Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Wikimedia refuses to remove animal selfie because monkey ‘owns’ the photo
app103:
@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)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
Renegade:
@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)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
-app103 (August 08, 2014, 03:18 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.
app103:
@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)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
-app103 (August 08, 2014, 03:18 AM)
--- End quote ---
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)
--- End quote ---
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?
J-Mac:
App,
While this topic was fairly interesting on its own, you have made it infinitely more so! Thought provoking. (And now I am trying hard to remember if I have ever taken any photos of anyone who has since become famous! :P )
Jim
Edvard:
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. Besides, if you had intended it as a photograph you eventually make money off of, what the blue-sparking hell are you doing trusting it to a random stranger? And if it DID become famous, how the hell would you know who the stranger was, and how would they know they were the ones that took that picture? Involving lawyers in something like that would just be bad form, bad taste, bad everything.
RE: the monkey.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the monkey is the copyright holder, as April pointed out, "Copyrights can only be held by humans", and I'm pretty sure the monkey had no idea what it was doing. Dickering over whose finger operating the shutter determining the copyright is just chatter and hand-waving IMO. What are you gonna do? Pay it royalties in bananas?
pointless theoretical legal quicksandWhat 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 :-\
That said, the owner of the camera probably should have done what professional photographers really do, which is properly copyright and watermark the thing before allowing it to spread like influenza over the internet. A bit like closing the barn door after the cows have gotten out. >:(
If he did, and Wikimedia simply rolled with the semantics, then I'm on the photographer's side; if not, Wikimedia has my vote.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version