Monkey see, monkey do, monkey...owns?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

I don’t think anything is clear in this case, but let me propose a hypothetical other case where I think the position is clearer:

A photographer enters the monkey enclosure at some zoo (with all the necessary permissions). He distributes a dozen or so cameras around the enclosure knowing that the curious monkeys will play with the cameras, inadvertently take photos, most of which will be poorly composed, but very occasionally a very good shot (and possibly one otherwise impossible to take) is taken.

In that case I see the photographer as being the designing agent and would believe he deserves the copyright to those images.

So, the question is, is the photographer’s lack of design in the real case the deciding factor? And if so, a further hypothetical:

One day, in removing his camera from its case, the photographer inadvertently (accidentally and with no intent) takes a shot that turns out to be of saleable interest, surely in that case he would own the copyright to that image even though he had no designing contribution?

22

If a painter accidentally spills paint on his/her canvas and it results in an aesthetically pleasing form that is shown in a gallery is it not the painter’s art?

If a musician accidentally hits a wrong chord while recording in the studio and decides to keep it… or if a cat jumps on the piano and the resulting sounds are picked up by the microphone…

Movies often have happy accidents where an unintended moment is caught on camera and used by the director.

I’m not 100% sure where I stand in this case, but I know it’s not as simple as determining the photographer’s intent. I am probably around 85% sure that Mr. Slater should (not as in “legally” but according to my own philosophical perspective) own the copyright. Sometimes in life and art, you just get lucky, and I’m fine with that.

23

I used that photo as an avatar on another message board.

24

According to Wikipedia (which admittedly isn’t really a neutral source in this case), it is indeed questionable whether shots taken by a non-manually-controlled security camera would qualify for copyright, although the issue has never been explicitly decided in court.

25

Monkey see. Monkey do. Funky Monkey?

26

It seems to me that the original photo’s would have no copyright, but if the photographer in any way edited the photographs before publication, then the altered photographs should be copright protected.

27

But does that extend to only uncopyrighted photos or copyrighted ones too?

28

And then if someone else gets their hands on the originals, and edits them in a slightly different way, do they then have copyright on their version?

29

Update: Monkey’s selfie cannot be copyrighted, US regulators say

Works created by “divine or supernatural” beings are also unable to be copyrighted. However, works that were not written by the divine, but merely inspired by it, are still copyrightable.

30

Judge: “Defendant, the plaintiff claims copyright ownership. How respond you?”

Monkey: “Gegrargh argh yak yurhk yarhk ghk kahkar”

31

“What does a God want with copyright?” :smiley:

32

Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle!

33

who cares about copyright,

The fact that the monkey didn’t immediately photograph his wang is at least proof that they can reason better than many other primates.

34

He would have, but he couldn’t figure out how to email it to female monkeys.

35

Then I’m off to the grocery store for free fruits and vegetables, at least until the bees who pollinated it lawyer-up.

36

Did they cite any examples of works created by divine or supernatural beings?

37

The actual text was “work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings” (emphasis added). So if you say that Zeus took your photograph, it’s in the public domain.

38

IMHO, Wikimedia’s argument is ridiculous. But as has been noted, it’s his burden to disprove it.