Here are a couple of cites:
[
](http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#503.03(a))
The amount of work that the photographer put into the work also does not matter as far as copyright. Just as the white pages are not subject to copyright.
The monkey is obviously the better artist. His composition is brighter, better balanced, and with better use of [del]white[/del] green space. Slater’s is more crowded and I think he cropped and rotated it and played (wrongly) with the colors just so he could call it his own creation. It’s hard to admit a monkey took a better photo.
Wikipedia might’ve done the conversion to JPEG just because RAW images are not used on the internet, probably for size issues.
Okay, fair enough. If we’re postulating a world in which a court holds that pushing the “View Pictures” button on a digital camera constitutes the minimum threshold of originality to claim copy right, we have to assume that employment contracts would take that into account.
So, let me suggest this instead. What if the monkey had kept the camera? He takes the same pictures, then runs into the forest with the camera and vanishes. Slater never sees it again. A year later, another hiker in the jungle finds the camera, and views the pictures on the camera. Does he now own the copyright to those pictures? Including the ones that Slater himself took, before the monkey got the camera?
What’s the logic there? Why do the rights automatically go to Slater? How does he have any more right to it than me, or you?
It’s obviously not something that you think should happen, but it seems an inevitable consequence of the argument you’ve put forward.
How is this even a question? Of course he can. Have you ever bought something with a picture on it? Then you, too, have owned the image of something without holding the copyright.
No, we can’t force him to show it to us. Even if he doesn’t own the copyright on the image, he owns the physical medium on which it is stored, and can do with it what he likes.
…wikipedia can’t have done the RAW conversion unless they have the RAW file. And there is no evidence they’ve got it.
Bear in mind, to have the copyright on a changed image, the change must be transformative. Is rotating and cropping transformative? Nope. I vote for no copyright.
As someone who regularly works with the media files on Wikimedia Commons, I can say for certain they did not take a RAW file and convert it. If the file has a JPEG file extension, that means it was uploaded as a JPEG, after conversion.
If we were some other file format, like PNG or TIFF, it might be possible that the original is uploaded elsewhere (although it would be public). However, Wikimedia does not accept RAW file uploads because the software can’t handle the format.
Everything on Wikimedia is transparent. They do not have the RAW file.
However, I will say that the current legal understanding there would be that they don’t need it. If the image started out public domain, no amount of rotating, cropping, scaling or converting to a different format would change that status. If it did, images would need to be relicensed when we fix things like that. Instead, the site goes by the original copyright.
The relevant issue as far as they are concerned is just who owns the copyright to the original image. It is images that are copyrighted, not the files that contain them.
This is a fun and funny scenario, but it should be pretty obvious that the guy should own the copyright.
Let’s ignore the cropping thing, since that sidesteps the core issue.
First of all, it is disingenuous to say the monkey has on the one hand enough agency to cockblock the guy’s copyright, but on the other, not enough agency to claim the copyright for itself. The monkey should be considered the equivalent of a delayed timer.
Second of all, authorship is not the sole determiner of copyright. The monkey could be considered something like of “work for hire” - in other words, copyright can be sold and transferred.
If the monkey can’t hold copy right, he surely cannot sell or transfer it.
Also, not seeing the disingenuousness in saying the monkey prevents the guy from claiming copyright, while not being able to have the copyright itself. Those seem to be wholly unrelated issues to me.
Also also, it’s really not at all like a delayed timer. In a delayed timer, the photographer is still exercising control over the placement and settings on the camera, as well as the moment when the shutter triggers. None of that applies to this situation.
Someone intended to take a picture, created the conditions to make a photo possible, and a photo was made. It’s really no different than an equipment malfunction triggering the shutter at an unplanned moment. The photographer is still the author of the picture.
Cite?
If you hand your camera to a stranger to take a picture of you they own the copyright, he he had trained the monkeys to take pictures there may be some sort of claim.
But by the OFFICIAL guidelines as I posted above, there is no right to claim copyright in this case.
Just repeating a claim with no supporting evidence does not make it true.
If you drop your camera and the shutter clicks, is that a mechanical process or an act of nature? It seems to me that the line between human volition and not human volition isn’t as clear as you make it out to be. I certainly see a plausible difference between the random linoleum patterns created by a mechanical process and a camera shutter programmed to open randomly.
(That being my first post in this thread, I’m wondering how I’ve managed to make any claim “repeatedly.”)
If you drop the camera on accident there is no copyright, if that is part of your creative process and it is an intentional act it may be, but even that would be iffy.
[
](http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#503.03(a))
P.S. it doesn’t matter if it is “your” first post if your argument is already common and dismissed. This is not IMHO.
So I ask again for a cite.
It is arguable that even an accidental camera drop is not without “any” contribution by a human author. The argument might be weaker in the case of the monkey but it’s still arguable. You’re declaring your personal view on the matter as conclusory, but you’re quoting guidelines that are written generally. Your cites don’t literally say that there is not “any” contribution by a human author in the facts of this case, so you are merely interpreting the guidelines, the same as anyone else. Your demand for cites in that strident manner is not justified because you don’t have a counter citation.
The bar is not “any contribution” The white pages have lots of human contribution but are not subject to copyright.
The issue is that your augment comes from a complete ignorance of the concept of copyright. The the presented case there was no human authorship, thus it does not qualify for copyright.
There are multiple bars to putative creative works being protectable under copyright law. We’re talking about the one you yourself brought up (whether the work is one of human authorship) and the cite that you yourself have quoted multiple times asserts the language “any human contribution.”
(1) That has to do with a completely different bar to copyright protection, i.e., whether a putative work is a creative and original work of expression.
(2) The white pages are subject to copyright protection to some extent. What about them that isn’t protected is an a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers (because they are facts rather than expression) and their arrangement alphabetically (because, among other things, that isn’t original). However, other things about the white pages might well be protectable, such as the visual appearance (typeface, type size, pagination, etc.).
Again, this is a conclusion that you have reached. You don’t have a cite from an authoritative source that either as a matter of fact or law that there was “no human authorship” in this case.
The very history of the protectability of photographs offers a plausible argument that there was. When photography was first invented, there was indeed an argument that no photograph should be protected under copyright law, among the arguments were that:
(1) a photograph is merely a depiction of the real world and thus is more akin to a fact than a creative work of expression, and
(2) a photograph—any photograph—is not a work of human authorship because it is created through a mechanical process.
Both these arguments were eventually rejected and the law has deemed that a photographer does contribute some creativity and authorship to a photograph even though it to some extent might (although not necessarily) depict real facts and uses mechanical process.
Among those things are the choices a photographer makes in selecting a site, checking lighting, deciding what equipment and settings to use, etc. Many, if not all, of these things might very well be true about the monkey situation and the dropped or malfunctioning camera.
The one fact that is different is the actual physical motion that triggers the shutter (or its digital equivalent).
Is this a bright line between human volition and not? There’s a reasonable argument that it is.
But there’s also a reasonable argument that it’s not and although it might seem a weaker argument, it has the advantage of flowing right out of the very argument that makes photographs protectable in the first place.
I’m wiling to be wrong about how this comes out. But I think it’s worthwhile to point out that your conclusion is worthy of some degree of humility.
And the monkey wins! 
…why would US copyright law apply in this case?
Presumably because the Wikimedia Foundationa is a US based company, within US jurisdiction. So are many other major websites which might host the image.
An actual shutter monkey. 
This has been a fascinating case.