Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'

[PixelRabbit]

But... What if a rabbit takes a picture???

 

[robbins.photo]

But... What if a rabbit takes a picture???

Silly rabbit. Copyrights are for monkeys.

 

[robbins.photo]

The moral of the story is don't give a camera to a monkey (or a Robbins or a Snerd!).

Can't argue with that really.. lol

 

[chuasam]

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.

Neither can a large portion of my human clients


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[KmH]

Oh! No!
It isn't mine!

MSN Entertainment -

 

[SoulfulRecover]

Monkey?s selfie cannot be copyrighted, US regulators say | Ars Technica

 

[gordonzed]

Here's my take on this: If an image in the public domain is modified (in this case, a derivative work via post-processing), is the derivative work also public domain? I do not believe that's the case. Since nobody but the 'non-photographer' has the original image, the modified image accessible to the public should not be considered public domain. Does US copyright law find color correction, sharpening, or any other form of post-processing that I'm guessing must have been applied, not significant enough to constitute a derivative work?

This just seems too easy to me, and I find it hard to believe it wouldn't have been brought up in the court. This, of course, is all assuming that post-processing was in fact done.

Also, hi; I'm new here. How goes'er?

 

[shipshooter]

If I borrow your camera and take a shot, who owns the photo - you or me?
Your first paragraph is an interesting statement that needs to be discussed for sure. Im going to look into that
. . . . .

The real issue in all of this is how it will affect the Fauxtogs: 1) they can rejoice in knowing even monkeys can take decent photos; or 2) they can be depressed from knowing that even monkeys can take photos better than they.

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

Really?

What's more likely here guys, a monkey stole a camera, held it up at arms length, gave a big grin, and took a perfect selfie?

or

some guy lied.

people are so gullible.

 

[snerd]

....................................

 

[Overread]

Really?

What's more likely here guys, a monkey stole a camera, held it up at arms length, gave a big grin, and took a perfect selfie?

or

some guy lied.

people are so gullible.

It's not unbelievable.
If set to green-box-mode most cameras are idiot proof in terms of basic exposure and focusing - all it needs is a half-depress of the shutter. I've no idea of the make/model/features but heck if it has facial recognition chances are the camera might well even pick out the eyes to focus upon if set to that mode (its similar too a human face).

So all that is needed is a half and then full depression of the shutter button.


The "smile" isn't really a smile; we perceive it as such easily, but it might be a very different face in the animal's world. It could indeed be that viewed from another angle it might be a more curious or other look the animal is giving. If you look at the shot it's mostly just looking "at" the camera (ergo its object of focus) and its not so much smiling as just showing its teeth.

 

[LimePanda]

As far as I'm concerned the photographer is the copyright holder as he was the one who took his gear into the jungle.
He was the one who set the camera up.
He may well have set the shutter speed, apeture, iso etc. in which case he "created" what the final product would look like and the monkey just let some light hit the sensor.
Also he may have set the focus to manual as I have a hard time believing the monkey would have pressed the shutter halfway to focus and then fully to take the photo.
Even though he said he had lots of unusable badly focused images was it because the lens was pre focused or the monkey didn't focus the camera before pressing the shutter release because as far as I'm aware the camera wont fire unless it's in focus on auto focus mode.
One more thing... good luck trying to get a monkey to download the photos, choose the good ones, edit them and then share them with the world

Rant over...

 

[Josh66]

Something for the courts to decide. I say he owns it though. (So that settles it.)

The rules on employees taking pictures as a part of their job are pretty well established, and I'm not sure that it would be much of a stretch to extend "employee" to "non-human research subject".

 

[Josh66]

I have a hard time believing the monkey would have pressed the shutter halfway to focus and then fully to take the photo.

Usually, in the auto modes, you don't even have to do the half-press to focus part. Just press it all the way, then it will try to focus and take the shot when focus is attained.

 

[LimePanda]

Usually, in the auto modes, you don't even have to do the half-press to focus part. Just press it all the way, then it will try to focus and take the shot when focus is attained.

Really I never knew that. All the dslrs I've ever used require a half press to focus.
Oh well that just means most of the photos should have been in focus and not blurred therefore it must have been manually focused in which case the photographer literally did all the work and shaped how the photo would look and the monkey just pressed the button.