Wikimedia has denied a photographer’s request to remove a “monkey selfie” photo because the monkey pressed the shutter button making the photo ineligible for copyright, according to the Telegraph.
Nature photographer David Slater was in Indonesia in 2011 when a crested black macaque stole his camera and took hundreds of photos, including the famous selfie that was featured in publications across the world.
Many of the photos were blurry shots of the jungle floor, but among the throwaways were the selfie that gave Slater worldwide attention.
Kudos To Wikimedia Foundation For Resisting All Government Requests To Censor Content
from the good-to-see dept
Wikimedia's new Transparency Report has been getting some attention, in part because it brought attention back to the whole monkey selfie copyright debacle. However, the rest of the transparency report itself is rather interesting, starting with the fact that it appears that Wikimedia rejected every request to pull down information (unrelated to copyright, which we'll get to in a second).
And yeah, this stuff is utter nonsense and really needs to be fixed. I've already seen a few new sysadmin hires who wanted to talk about arranging licensing for the entry-level shell script they just wrote - for the client who is paying their wages - because ad hoc administrative scripting wasn't specifically mentioned in their job description.
I wonder just what blog or irc channel they got that idea from? :-\
And here I thought I was a BOFH...-40hz (August 07, 2014, 10:11 AM)
You're out at a typical tourist destination when a couple hands you their camera and asks you to take a picture of them up against a background. You say yes, then snap a nice picture of them.
You own the copyright? On their camera?-Renegade (August 07, 2014, 06:58 AM)
^Just hand them a dollar for doing it. Then you have offer, tender, and acceptance and it becomes "work for hire."-40hz (August 07, 2014, 10:11 AM)
@app103 - So what about the tourist case? How would any fallout be handled? Random strangers owning pictures on your camera? This still seems odd. The case isn't the same as your daughter borrowing your camera.-Renegade (August 07, 2014, 08:18 PM)
So, in addition to giving them a dollar to take the photo for you, you would likely have to also get them to sign a contract where they agree to relinquish copyright to you, as a work for hire. ;)-app103 (August 07, 2014, 06:02 PM)
@app103 - So what about the tourist case? How would any fallout be handled? Random strangers owning pictures on your camera? This still seems odd. The case isn't the same as your daughter borrowing your camera.-Renegade (August 07, 2014, 08:18 PM)So, in addition to giving them a dollar to take the photo for you, you would likely have to also get them to sign a contract where they agree to relinquish copyright to you, as a work for hire. ;)-app103 (August 07, 2014, 06:02 PM)-app103 (August 08, 2014, 03:18 AM)
@app103 - So what about the tourist case? How would any fallout be handled? Random strangers owning pictures on your camera? This still seems odd. The case isn't the same as your daughter borrowing your camera.-Renegade (August 07, 2014, 08:18 PM)So, in addition to giving them a dollar to take the photo for you, you would likely have to also get them to sign a contract where they agree to relinquish copyright to you, as a work for hire. ;)-app103 (August 07, 2014, 06:02 PM)-app103 (August 08, 2014, 03:18 AM)
That merely dodges the issue.
I would argue that there's a reasonable expectation that the subjects of the photo own the photo, and that the photographer is merely being asked for an act of charity.-Renegade (August 08, 2014, 09:47 AM)
Or what if in 3-5 years, one of the subjects became a famous celebrity? Or the photographer did?-app103 (August 08, 2014, 12:40 PM)
There is also a reasonable expectation that the subjects will use that photo for personal use only, and won't sell the photo to Time magazine.
But if that could end up being their intention, the photographer might have a leg to stand on in court, in the absence of a contract.
And if you think that the photo having a real market value seems far fetched, consider what kinds of things could accidentally be captured in the background of such a photo. What if some tourists to NYC had some random stranger take their picture on 9/11, and in the background you could clearly see a plane hitting the WTC. A photo like that could have had a market value.
Or what if in 3-5 years, one of the subjects became a famous celebrity? Or the photographer did? Or it ends up being a celebrity photobombing?-app103 (August 08, 2014, 12:40 PM)
What if some tourists to NYC had some random stranger take their picture on 9/11, and in the background you could clearly see a plane hitting the WTC. A photo like that could have had a market value.-app103 (August 08, 2014, 12:40 PM)
Maybe I'm a bit off base here, but it seems to me that asking a random stranger to take a picture of you and your friend/family/pet/whatever at any given location/event in lieu of the ubiquitous "selfie" is subject to something we used to call a "gentleman's agreement". Nobody in these situations even entertains the thought of whose copyright the damn thing is, because usually it's just a snapshot intended for your home photo album with a few copies for grandma and auntie, and if either party demanded any rights or recompense, you'd get anything from a blank stare to a poke in the nose; it just isn't civil.-Edvard (August 08, 2014, 01:46 PM)
What if a photographer had his camera stolen, and the thief took a marketable photo, was apprehended by authorities, and the camera returned to it's owner? Does he own copyright to the photo? Can he sue for royalties if the owner of the camera capitalizes on it? I don't think so. IANAL, but I seem to recall precedent that says the thief surrenders his rights to property because he did so under unlawful circumstances. e.g. a car thief could not demand recompense for the gas he purchased to fill up the tank of a vehicle he stole. The photographer did say the monkey "stole" his camera, but then again, monkeys are not beholden to human law, so more of blah blah blah, ad nauseum undecided-Edvard (August 08, 2014, 01:46 PM)
What if someone's camera was stolen, and the thief took some incredible photos that were worth a fortune before getting busted. Then cops return the camera - yeah I know far fetched...but just work with me - to the rightful owner. Does the thief then deserve a piece of the action??-Stoic Joker (August 08, 2014, 01:54 PM)
It's all kind of silly. I doubt any court will extend IP legal protections to a non-human at this stage of the game.-40hz (August 08, 2014, 05:28 PM)
And the fact the photographer didn't himself take the shot rules out his claiming copyright as the photographer.-40hz (August 08, 2014, 05:28 PM)
However, because he owned the means (i.e. the camera that took the shot) and in the absence of any other human claiming to have been the photographer, he probably has the best claim to legal ownership of the picture.-40hz (August 08, 2014, 05:28 PM)
Yup...it's insane.
Copyright and related IP law needs to be reformed. Pronto. :tellme:-40hz (August 08, 2014, 05:28 PM)
It's all kind of silly. I doubt any court will extend IP legal protections to a non-human at this stage of the game.-40hz (August 08, 2014, 05:28 PM)
It's all kind of silly. I doubt any court will extend IP legal protections to a non-human at this stage of the game.-40hz (August 08, 2014, 05:28 PM)
I don't think Wikimedia is trying to argue that the copyright belongs to the ape. I think the point of Wikimedia's argument is that the image is essentially in the public domain because the camera's owner doesn't own the copyright (as he didn't take the picture, or even supervise/direct the photograph in any way), and the photographer (the person/creature/thing that took the photo) is not a human, so the ape can't own the copyright either.-Deozaan (August 09, 2014, 09:08 AM)
Now perhaps the ape could file suit...but he'd need representation since (again as a non-human) he couldn't file on his own behalf - and it would be interesting to see how they could establish that he gave his informed consent for an attorney to represent him...hmmm
I suppose a judge could make him a ward of the state and appoint legal counsel on his behalf. But that would be such a career limiting move that I don't think many US judges (and certainly not any residing outside the State of California) would even consider doing such a thing.-40hz (August 08, 2014, 05:28 PM)
If you get someone to help take a photo, and they do no more than a 'reasonable' job, then you own it. BUT if you hand the camera to a professional to take and he uses his skill to achieve a better photo, then he could lay claim to it.-Fred Nerd (August 10, 2014, 07:25 AM)
Likewise if you ask an amateur to help build a shed, he only puts in work. But if you ask me, I can add to the normal shed design and claim that as my copyright.-Fred Nerd (August 10, 2014, 07:25 AM)
Let's pretend this shed won best shed in a building competition and we wanted to know who gets the prize.-Fred Nerd (August 10, 2014, 07:25 AM)
In the building trade, the problem is 'gentleman's agreements' all the time.-Fred Nerd (August 10, 2014, 09:54 AM)
The problem is that we are a bunch of engineers trying to define art.
Lots of art students spend many years studying this (paid by the government in a lot of places in the world) and none of them know either. (I have spent many hours listening to pretty girls who study art tell me all about it while I study 'natural art')
In the building trade, the problem is 'gentleman's agreements' all the time. If I draw the plans, I keep the copyright, if I design a unique (for example) timber floor artistic pattern which I simply ask "how about this?" and do then do the job, it's not clear. If I had said: "I'll design a custom flooring system" and drawn it up and the client signed that he had selected my design, then I keep it. Even if I was paid for the time I drew it, that's simply the cost of using my design.
However, the question is: did he make the overall finish by choosing the design, or did I design floor to make the overall finish?
Maybe consider the case of someone hanging a Picasso on the wall and that made the room look good. Who is the artist if the room is considered the artwork?
In the case of the holiday photo, if the person asking did not expect the person taking to do any more than just point and shoot (i.e. an amateur under instruction) then the tourist owns the picture. If the tourist asks a professional thinking that he/she is an amateur, then the professional can
a: take the photo and say nothing
b: first warn the people that this is his job and his work is copyright (kind of like if you ask a signed recording artist to play happy birthday and want to record it).
If the professional says nothing and then claims the photo, the tourist could claim that the photographer had the camera under false pretences and that would open up another can of worms.
If there is an accidental historic photobomb, the professional could claim the photo, but the tourist could countersue for lost revenue that the camera was borrowed under false pretences and the tourist could have made the shot and got the royalties.
That's my opinion.
Oh, and as for hobbyists: a lot of that comes back to licencing and liability. You can ask old Jim how to build a shed and he is not licenced to charge for his information, and if it falls down that was your fault. If you ask me, I can charge for it and I have to pay insurance because you can sue me if I told you wrong information.
A professional photographer would be one who could be reasonably expected to charge for such a service. e.g. has a history of working as such, has a lot of images sold under copyright etc.-Fred Nerd (August 10, 2014, 09:54 AM)
I don't think that we'll ever have copyright that makes sense though. The edge cases just push too hard.-Renegade (August 10, 2014, 11:25 AM)
take the money andmove onrun. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WCFUGCOLLU)-40hz (August 10, 2014, 11:48 AM)
It's almost like that same short-sighted venture capital goal of an early "cash-out" has come to the art and creative world. That mindset has hurt business. Because there's no longer a long-term goal to actually build sustainable business. Just to get them to where they can be sold. Then, take the money and move on.-40hz (August 10, 2014, 11:48 AM)
To my mind, our biggest problem with IP is that, in order to have a fair and workable copyright law, we need to apply common sense. And laws and the legal system generally aren't about common sense. They're about complex definitions and tortuous semantic arguments. And an entire professional industry and branch of the government has been built upon it. And they employ tens of thousands of clever well-heeled individuals whose very livelihood is dependent upon things remaining the way they are.-40hz (August 10, 2014, 11:48 AM)
It's almost like that same short-sighted venture capital goal of an early "cash-out" has come to the art and creative world. That mindset has hurt business. Because there's no longer a long-term goal to actually build sustainable business. Just to get them to where they can be sold. Then, take the money and move on.AHA! So that's why there have been so many web services that only existed to irritate their competition into buying them out, while short-selling their customers/users in the interim.-40hz (August 10, 2014, 11:48 AM)
I think you meant:take the money andmove onrun. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WCFUGCOLLU)-40hz (August 10, 2014, 11:48 AM)
;) :Thmbsup:-Renegade (August 10, 2014, 12:22 PM)