Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Wikimedia refuses to remove animal selfie because monkey ‘owns’ the photo
Stoic Joker:
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)
--- End quote ---
So what, It doesn't retroactively make everything they ever touched gold. And trying to have a legal strategy in place for every possible outcome, of every possible situation is just foolish. People should just work things out on their own instead of constantly running crying to (the legal system) mommy to sort out their messes.
There are frequent stories of lottery winners that have gone back and given the clerk that sold them the winning ticket a nice pile of cash...because they felt it was the right thing to do. Others - probably most - didn't. But trying to get a "tip" requirement enforced by the legal system would be foolish. Just as foolish as the fighting over the rights to a picture snapped for a stranger.
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??
As a rule...I would say no. Because there is no reason the court should be wasting its time on that sort of crap. However as an individual...depending on the circumstances...there is a possibility I may be inclined to toss them a piece of the action.
Stoic Joker:
@Edward - I was typing my post when yours came in (so hadn't seen it), but it looks like we went to the same place with this. :Thmbsup:
40hz:
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.
And the fact the photographer didn't himself take the shot rules out his claiming copyright as the photographer.
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.
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.
Then there's the thorny question of jurisdiction in that this ape is a resident of Indonesia, and the photo was taken in Indonesia so it's questionable which courts would have jurisdiction. (I'm guessing it wouldn't be the United States in any event.)
Hmm...now should Indonesia decide to make this monkey a ward of the state...and file on his behalf under the international law (good) or international trade agreement (even better) there might be some kerfuffle over who was legally entitled to whatever money could be made...
Yup...it's insane.
Copyright and related IP law needs to be reformed. Pronto. :tellme:
Renegade:
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)
--- End quote ---
Argument about work involved
The tourists:
Choose the location
Choose the time
Set up (frame) the picture
The "photographer":
Clicks the shutter button
As far as the work involved in the actual photograph, the subjects of it have invested far more than the person who takes the picture.
Argument about no human agent
Now, let's say that they have a tripod and set up the camera on that, then set the timer.
There is no photographer anymore. Somebody set a timer, but nobody clicked the shutter button.
The camera isn't human, so therefore the picture is in the public domain.
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)
--- End quote ---
This is a great point, and one that I was hoping someone would bring up.
Argument about permission to use property
The tourists have only given permission to the "photographer" to take pictures of them, and not permission to run around taking all sorts of pictures of other things.
So now you have a conflict involving the (mis-)use of the tourist's property versus the interests of the photographer.
Imagine you get someone to mow your lawn (for pay or otherwise), and they proceed to build a nice shed in your backyard out of materials you have, then demand to use it for their own purposes. Well... err...
Who owns the shed?
I think you have a much stronger claim on the shed than the person that built it.
The same applies to the tourist's camera.
Argument about duty/responsibility to preserve property
*IF* the photographer that takes a picture of some tourists has IP ownership in the photo, then the tourists would be guilty of destroying the photographer's property if they deleted or lost the photographs.
This is pretty absurd as it puts an onerous burden on the owner of the camera.
Back to the photobombing event example, imagine that the picture ends up with rockets exploding and people being blown apart in the background - blood, death, gore and nastiness (or imagine that the rocket is visible before it impacts/explodes). A war has just started. Now the owner of the camera may be your stereotypical little old lady with fragile sensibilities, and rather than have that "horrible" picture on her camera, she decides to delete it.
If the photographer owns the picture, then she has destroyed his property.
Argument for camera traps
Naturalists often set up cameras with motion detectors to take pictures of wildlife as they pass. No human is involved in actuall taking the picture.
What then?
Argument for public disclosure of all surveillance video
Surveillance cameras are automated with no human interaction. Is all that video then in the public domain?
The road that Wikimedia has chosen is fraught with issues.
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)
--- End quote ---
Yep. That.
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
--- End quote ---
-Edvard (August 08, 2014, 01:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yep. And that.
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)
--- End quote ---
And again.
The point that the camera is stolen goes back to the camera being the rightful property of its owner. Anything done to/with the camera is something that the owner must deal with.
Extending the shed example I gave above, imagine that someone comes into your backyard completely without your permission (no invitation at all) and builds a shed with materials you have.
Does that person have any kind of a claim on the shed?
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)
--- End quote ---
It doesn't make any sense to extend IP to non-human agents. (I've tried to make that point above regarding surveillance cameras, camera traps, etc.)
The question then gets around to how in the presence of a non-human agent (monkey, automated device, etc.) ownership is transferred.
The Wikimedia argument is that it becomes public domain. I've tried to show how this can have absurd consequences.
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)
--- End quote ---
I tried to argue above how this leads to absurd conclusions. (Surveillance cameras, sheds, etc.)
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)
--- End quote ---
Exactly.
Yup...it's insane.
Copyright and related IP law needs to be reformed. Pronto. :tellme:
-40hz (August 08, 2014, 05:28 PM)
--- End quote ---
+1
Deozaan:
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)
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version