# Who owns the copyright to this image of a monkey? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2014, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987 "2014-08-06T23:15:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/21 "2014-08-07T02:22:44Z")
Here’s why Slater owns the copyright IMHO. The situation is precisely analogous to this: I get a whole load of polystyrene balls or something and put them out ready to build a pattern with them the next day. However, during the night, some natural process, perhaps the wind, lays them out in an attractive pattern. I copy the exact pattern and take my polystyrene balls and set them up in that exact pattern in a gallery. There is no doubt whatsoever that I own copyright in this sculpture. There is absolutely no relevant difference between the scenario I have laid out, and what Slater did in recognising that the pattern of 1’s and 0’s on his memory card created by natural forces was a pattern he could copy and display. Recognising something attractive in nature and recreating it has always resulted in copyrightable property. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/22 "2014-08-07T02:32:04Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Here’s why Slater owns the copyright IMHO. > > The situation is precisely analogous to this: I get a whole load of polystyrene balls or something and put them out ready to build a pattern with them the next day. However, during the night, some natural process, perhaps the wind, lays them out in an attractive pattern. I copy the exact pattern and take my polystyrene balls and set them up in that exact pattern in a gallery. There is no doubt whatsoever that I own copyright in this sculpture. > > There is absolutely no relevant difference between the scenario I have laid out, and what Slater did in recognising that the pattern of 1’s and 0’s on his memory card created by natural forces was a pattern he could copy and display. Recognising something attractive in nature and recreating it has always resulted in copyrightable property. You own the copyright in the sculpture that you made in the gallery. But suppose, before you see the pattern that the wind made in your yard, I pass by - I’m an early riser - and I think “gee, that’s nice!” and I go home and recreate it with my own polystyrene balls? I have never seen the sculpture you made in the gallery and am unaware that it exists. Indeed, my scultpure may have been created before yours. Am I in breach of your copyright? If yes, would I be in breach of your copyright even if you never got around to making your own sculpture in the gallery? Is the logic of your position that Slater owns the copyright in the image because he was the one who first converted the digital data into an image? And, if so, if someone else had recovered Slater’s camera from the monkey and was the first to generate an image from the data therein would that person be the copyright owner? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/23 "2014-08-07T02:58:46Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > You own the copyright in the sculpture that you made in the gallery. But suppose, before you see the pattern that the wind made in your yard, I pass by - I’m an early riser - and I think “gee, that’s nice!” and I go home and recreate it with my own polystyrene balls? I have never seen the sculpture you made in the gallery and am unaware that it exists. Indeed, my scultpure may have been created before yours. > > Am I in breach of your copyright? No, why? Your situation didn’t happen in Slater’s case so has nothing to do with it. > [@](#): > > Is the logic of your position that Slater owns the copyright in the image because he was the one who first converted the digital data into an image? And, if so, if someone else had recovered Slater’s camera from the monkey and was the first to generate an image from the data therein would that person be the copyright owner? He saw something in nature, and made a copy of it. Had someone else done so then I suppose yes. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/24 "2014-08-07T03:02:01Z")
If we can all agree that a monkey cannot copyright something, then the man whose camera the monkey took a picture with is the rightful owner of the picture. ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/25 "2014-08-07T03:02:11Z")
Finders, keepers is no basis for copyright law. Presumably Slater would have prevented the creation of the image if he’d been able to keep his camera out of the reach of the monkey, therefore the image exists both because of him and in spite of him, but mostly in spite of him. He didn’t set out to create it, didn’t trigger the camera in the moment of creation and therefore it’s not his. If instead of a monkey, the image had been created by a human thief, copyright would belong to the thief if I understand correctly. I think the image should be in the public domain because it is not the creative work of any human, and only humans can create copyrighted works. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/26 "2014-08-07T03:30:36Z")
Actually having looked into it further I’m beginning to doubt my first view. It depends perhaps on whether Slater’s act in recognising the found data as interesting, and copying it for distribution constitutes sufficient “application of knowledge, judgment, skill or labour” for him to have created a piece of copyrightable work. I suspect the answer is actually that it did not. In which case no copyrightable work exists. The image is just an artifact. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/27 "2014-08-07T03:30:59Z")
> [@Eliahna](#): > > Finders, keepers is no basis for copyright law. Presumably Slater would have prevented the creation of the image if he’d been able to keep his camera out of the reach of the monkey, therefore the image exists both because of him and in spite of him, but mostly in spite of him. He didn’t set out to create it, didn’t trigger the camera in the moment of creation and therefore it’s not his. If instead of a monkey, the image had been created by a human thief, copyright would belong to the thief if I understand correctly. > > I think the image should be in the public domain because it is not the creative work of any human, and only humans can create copyrighted works. If a storm knocks over cans of paint that splatter all over a canvas, is the resulting image public domain, or is it the property of the person who owned the paints and canvas? ETA: I’m not sure that “finders, keepers” doesn’t apply here. Do we know if he is the sole possessor of the original raw picture? I have never seen it, just the framed one I linked to in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/28 "2014-08-07T03:48:04Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > If a storm knocks over cans of paint that splatter all over a canvas, is the resulting image public domain, or is it the property of the person who owned the paints and canvas? This is not an apt analogy. The person who owns the canvas and paint will of course remain the owner of the canvas and paint. There would probably be no copyright in the arrangement of paint on the canvas because the creation of that arrangement did not involve any application of knowledge, judgment, skill or labour. Consequently, whether an image of that arrangement would be copyrightable would depend on whether the creation of that image itself involved sufficient application of knowledge, judgement, skill or labour. And it would, else any photograph of a natural scene would not be copyrightable. The key issue is whether Slater, in making a copy of what he found on his camera, was doing the equivalent of photographing an arrangement of splashed paint. His difficulty is that there is at least some application of knowledge, judgment, skill etc in taking even a simple photo of an arrangement of paint on canvas. There is virtually none involved in just copying an existing computer file. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/29 "2014-08-07T03:56:52Z")
> [@Eliahna](#): > > Finders, keepers is no basis for copyright law. Presumably Slater would have prevented the creation of the image if he’d been able to keep his camera out of the reach of the monkey, therefore the image exists both because of him and in spite of him, but mostly in spite of him. He could have deleted it. He didn’t. He modified it and put it out there. Intent to create art. Boo-Yah! ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/30 "2014-08-07T04:08:05Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > He modified it and put it out there. Underlining added. This is the absolute crux of it. Did he modify it? How much? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/31 "2014-08-07T04:30:33Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > If we can all agree that a monkey cannot copyright something, then the man whose camera the monkey took a picture with is the rightful owner of the picture. Only if we assume that every picture must have a “rightful owner”, and furthermore that the rightful owner of an otherwise ownerless picture is the person whose tools were used to make the picture (as opposed to, say, the person on whose land the picture was made). Neither of these assumptions are obviously true. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/32 "2014-08-07T04:50:15Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Underlining added. This is the absolute crux of it. Did he modify it? How much? No doubt that the modified image (cropped, rotated) is his creation, and his copyright. But the raw image? Exactly what the monkey captured when he pressed the button? All Slater has down is to process that data, using standard applications, to create a visual image from it, which is exactly what you and I do every time we open a e-mail or text with a picture - we generate a visible image from the data sent to us. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/33 "2014-08-07T04:58:47Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > No doubt that the modified image (cropped, rotated) is his creation, and his copyright. > > But the raw image? I thought we were talking about what Wikimedia has? ---
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/34 "2014-08-07T05:10:52Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > No doubt that the modified image (cropped, rotated) is his creation, and his copyright. > > But the raw image? Exactly what the monkey captured when he pressed the button? All Slater has down is to process that data, using standard applications, to create a visual image from it, which is exactly what you and I do every time we open a e-mail or text with a picture - we generate a visible image from the data sent to us. If you take an image in the public domain and crop it, rotate it, maybe tweak the color balance and other minor edits… Is that enough to give you copyright over the modified image? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/35 "2014-08-07T05:21:15Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I thought we were talking about what Wikimedia has? I thought we were discussing the raw image. From the OP: > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Like Mr. Slater, my own opinion is that of course Mr. Slater holds the copyright to [the disputed image](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_(rotated_and_cropped).jpg), 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. > [@Eliahna](#): > > If you take an image in the public domain and crop it, rotate it, maybe tweak the color balance and other minor edits… Is that enough to give you copyright over the modified image? That’s a matter for argument, I guess. But I don’t think it’s the argument we’re having here. ---
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/36 "2014-08-07T05:43:40Z")
Is there actually a court case pending, or is it a “legal battle” in the sense that people are posturing and lawyering up? In the United States, and much of the world, disputes in law are settled by a judge. I’m sure the judge will draw on past court cases, filter through his own biases, and issue a ruling. Instead of talking hypotheticals, are there any court cases of something similar happening? My gut feeling would be that the cropped and rotated image is his alone. The raw image is trickier. Which does Wikipedia have? Has he released the raw image? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/37 "2014-08-07T05:45:39Z")
never mind ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/38 "2014-08-07T12:33:22Z")
No-one owns any copyright in it; it is simply not a copyrightable image. There must be a human, exercising some creativity, for there to be copyright. Rottating and cropping the image isn’t “creativity” in creating it in the first place: in any event, even if it was, someone could then crop the image differently and it would not be an infringement. In the US at least, this is the better view: > **[Threshold of originality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality)** > > The threshold of originality is a concept in copyright law that is used to assess whether a particular work can be copyrighted. It is used to distinguish works that are sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection from those that are not. In this context, "originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author" (insofar as it somehow reflects the author's personality), rather than "never having occurred or existed before" (which would amount to the protection of somethin... > [@](#): > > Difficulties arise when attempting to determine the boundary line between mechanical or random processes and instances in which the slight intervention of a human agent results in the production of a copyrightable work. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment posited that the question is open as to whether computers are unlike other tools of creation in that they are possible of being co-creators.[4][5] The U.S. Copyright Office has taken the position that “in order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable.”[6] A monkey is, legally, the same as “mechanical processes or random selection”. ---
**Author:** ![Zerc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/82dd89/32.png) [@Zerc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zerc)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/39 "2014-08-07T13:44:49Z")
I haven’t seen this mentioned above but I think that maybe the person or entity who owns the monkey should own the copyright. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/40 "2014-08-07T14:57:52Z")
> [@Zerc](#): > > I haven’t seen this mentioned above but I think that maybe the person or entity who owns the monkey should own the copyright. Or perhaps a relative. Maybe an Uncle? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987.md?page=3)