US Copyright Office rules that monkeys CAN'T claim copyright over their selfies The US Copyright Office has refused to register the copyright of the infamous selfie taken by a monkey. The Office said in its latest copyright law compendium (PDF) that images taken by animals, including the 2011 primate self-shot, could not be registered for copyright by a human. Monkey Selfie "The Office will not …
"unless a human took the image, it cannot be registered and, thus, would be considered a public domain image freely available for use"
So If I set up a camera that has an infra-red trigger that is set off by an animal, that photo doesn't belong to me but to the animal that set it off and thus is in public domain?
Nuts
> So If I set up a camera that has an infra-red trigger that is set off by an animal,
Then you're fine because you have set up and targeted the camera, you have framed the shot as you want it to be. It's your copyright creation.
In this particular and highly unusual case this did not happen. The photographer did not frame the shot or have any real creative input into how the shot would come out. He even claimed it was a lucky accident. As such, his involvement in creating the shot was pretty much limited to a) being in the right place at the right time and b) having the camera set up to take shots at the right exposure levels, etc - but as it was clearly set to autofocus and probably at least on either automatic exposure or automatic aperture setting (but none of us can tell that without the exif data) his argument for creative input on this is pretty week.
Similarly, if you and your family are on holiday and ask a stranger to take your photo, you still tend to own copyright of the photo because the assumption is that you are setting up the shot yourself, you are in control of where you and your family stand and the stranger is little more than a 'meat tripod'. This is where that differs from hiring a professional photographer to take your family photo.
The monkey example would be a bit analogous to you being on holiday, leave your camera on the table, someone runs up, takes your camera, takes a photo of themselves, and runs away. You wouldn't own the copyright in that case either. But then you'd probably just delete that picture (or pass it to the police!)
> That's how news photographers work. They take a lot of shots and hope that one will be a winner.
No, news photographers generally take the pictures themselves, while the camera is in their possession and under their control; not farm off the job to a bunch of monkeys.
Oh wait, "citizen journalism", never mind.
I have university-level training in graphic design and illustration; my degree program also required a couple of semesters' study of film and photography. My degree is in design and illustration, though, not journalism.
For the past fifteen years or so, I've been involved in editorial cartoon and video work for Washington, DC and other Indymedia and activist media outlets -- which, I guess, would make me a "citizen journalist".
Most of the important images and video coming out of Ferguson, Missouri have been supplied not by CNNMSNBCFox, but by concerned citizens "on the ground" in Ferguson, shooting stills and video and transmitting live streams. They took on the job of telling the story of what's going on there when "professional" journalists either couldn't or wouldn't and, in many cases, actively worked to spread disinformation.
I could list other examples of important news being broken by "citizen journalists", often in direct opposition to the de facto news blackouts imposed by the likes of CNNMSNBCFox, but I don't want to hog the thread.
Get bent.
I agree with most of your summary.
However I am not convinced by your stranger analysis. If you give your camera to someone else, they are doing a lot more than being a "meat tripod" (Sorry have to giggle a little when saying that, you must go to a lot of porn conventions, that all I can say). They are framing the shot, deciding how far to stand etc. I think by the present laws, they would own the copyright.
Similarly if you go on a photo shoot and take an assistant. Despite you setting up the shot, if they take it, they potentially could claim copyright. In these situations it is probably a good idea to have waiver forms for them to sign.
Of course, getting strangers to sign waivers is a little bit over the top, and lets face it, a photo of your family is unlikely to have commercial value. But it does emphasis the knots copyright law can tie perfectly innocent acts into,
But if you ask a stranger to take a photo, they are working for YOU, you requested they take the shot... so its your copyright...
So IF he had handed the camera to the Monkey and gave him a banana afterwards, then surely it would no longer have been an accident, it would be work for hire...
But then again we are talking about the USA here, there is no sense in their courts.....
Unfortunately, like most things in life, unless there is a formal legal document in place saying that you requested someone to do it means squat. It would come down to their word against yours.
Exhibit 1.
http://photographersbusinesscoach.com/2012/05/02/who-owns-your-second-shootersassistants-photos/
"But if you ask a stranger to take a photo, they are working for YOU, you requested they take the shot... so its your copyright..."
Nope. Copyright rests with the image-taker unless specifically signed away.
Ditto copyright on work done under contract, which is why you'll find an assignation clause in almost every software development contract.
"Why is this so hard for people to understand?"
Maybe because on this basis, my employee would own any photos I took despite not being involved in anyway taking them.
I am not aware that paying someone NI or being responsible for paying their tax in any way impinges on the employees personal rights unless they specifically signed away those rights in the employee contract they signed when joining the company.
It maybe different if the companies primary purpose was taking photo's and the employee used resources owned by the company, but even then I would not be a 100% sure.
I am not aware that paying someone NI or being responsible for paying their tax in any way impinges on the employees personal rights unless they specifically signed away those rights in the employee contract they signed when joining the company.
If you're not an contractor then the copyright belongs to your employer unless you've signed something that specifically states otherwise.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-ownership/c-employer.htm
This post has been deleted by its author
Fair point, although the term "in the course of his or her employment" is probably the operative term here. So just paying an employees NI or Tax is not in itself enough to own copyright.
Of course things maybe be different in other countries, so if your business is photography and you people help you take photos, it is still probably best to get a contract explicitly defining where copyright lies
If the assistant is an employee, i.e. their tax and NI is paid by the photographer, then no, the employer owns the copyright. That's clearly stated in current copyright law. If it's a 'freelance' i.e. casual employee or just a friend along for the shoot, then the situation would be more as you describe.
Actually, as far as I understand it, you are still fine if you hire a professional to take your photos. In that case the professional is working under a contract specifically to produce the photos, thus whoever hired the professional gets the copyright unless there is some different stipulation in the contract.
"you have framed the shot as you want it to be" "did not frame the shot or have any real creative input into how the shot would come out. He even claimed it was a lucky accident."
In any action photography (of animals and sports) you're typically taking many pictures that don't come out. They are all "lucky accidents". A wildlife photographer once told hme he's lucky if he gets one good action shot out of 50.
" They are all "lucky accidents". A wildlife photographer once told hme he's lucky if he gets one good action shot out of 50."
If you give the same camera to Joe on the street you would need luck to get one good shot in 1,000. It's not luck, it's just hard.
Luck can be involved, I have a photo with bird feet at the top, and cat paws at the bottom. It was just a bird when I started to press the shutter, but I still pressed the shutter not the cat.
Nuts all right. So if a "so called" photographer is unable to prove that he is personally the one who pushed the trigger at the time, the picture would be public domain. To avoid this, photographers could arrange to have a picture of himself pushing the trigger while taking the other picture. I could carry this further - but I won't.
"a "so called" photographer"
I don't think speech marks do what you think they do.
You might want to look it up. In any case, I was just being lazy when I should have used emphasis as in the above. Which, by the way, also has several applications. I note that you succumb to the same laziness. ;)
>>"No, but it does seem to put the monkey's image in the public domain."
> I suggest you read what the USCO actually says, not what you wished it said.
Why not tell us what it is about what the USCO says that contradicts this statement?
From your own article:
"Now, according to the Copyright Office, the matter is formally settled. The Office clearly says that unless a human took the image, it cannot be registered and thus Slater cannot claim US copyright on it."
If Slater cannot claim copyright on the image and USCO says that an animal cannot claim copyright over it, exactly who do you think *can* claim copyright over it? That which is not under copyright is in the public domain, unless you know of some other legal state in which a creative work can exist that is neither one nor the other.
I actually clicked the link, and read it. I didn't just go on Sean's article, which makes it quite clear the photograph is uncopyrighable (pronounced "public domain"). http://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf page 8 explicitly lists "A photograph taken by a monkey" as something that cannot be copyrighted.
By definition, anything which cannot be subject to copyright, is public domain.
> By definition, anything which cannot be subject to copyright, is public domain.
The discussion is about *US* copyright. It does not mean it is not copyrightable in another country, with the copyright enforceable in the US by virtue of all those treaties and stuff, no?
I have no idea, just asking.
This picture came to fame because he claims he had no input at all in its creation. You cannot admit that you have no input in a work, and claim copyright for it*.
I the case of triggered shot, the photographer still decides everything... except the precise time at which the animal will present itself. It is thus the photographer, not the animal, that takes the shot. Bad analogy.
*Well, you can, but you have to be the MPAA or the RIAA for it to work
I understand that some strict Jewish people can't use electrical devices on their Sabbath, but if for example the elevator just happens to be running in Sabbath Mode (autonomously moving floor to floor, all day), then perhaps some might be willing to stand inside while it moves on its own.
Many paradoxes arise because humans insist on drawing a sharp line in the middle of a continuum.
Hopeless.
> They can't turn them on or off, but it is OK to use one that was turned on before the sabbath and left running
It's actually OK using them anyway as the restriction is supposedly based on the mitzvah against lightning a fire, which electricity most definitely is not, regardless of what some Yankee torah bookworm might have said.
Or on the other hand, it is not OK if one goes on the basis of the mitzvah against work. After all, the lift is doing work on behalf of its passengers.
But it's up to each community (and ultimately, individual) to decide, not for it to be dictated by a bunch of arrogant Americans.
No lighting of fires on the Sabbath? All those sparks that come out an electric motor... That's thousands of tiny fires a second.
And do you stop blowing up Gaza one day a week? Or is the lighting of infidels on fire fine on any day? (Though to be fair, without those arrogant Americans you wouldn't be so brave)
A photo or a book or a video is just a stream of bits.. it doesn't belong to a person!
Just because the Hollywood has brainwashed people into accepting "copyright" as a necessary fact of life, sheeple think they can "own" bits. The reality is that in 5 years, youtube will have more hits than all movies and TV combined. The outdated and draconian copyright law will have no relevance; as all interesting media will be socially generated.
Or maybe, you sheeple can stay in the past and argue which simian owns the copyright because from where I stand you all look the same!
This post has been deleted by its author
So if an infinite number of monkeys did manage to type out a brand new Shakespeare play, Shakespeare would lose out on all the royalties? How fair is that?
That is perfectly fair, particularly if you are the agent representing said infinite number of monkeys. Any royalty fee divided by infinity would result in a payout of zero to each monkey with the remainder being retained by the agent naturally. Not sure how music publishers or royalty collection and distribution agencies equate their number of represented artists to infinity but it seems that some clever accountants have worked out how to do it.
"So if an infinite number of monkeys did manage to type out a brand new Shakespeare play, Shakespeare would lose out on all the royalties? How fair is that?"
He doesn't get any, on the grounds of being dead.
Nor does his estate earn anything, because the copyright has long since expired.
""So if an infinite number of monkeys did manage to type out a brand new Shakespeare play, Shakespeare would lose out on all the royalties? How fair is that?"
He doesn't get any, on the grounds of being dead."
Everyone knows Shakespeare is only being dead for tax purposes.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
