Like Mr. Slater, my own opinion is that of course Mr. Slater holds the copyright to the disputed image, since he rotated and cropped (“framed”, if you will) the raw image, but I also think he should hold full copyright over the raw image as well. He took the actions that led to the possibility of the image existing in the first place, therefore the image should be his, is how I see it. I admit that I am not an IP lawyer and my understanding of the applicable laws may be (and prolly is) flawed and incomplete; I look forward to clarification from more knowledgable folks.
Obviously, some people at Wikimedia felt differently and were able to justify their position to their own satisfaction, and so we have a difference of opinion(s).
What say y’all? I’m interested in both the actual legal aspects and just what people feel should be the right outcome to this case and, as always, an eager to hear what my fellow Dopers think.
He took some of the actions that led to the possiblity of the image existing in the first place, but many others were involved. Who constructed the camera? Who conceive it? Who developed the technology on which it relies? Who transported Mr Slater to the place where the photograph was created? Etc, etc.
So if an artist paints a picture using paints supplied by someone else, that someone else owns the copyright to the picture?
Whatever else is the basis for copyright, I can’t see that ownership of the tools employed in the artistic work is the basis.
Which raises the question we need to think about - why do we have a copyright law at all? Why am I not free to make copies of anything it pleases me to copy?
And the usual answer is that we want to reward and encourage artistic creativity.
And if we accept that that is the answer, then Mr Slater should not own copyright to the raw image. Leaving your camera lying around is not an act of artistic creativity.
I don’t think this tracks. If I borrow your camera for a vacation and happen to take a beautiful picture that becomes internet-famous, it’s certainly not your photo, right?
I think the salient point in this story is that the photographer didn’t really create the conditions for this photo to be taken. A monkey came up, snatched the camera, fucked with it for a while, and a handful of the hundreds of photos that weren’t a blurred mess happen to have been really cool fucking photos.
There’s a difference between these photos and the work of photographers who set up cameras to take pictures remotely.
One of the articles I read made a good point about pieces of “art” made by primates and elephants. Who owns those? Does the zoo get to claim copyright here because they created a set of circumstances which allowed the elephant to finger(trunk)paint?
But let’s say these same pictures were the result of a trail camera that was motion-activated. Is the camera owner a copyright holder in that case? Is there a substantial difference between “Monkey finger activated” and “Monkey motion activated”?
All of the things you mention are things that Mr. Slater paid for; he uses them in exchange for the money he provided. That exchange precludes any future right to however Mr. Slater uses them or whatever he produces with them.
He didn’t “leave it laying around”; it was stolen. And the camera was there specifically to capture images of nature and wildlife; his method of achieving that goal is irrelevant. And while we’re at it, if the artist decides that leaving a camera lying around and seeing what it films is what he wants to produce, then it is indeed art.
The best argument you seem to be making is that if you stole paint and canvas from me, you still get to own the image you painted. I’m thinking the courts would differ with you on that, but I’m willing to be shown I’m wrong.
If the photographer sets a camera with a motion sensor, he is exercising an intent to create pictures. If a monkey just randomly grabs a camera, there is no intent by the human involved — no creative act, or actus creantis as lawyers who use Google Translate would say.
Surely the courts would hold that, unlike a human, a monkey is incapable of being held responsible for the crime of theft — or, as my Google legal advisor says, simia est doli incapax.
My argument doesn’t require that. It only requires that you don’t own the image that I made.
(As it happens, I think I would own the copyright to the image I created with the stolen materials. I’m not aware that it has ever been a consideration in copyright law that I should have ownership of, or a right or licence to use, the tools, materials, etc that I employ in my creative work. It’s the creativity of the work, not the legal title to the tools, that is the foundation of copyright.)
Serious question: people have left things in their wills to their pets. Are artists not allowed to leave copyrights to their pets? there are circumstances where the copyright survives the creator, and passes down to heirs. Right now, the NAACP has the copyright to Dorothy Parker’s work, because she left her rights to Martin Luther King, jr. (she had no heirs or a surviving spouse), and he left them to the NAACP. Suppose she had left them to her dog instead?
Personally, I think whatever preserve the monkey lived on, or if he lived truly in the wild, then the government of whatever country he lives in owns the copyright. In the past, when someone has had an animal create some kind of painting, it’s usually been for the benefit of whatever zoo or preserve where the animal lives, and if not, then I think it has belonged to whoever owns, or is responsible for the animal.
The entity that maintains the animal’s living space can pay an editor’s commission to the photographer, then make a buttload of money, and use it to fortify the police force that catches wildlife poachers, or something.
Obviously the law is going to vary from place to place, but in most countries animals can’t own things. A clause in your will leaving property to your pet is ineffective and invalid. If you’re determined, there are various legal structures you can set up in your will, or in advance of your death, to ensure that your property will be used for the benefit of your pet - and, again, exactly what you can do in this regard will vary depending on the local law - but in general none of those structures involve your pet owning the property. A cat can no more own a house than an amoeba or a rosebush can.
I think if somebody intentionally arranges to involve an animal in the creation of an artwork, then that somebody can legitimately claim the moral rights of the artist. I can’t remember who it was who used to put his paintings on the floor and get his cat to walk across them, but that kind of thing. This is no different from using any other force of nature; I could briefly expose my still-damp painting to the rain to secure a particular visual effect, for example, or expose something to the sun to fade it.
But that’s not what happened here. The guy inadvertantly put his camera where a monkey could get it, and the monkey got it. Some interesting exposures resulted. Neither the owner of the camera nor the owner (if any) of the monkey can claim to have been engaged in any kind of creativity. This image may be interesting or beautiful, but it doesn’t follow that somebody must own a copyright in it. If they guy had deliberately given his camera to the monkey in the hope that images would result, it would be different.
.jpg#Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_and_derivatives){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}