, they aren't taxed, have no passport, entry or exit restrictions, don't serve in the Military, have no driving privileges, no rights in court, no government health care, apparently no government protection as one can be bought for $0.20 (I know, article says 20p) worth of cigarettes in the meat market.
Should a macaque happen travel by boat to a place where there's a border crossing, Mr. Macaque's presence and crossing is sure to go unremarked, unless of course, the crossing agent chose to confiscate Mr. Macaque for (not to) dinner. 
Ownership would not automatically transfer to Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Australia, wherever, the entire topic and concept is beneath government's notice and concern.
If in fact there is some government ownership technicality, it's only because some faceless and likely long dead bureaucrat decreed so, not because there's any real life ownership with the care and responsibility exercised that such ownership would imply. 

From......
Sulawesi macaques...
“They are critically endangered thanks mainly to us humans - from forest clearance for houses and farms, persecution for their habit of crop raiding, and poaching for bushmeat. Indeed, they can still be found as bushmeat at local markets. A once shuned meat source due to Muslim perspectives, but with the rise of Catholicism on the island, the meat as once again become profit making. Below is a pic of a potentially ******* close relative, a male Booted Macaque (I didn't get a trapped crested macaque thankfully!). I say potentially because I got him released for a 20 pence packet of cigarettes as a bribe. The value on these monkeys lives is astonishingly low...”
But don't just take Slater's word for it, google Crested black macaque endangered

The Indonesian government simply cannot be bothered about Mr. Macaque, his family or any ownership issues, rights, responsibilities or benefits.
- - -
By the way, have you never shot 'blind'? Have you set up a camera on a tripod during this thread, had a hand on one leg while imagining a small playful and inquisitive critter in front of the camera? Do you lack the imagination that might allow Slater to one handed guide the rig in such a manner as to assure a reasonable wide angle capture, useable after crop and rotate?
Sure, Slater didn't have perfect control, but without the control hid did exercise, there'd be no contentious photos.
- - -
How can anyone here on CR take the WikiPedia side on this? But for one, very obviously arguable point, the photos are clearly Slater's and Caters'.
If this point falls, so can any other point in the creative chain, hardware, software, input, output, anyone can make up anything, any claim they want if they've got enough money to make it so. Is this the world we want?
What minute artists' right will be next to fall to the petty bureaucrats? 
How would your passion for photography fare if all photos were required to be uploaded to a government controlled cloud for review, approval and possible use against you at any random future date? No, I don't think this is far fetched at all, Putin would like to see this implemented right now or sooner.
I just learned that in Russia right now, you must present a passport in order to be _permitted_ to purchase a cell phone sim card. In the U.S., Chase Banks require photo ID for petty cash deposits.
Some governments and businesses want to control everything, the rest are content with just enough control to allow the illusion of Freedom.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...




I cannot quote the law here, as it is not my area of expertise. However, common sense says if a person set up an equipment in order to get a certain type of results, gets those results, and puts in the efforts to publish those results- they should be the logical recipient of the credits.

Science is my domain- so let's think that way. Let's say a primate researcher sets up his equipment in a certain way to perform a certain experiment- let's say macaques shooting themselves with a camera, to study social behavior. The macaques do approach the camera, which has been set up to allow the most likelihood of an acceptable picture being taken (wide angle lens, predictive focus- which I am sure very few wildlife photographers use otherwise), and by random chance some good shots are taken. The scientist duly collects the data and processes the images.
Now, would you say the data and the images are in the public domain so anyone can use the data without citing or permission, or even publish the results in a paper.

To me, what matters in intent (which the photographer certainly had as he wanted the macaques to trigger their own images as they weren't approaching the camera otherwise) and effort (going to the location, making friends with the animals, having the insight of setting up the camera the way he did, collecting and processing the images, sharing them on his blog). He also didn't lie about how the images were generated (although the images might have been less famous if they were shot using a remote switch instead of being selfies). 

The other thing that matters is ethics. This is a guy who earns his bread through this trade. He isn't some millionaire or even some rich photographer that the royalties from this photo he is losing won't affect him. On the other hand, paying royalties to him would probably not have affected those who downloaded the images, at least not in a big way anyway. So why is wikimedia citing technical reasons to deprive this guy of some earnings? Especially since they aren't getting the money, anyway!
Even worse, photographers on this forum are repeating those technical clauses instead of thinking how a fellow tog is losing the money that could have helped him and his family. I see people rant here how we should support Gary Fong and Expoimaging and not deprive them by buying the cheap knockoff versions. Where is that support now?


----------



## tolusina (Aug 12, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> ......
> Science is my domain- so let's think that way. Let's say a primate researcher sets up his equipment in a certain way to perform a certain experiment- let's say macaques shooting themselves with a camera, to study social behavior. The macaques do approach the camera, which has been set up to allow the most likelihood of an acceptable picture being taken (wide angle lens, predictive focus- which I am sure very few wildlife photographers use otherwise), and by random chance some good shots are taken. The scientist duly collects the data and processes the images.
> Now, would you say the data and the images are in the public domain so anyone can use the data without citing or permission, or even publish the results in a paper.
> 
> ...


Much as I dislike "+1" posts, here's a +1!

Gary Fong, yup, bought the full kit, two of them. Great videos.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 12, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Is that the best you can do? I read that, but how many photographer's assistants have had "one hand on the tripod" to steady it, and there's no way you'd give them copyright. That's an absurdly weak claim on an image. If he had had one hand on the tripod and one on a remote shutter release that would do it. But the monkeys framed the shot when they "grinned, grimaced and bared teeth at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens." Then "They played with the camera until of course some images were inevitably taken."
> ...






> However, common sense says if a person set up an equipment in order to get a certain type of results, gets those results, and puts in the efforts to publish those results- they should be the logical recipient of the credits.


In many cases yes; in this case no. Think about this: imagine it's not a macaque, but a 16-year old child who steps up, plays with the camera and takes some selfies. Who owns the photos? I believe (IANAL) that the kid does. Now make it an 8-year old kid: same thing. How make it a 1-year old barely learning to walk. They are still the child's photos because it was the intent of the child that caused specific photos to be taken in specific ways. Now, an adult macaque has a similar or higher level of mental development than a 1-year old human. While it's true that the photographer set up a great studio, it was the macaques that chose to approach the camera, chose to handle it, chose to interact with their reflections in the glass and (unintentionally) caused the photos to be captured. The photographer set it up so that some photos might be captured, but if the monkeys had not chosen to do any of those activities then these particular photos would not have been captured. As I said above, if he had operated the camera by remote shutter release then he would have claim on the images. The point you're missing is that it's not about some photos being taken, it's about certain specific photos. The decision about which specific photos, with which poses, facial expressions, framing was 100% the monkeys.

Your proposition would be valid for somewhat different circumstances, e.g. a motion-sensing camera, or a timer, or something similar where the animal does not purposefully interact with the camera.



> Let's say a primate researcher sets up his equipment in a certain way to perform a certain experiment- let's say macaques shooting themselves with a camera, to study social behavior. The macaques do approach the camera, which has been set up to allow the most likelihood of an acceptable picture being taken (wide angle lens, predictive focus- which I am sure very few wildlife photographers use otherwise), and by random chance some good shots are taken. The scientist duly collects the data and processes the images.
> Now, would you say the data and the images are in the public domain so anyone can use the data without citing or permission, or even publish the results in a paper.


Data and images are different things. I'm not claiming the images are in the public domain -- I don't know. I believe they are (or should be) not Slater's copyright. Data is an entirely different beast and I haven't thought about it enough to offer a rational opinion. 



> To me, what matters in intent (which the photographer certainly had as he wanted the macaques to trigger their own images as they weren't approaching the camera otherwise


Consider a photography workshop led by a professional guide. The guide sets up all the stops, times the trip to hit the indigenous ceremonies at the right time, makes sure all the students are standing at the right overlook at the right time of day for perfect light, then steps back and lets the students point-n-click. By your reasoning, copyright of their photos would belong to the guide, not to the student who took the photo because all they did was play and click.



> The other thing that matters is ethics. This is a guy who earns his bread through this trade.


I agree: a guy who makes a living habituating wild animals in a way that might make them vulnerable to poaching or other human threats is selfish and unethical. If he were a wildlife biologist (or similar) and had training and experience to do this in a way that contributed to their protection and to our understanding of their lives and habitats, your ethical argument might have merit.



> photographers on this forum are repeating those technical clauses instead of thinking how a fellow tog is losing the money that could have helped him and his family


He could choose another way to make a living. If you're a scientist there's a good chance you don't make as much money with your brain as you could on Wall Street. That's your choice -- to do something useful to humanity while making a reasonable living. 

I appreciate your thoughtful post, but I vehemently disagree.


----------



## Besisika (Aug 12, 2014)

tolusina said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...


+1 too! 
You know the song "some of them want to use you, some of them want to be abused, some of them want to be used by you". Just singing!


----------



## preppyak (Aug 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Consider a photography workshop led by a professional guide. The guide sets up all the stops, times the trip to hit the indigenous ceremonies at the right time, makes sure all the students are standing at the right overlook at the right time of day for perfect light, then steps back and lets the students point-n-click. By your reasoning, copyright of their photos would belong to the guide, not to the student who took the photo because all they did was play and click.


This is probably the most useful analogy I've seen; and it shows why "creating the conditions" is a pretty vague and useless criteria to use. It matters who framed the shot (the monkey) and who snapped the photo (the monkey)...and that's pretty much it. 

Arguments about who owns the equipment, who set up the creative conditions...they all lead down really slippery slopes that, as photographers, we shouldn't want to go down.

Whats funny is that Slater went out of his way to claim this was a selfie by the animal, and now he's trying to backtrack that story to assert copyright. You can't have it both ways


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 12, 2014)

These questions are clearly addressed earlier in the thread.



dilbert said:


> Ok.
> 
> If you set up the camera to take photographs automatically, do you own the photograph?
> Or is it because nobody pressed the shutter button that therefore the picture is unowned?
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > These questions are clearly addressed earlier in the thread.
> ...



http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22140.msg423788#msg423788



> To my mind, a timed or tripwire shot does belong to to the photographer if the framing of the resulting image is what the photographer specifically set up



There are several more as well. Search for "trip" or "timed."


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If an apple falls out of the tree and causes your camera to take a photo that is remarkably good, do you own the copyright? Of course if you lie, chances are nobody will know...


One must appreciate the gravity of the situation......


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > If an apple falls out of the tree and causes your camera to take a photo that is remarkably good, do you own the copyright? Of course if you lie, chances are nobody will know...
> ...



Yes, and reflect on the astronomical importance of this discussion.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If it is a tripwire shot, then how can the photographer own the copyright if the composition included material that wasn't there when the photographer framed it?
> 
> This goes back to an another post where an instructor tells everyone how to frame a subject in order to take a photograph. In that instance you would be arguing that the instructor owns the copyright because the instructor decided what the composition was which is clearly incorrect.
> 
> If a random stroke of lightning automatically sets off the camera to take a picture that happens to include lightning that wasn't there when the image was framed then how can the photographer claim that it was their composition of the lightning that created the image?



This has been addressed elsewhere in the thread, please re-read it.


----------



## Tugela (Aug 12, 2014)

In the absence of an actual photographer, copyright should belong to the person who owns the equipment. 

It is the same principle as a remote camera. There is no physical human operator directing or framing footage, but the footage still belongs to the person who owned the camera. 

It is not rocket science. This guy has been ripped off shamelessly, and people are trying to hide behind what they see as a loophole in the law.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 12, 2014)

Tugela said:


> In the absence of an actual photographer, copyright should belong to the person who owns the equipment.
> 
> It is the same principle as a remote camera. There is no physical human operator directing or framing footage, but the footage still belongs to the person who owned the camera.
> 
> It is not rocket science. This guy has been ripped off shamelessly, and people are trying to hide behind what they see as a loophole in the law.



Imagine that, instead of macaques, it's members of an isolated Amazonian tribe who have no experience with technology. Now who owns the "selfie" and why?


----------



## serendipidy (Aug 12, 2014)

Tugela said:


> In the absence of an actual photographer, copyright should belong to the person who owns the equipment.
> 
> It is the same principle as a remote camera. There is no physical human operator directing or framing footage, but the footage still belongs to the person who owned the camera.
> 
> It is not rocket science. This guy has been ripped off shamelessly, and people are trying to hide behind what they see as a loophole in the law.



After careful review and reflection, in my opinion (which is never wrong), I think you are absolutely correct. I don't know why they don't come to some agreement to compensate Mr. Slater and put an end to all this monkey business.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > In the absence of an actual photographer, copyright should belong to the person who owns the equipment.
> ...



Without coming to a conclusion on the original subject, only humans are considered people in law as far as I know (in most jurisdictions, right?). So these other cases aren't strictly equivalent. An animal cannot own property, intellectual or otherwise. It cannot sign a contract, nor can it commit a crime. Only humans can.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 12, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine that, instead of macaques, it's members of an isolated Amazonian tribe who have no experience with technology. Now who owns the "selfie" and why?
> ...



The question of whether an animal can own property is irrelevant. Copyright is about what the artist does, not what others do. Is there any difference in the actions of photographer in the two hypothetical cases? Answer: no, the photographer's actions are the same. Therefore, if the photographer's actions would not earn him copyright in the case of isolated tribespeople, the same is true for the macaques.

There is a faulty (I believe) assumption that every photo is entitled to copyright, and the only question is who gets it. Several here have implied that copyright should be assigned to the human who has the most to do with the photo (by some vague definition). This, I believe, is false: there is a minimum bar of action that's needed for a photographer to earn copyright over a photo. To my mind that minimum bar is framing the shot. Slater did not frame these shots, so he did not earn copyright. It does not matter who or what might be the subject of the shot, or who else is involved in the shot. If he didn't do that simple act then he doesn't get copyright. The question of whether some other person or entity might be entitled to copyright is entirely separate. It's entirely possible that there is no copyright on these photos at all.

It will be interesting to see if/how this is resolved by an Indonesian court.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Not sure! I'm really addressing those people who have said it's somehow the monkey who should own it, or the people who own the park or whatever, which is patently ridiculous (the latter might be the case if they'd specifically stated it as terms of entry, as some zoos do).

Does copyright always apply to a photograph? Interesting question, I'd not considered it. I do worry that if we establish the principle that companies can come along and use your work because they don't think you had enough involvement in its creation, we're setting a dangerous precedent, however. There are already enough people prepared to steal stuff.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 13, 2014)

dilbert said:


> So if it isn't a person that sets the shutter or activates the shutter then the image has no copyright owner!



Under US law that perhaps that would be considered an "an Anonymous Work"

Title 17 USC Section 101

"An “anonymous work” is a work on the copies or phonorecords of which no natural person is identified as author." I would interprete that as a monkey ain't no natural person. 8)

The problem is that copyright law is rather sparce on what are the restrictions of the use of an "anonymous work".


----------



## dallasdave (Aug 13, 2014)

I'll go with possession is nine-tenths of the law - he owns the camera so he owns the image.

Of course I also think if someone borrows your camera and takes a picture (for example if you are on vacation and you ask a stranger to take your picture), you own it.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 13, 2014)

dallasdave said:


> I'll go with possession is nine-tenths of the law


It turns out that's not true (at least in the U.S.) You may want to talk to a lawyer about that before you get yourself in trouble.



> Of course I also think if someone borrows your camera and takes a picture (for example if you are on vacation and you ask a stranger to take your picture), you own it.


I believe this is a grey area of law, see the recent athlete/fan selfie stories.

As always, do not take legal advice from anyone on the Internet unless you know for a fact the person is a lawyer with expertise in that particular field.


----------

