Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'

[Braineack]

well since the monkey cannot in fact own a copyright, and you facilitated the creation in every way, how is it still not yours just because of the unorthodox method in which it was created.

what about people doing high-speed photography using sound triggers. Is it not their work because they actually didn't take the photo? the little electronic device that converts sound into a electronic signal to tell your camera to work took the photo, and since you cannot give a copyright to a "little electronic device that converted sound into a electronic signal to tell your camera to work" those images should be public domain?

 

[astroNikon]

^^^This, Just say you took it. Who's going to know? The monkey? I don't think he's going to tell anyone haha

He probably Tweeted it ...

 

[Designer]

I wonder what would happen if you give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of D4s and allowed them to control the cameras for an infinite length of time, would you get a similar photograph?

And which one would own the publishing rights?

And would he invite me over to swim in his pool?

 

[JustJazzie]

Good reading over my morning coffee!

 

[pgriz]

So... what's the case law on how much initiative does the button presser have to have before they "own" the shot? If all they are are a "voice-activated remote shutter release", then it does not make much sense to attibute the creative right to them. Braineak brings up a valid point.

Now, if I own the camera, and give it to one of my employees to shoot stuff, as part of their job, then is the employee the copyright holder, or is the business that owns the equipment and pays the salary of the employee?

 

[Overread]

The photographer's making a big deal out of it because that photo is likely contributing to a major part of his current earnings - if suddenly Wiki claims its copyright free that photographer can't profit from its sale (because anyone can just use it). Worse still any paid for use of the photo up till now might also suddenly be contested.

So not only could the photographer lose future earnings but also past earnings.

 

[Wizard1500]

If the photographer had set up for the monkey to take the pic, then he does own the rights...but, it seems the monkey "stole" the camera, therefore, the images taken by the monkey, cannot be claimed by the photographer, because he DID NOT control the situation......

 

[tirediron]

It's an interesting case. First, the basics: Copyright exists because the image was created. The monkey does not and can not own copyright, so who does own it? Further, the claimant specifically set out to create these images by virtue of the fact that he provided the animal the tool with which to make it. I would say his claim would have to hinge on whether any bananas traded hands. If he did offer the animals food, that would techically be payment, and this would be a 'work for hire' sitution, ergo, he should own copyright.

 

[Derrel]

What happened in the Usain Bolt case, where after winning an Olympic gold medal, he snatched up a pro photographer's big d-slr and shot some shots. I KNOW the camera was later scratch-engraved and autographed by Bolt, and the camera was later auctioned off, but what about the photos Bolt shot? Does anybody know who got copyright to those images? I bring it up because these are instances, the Usain Bolt case and this one, where the photos have some real, SIGNIFICANT marketability and market value, not like me handing my iPhone to snap a pic of me and a grilled cheese sandwich lunch.

 

[astroNikon]

So... what's the case law on how much initiative does the button presser have to have before they "own" the shot? If all they are are a "voice-activated remote shutter release", then it does not make much sense to attibute the creative right to them. Braineak brings up a valid point.

Now, if I own the camera, and give it to one of my employees to shoot stuff, as part of their job, then is the employee the copyright holder, or is the business that owns the equipment and pays the salary of the employee?

That would be relegated to the contract between the corporation/business and the employee.

In automotive land here, and software development, chemicals, drugs, et all. If you are an employee and create something it is the property of that company. Otherwise, think of all the nifty inventions "companies" created when in fact it was an employee. It's all down to the contract / employee hand book /et all that the employee signs.

 

[Civchic]

What happened in the Usain Bolt case, where after winning an Olympic gold medal, he snatched up a pro photographer's big d-slr and shot some shots. I KNOW the camera was later scratch-engraved and autographed by Bolt, and the camera was later auctioned off, but what about the photos Bolt shot? Does anybody know who got copyright to those images? I bring it up because these are instances, the Usain Bolt case and this one, where the photos have some real, SIGNIFICANT marketability and market value, not like me handing my iPhone to snap a pic of me and a grilled cheese sandwich lunch.

That's a good question. I'd say Bolt owns the copyright to those images. But if the pro had set up the camera and Bolt didn't change the settings before shooting, does the photog own the rights? I don't think so. It was still Bolt looking through the viewfinder and pushing the shutter.

My son entered a photo he took in the county fair - he shot it with my equipment, and I set the camera to auto (he's four), but he zoomed, focussed, and took the picture. So he's entered it under his name. Nobody could really contest that he shouldn't enter the Under-13 competition because he used a camera he didn't own.

 

[Braineack]

It's an interesting case. First, the basics: Copyright exists because the image was created. The monkey does not and can not own copyright, so who does own it? Further, the claimant specifically set out to create these images by virtue of the fact that he provided the animal the tool with which to make it. I would say his claim would have to hinge on whether any bananas traded hands. If he did offer the animals food, that would techically be payment, and this would be a 'work for hire' sitution, ergo, he should own copyright.

I'm willing to bet the monkey couldn't d/l the sensor data and create an image file from it.

 

[snerd]

I'm with Wiki.......... Public Domain. Hee hee...........

 

[Braineack]

rofl.

 

[Overread]

Thankfully avatars on forums tend to come under personal home use ;P