Wildlife photographers watch out!

molested_cow · Aug 22, 2014

Wikimedia Won't Take Down This Photo Because a Monkey Took It

Raj_55555 · Aug 22, 2014

Umm... yeah, you're kind of late to the party

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...kipedia-refuses-delete-photo-monkey-owns.html

astroNikon · Aug 22, 2014

Yeah Snerd stole it too for his avatar

Raj_55555 · Aug 22, 2014

An interesting comment I read on this link makes me think though

"Seems like Slater would be the director or producer of the photo shoot which would entitle him to the rights of the photos. It's not just about who presses the shutter"

Big Mike · Aug 22, 2014

Raj_55555 said:
An interesting comment I read on this link makes me think though

"Seems like Slater would be the director or producer of the photo shoot which would entitle him to the rights of the photos. It's not just about who presses the shutter"

Click to expand...

Even when there are no monkeys involved, the director/producer doesn't automatically get the copyright to the photos. In places like the U.S., the photographer owns the copyright unless they are working under a contract that states that the copyright goes to another entity.

I was thinking about this case, and the photographer should have said that he remotely triggered the shutter, or used the timer etc. Then this probably wouldn't be a problem for him....but that isn't much of a story compared to 'Monkey takes a selfie'.

bentcountershaft · Aug 22, 2014

I think it would be kind of depressing if your most successful photo was actually taken by a monkey.

Overread · Aug 22, 2014

What if he proposes that he's the monkey's photographic agent acting upon his behalf due to the monkey's lack of legal standing.

molested_cow · Aug 22, 2014

I think one thing we can be sure about is that Wiki is either run by monkeys, or that they have quite a stake hold in it.

KmH · Aug 22, 2014

bentcountershaft said:
I think it would be kind of depressing if your most successful photo was actually taken by a monkey.

It would be the monkeys most successful photo.
You would just be an agent for the monkey. lol.

astroNikon · Aug 22, 2014

The photographer should sell that camera immediately to hopefully get a windfall profit on it's sale.

After all, think of all the fauxtographers and strange collectors that would want that camera as it takes fantastic shots SOOC.

Speaking of which, is Robbins around ?

Big Mike · Aug 25, 2014

And contrary to many of the headlines about this, I don't think that the authorities are arguing that the monkey owns the copyright, they are just saying that nobody does.

Derrel · Aug 25, 2014

Perhaps copyright laws need some revision, where the copyright goes to the owner of the camera, the person who "enables" the creation of photos in a specific circumstance. So, the wildlife shooter who brings a multi-thousand dollar camera into the jungles owns the copyright to images made with his or by his equipment? That actually seems reasonable, because without the equipment that that photographer brought or furnished, there would be no images. Remote-setup cameras have been used by wildlife shooters for a long time, to catch wild animals when they cross into a triggering beam or focus-trap, and the copyright on those images has successfully been given to the photographers, and NOT to bears or wolves that happened to be caught by the remote triggering sensor's beam. So...this seems similar to me, in one way: an ANIMAL, causing a shutter to be tripped, on a camera owned or brought into the location by a single, specific professional photographer.

robbins.photo · Aug 25, 2014

astroNikon said:
The photographer should sell that camera immediately to hopefully get a windfall profit on it's sale.

After all, think of all the fauxtographers and strange collectors that would want that camera as it takes fantastic shots SOOC.

Speaking of which, is Robbins around ?

Did someone call for a fauxtographer!

Lol

Overread · Aug 25, 2014

Derrel I suspect that wire-tripped shots are safe, this is just an almost unique situation where the animal cause the trigger to fire on its own coupled with the fact that the shot got world-wide promotion and popularity. So whilst I'm sure its happened lots in the past, this is the first time money has been involved in any serious quantity.

I also suspect that Wiki is one of the few groups who's made and pushed for a legal "as written" clause whilst many other groups likely assumed or didn't challenge the photographers copyright status. Hopefully the only fallout from this is a revision to the copyright laws.