Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Wikimedia refuses to remove animal selfie because monkey ‘owns’ the photo

<< < (5/7) > >>

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.-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.
-Deozaan (August 09, 2014, 09:08 AM)
--- End quote ---

Um...I think most of us got both the joke and the point the Wikimedia Foundation was trying to make. I doubt anybody took the argument that the ape held the copyright very seriously.  ;)

SeraphimLabs:
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)
--- End quote ---

Apes have been successfully educated in the use of standardized sign language, and can hold conversations in it.

You could train this ape in the use of sign language and then designate an interpreter to translate it on his behalf to whatever courts or attorneys wanted to hear the case.

Of course that is assuming the ape doesn't simply tell everyone that he has no idea what we are talking about, and just wants people to see him- which would mean the image has been placed in public domain by the photographer and the case is closed.

Fred Nerd:
The way I see it there is the creation of art and then the recognition of it being art.
If the creator didn't know it was creating art, then it doesn't own the copyright.
Example: People leave footprints in the sand and the photographer makes a mint with a picture of them
Example: Someone screws up a bit of paper and throws it in the trash, and an artist makes a mint by putting it on a pedestal
Example: Sheet metal worker hammers a piece of iron and a dj makes a dance music track with the same sound
Example: Someone records birdsongs/waves/whales.

If I build someone a shed (that's my job) then I might retain 'copyright' of the design unless it can be proved that I copied someone else.

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.
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.
Let's pretend this shed won best shed in a building competition and we wanted to know who gets the prize.

So, since the ape was unaware of what he was doing, he can't claim copyright. The artist (unintentionally) set up a circumstance where this photo was created, he recognised that it could be made into art, he processed the results and can claim them as his art.

Moral: don't ask me to help you build a shed. Please.

Renegade:
@Fred Nerd - You make some interesting comments.

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)
--- End quote ---

I don't see why amateur vs. professional should make difference. That's an arbitrary distinction based on whether or not someone regularly is paid for an activity.

As an example, there are "amateur" wine makers out there that make wines far superior to what you will find in your local store.

There are many hobbyists out there that do superb work. The monetary distinction doesn't seem to be a good one.

The important part there is the actual quality of the photo, but that relies on both objective and subjective criteria, and the subjective are the most important for "art". (It's not that hard to meet the objective criteria with point & shoot cameras.)

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)
--- End quote ---

I think that it's unlikely that for the shed example anyone can come up with anything sufficiently unique to warrant a copyright. Unless there's some significant deviation from what a normal shed is (see below).

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)
--- End quote ---

Now... there's the interesting part! :)

That actually has come up in the past in a few cases.

There was one that I vaguely remember where an interior designer was hired, then the owner entered her home into a contest and won. The designer was pissed. I don't have a reference for that though.

Does anyone else remember that case? It was inside of the last few years.

It was about "work for hire"...

Fred Nerd:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page