Posted on 08/06/2014 12:55:02 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows
Wikimedia, the non-profit organisation behind Wikipedia, has refused a photographer’s repeated requests to stop distributing his most famous shot for free – because a monkey pressed the shutter button and should own the copyright[.]
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I hear his first wife was a Birch.
"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Have you ever Kippeled before?
That is exactly how I feel about clowns, mimes, and other street "performers"
I think Wikipedia is engaging in monkeyshines! There would be no photograph without the photographer having his equipment there and the photos are his work-product. Ownership / copyright derives from mhos work-product.
Now if Wikipedia / Wikimedia can show spontaneous generation of photos without intelligent intervention, let them produce such as the counter-argument!
I would beg to differ. The photograph was taken using the photographer’s equipment- therefore, it was a work for hire, therefore the photographer owns the copyright.
What’s his DUmp screen name?
Some guys will do anything for a piece of Ash.
My grandkids know the Just-So Stories, having had the stories read aloud to them.
/johnny
I don't know, I have never Kippled. is a joke from a Donald McGill Postcard, and was later used in an episode of the Beverly Hillbillies.
“The photograph was taken using the photographer’s equipment- therefore, it was a work for hire, therefore the photographer owns the copyright.”
If it is a work for hire, how much did the photographer pay the monkey to commission the work? Did they have a signed contract or just a verbal agreement?
“So, as a photographer, I do not own the copyright to any of the photos hat I make through remote triggers or timed shutters.”
No, those are different cases and the law handles them differently.
“The photographer placed the camera in the position. It was his equipment and the image was made at his intent.”
Incorrect. The monkey picked up the camera and moved it to the position the monkey wanted, so the photographer did not position the camera or have anything to do with the composition of the shot. There was no intent either, as the photographer admitted that the monkeys stole his equipment, and that he didn’t intend for them to do that or take pictures.
“The argument made is just silly in an attempt to hijack his property rights.”
Nobody’s hijacking his property rights. He is trying to assert property rights over something he didn’t create.
This is so wrong, you cannot imagine.
Well, wait for the courts to decide, but I’m pretty sure you are going to be disappointed. You can’t copyright a work that has no author, that is well established.
It’s difficult to even claim a copyright on a work that has nature as the subject, even if you did author it, since natural forms are part of the public domain. So, even an unmodified photograph of a monkey, that the photographer took himself, would not necessarily be protectable.
The photographer could reasonably claim that he paid the monkey a banana, and that the monkey's acceptance of the banana relinquished any claim that the monkey had to the copyright of the photo.
The monkey would have to get its own copyright lawyer to put forward an opposing viewpoint.
“The photographer could reasonably claim that he paid the monkey a banana, and that the monkey’s acceptance of the banana relinquished any claim that the monkey had to the copyright of the photo.
The monkey would have to get its own copyright lawyer to put forward an opposing viewpoint.”
Too late for that, the photographer already shot himself in the foot by admitting that he didn’t do anything like that, and the photograph was an accident he didn’t intend to happen.
“Ownership / copyright derives from mhos work-product.”
Ownership and copyright are two different things. Copyright derives only from creative acts, not from all work in general:
“The Supreme Court decision in Feist v. Rural clarified the requirements for copyright in compilations. The Feist case denied copyright protection to a “white pages” phone book (a compilation of telephone numbers, listed alphabetically). In making this ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the “sweat of the brow” doctrine. That is, copyright protection requires creativity, and no amount of hard work (”sweat of the brow”) can transform a non-creative list (like an alphabetical listing of phone numbers) into copyrightable subject matter.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States_of_America
The copyright exists the second the photo is made.
Your understanding of copyright seems to be misunderstood. No, you cannot copyright a photo of Half Dome with an attempt to exclude anyone else from making and selling a photo of it.
However, tell Ansel Adams’ estate that his photos of Half Dome are not copyrighted.
The photographer clearly misspoke.
“The copyright exists the second the photo is made.”
If it’s a copyrightable work, yes. If the work isn’t copyrightable, then no.
“Your understanding of copyright seems to be misunderstood. No, you cannot copyright a photo of Half Dome with an attempt to exclude anyone else from making and selling a photo of it.
However, tell Ansel Adams’ estate that his photos of Half Dome are not copyrighted.”
Yes, your example is correct, but only because Adams’ photo contained enough creative work of his own to make it a distinct work. There is no such creative work to be found in this case with the monkey photo, besides perhaps cropping the photograph after it was taken.
Well, I’m not giving him that benefit of the doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.