General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums'...No, the Monkey owns the Copyright!'
Too funny, but that monkey selfie story from some months back has bubbled back to the surface with an interesting twist.
Gawker story titled: 'Wikipedia Won't Take Down Macaque Selfie Because the "Monkey Owns It"....'
from the link:
David Slater, the British nature photographer whose camera equipment was stolen by a selfie-mad macaque in 2011, has made repeated attempts to remove the famous photos that resulted from Wikimedia Commons, a database of royalty-free media from the organization behind Wikipedia. Wikimedia refused, claiming that the monkeynot Slaterowns the copyright.
Because the mischievous macaque pressed the shutter button, the organization argues, it is responsible for the photos and thus owns them. And because a monkey can't sit down at a computer and make a copyright claim, presumably, Wikimedia put them online for free.
http://gawker.com/wikipedia-wont-take-down-macaque-selfie-because-the-mo-1616872553
http://www.mediaite.com/online/photographer-sues-wikipedia-over-monkey-selfie/
from Mediaite:
Wikipedias Creative Commons contains thousands of free images, and in the past three years since the monkey selfie was published, its editors have kept uploading the macques photo under the argument that the monkey is the original copyright holder because it was the one that pressed the shutter button, The Telegraph reports. And unless the monkey suddenly becomes litigious, the image will remain in the public domain. (Most countries would agree with this interpretation, with many outright stating that photos must be created by humans in order to receive copyright protection.)
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)(could have said the monkey signed the rights over to him in exchange for a banana)
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)acceptable consideration and the exchange would be valid.
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,501 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,501 posts).
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I welcome our new simian overlords.
I dread seeing the cat-ape civil war though.
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,501 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)A lot of bad copyright information here. Copyright is inherent when an original work of authorship is fixed in tangible form. No other act is required. Registration secures some procedural advantages in litigation.
However, a non-human cannot own a copyright.
Now if the monkey is owned, and/or if the camera had been intentionally given to the monkey for the purpose of taking pictures, then you might have something to work with.
But if the monkey took the camera, then it is just a consequence of a natural phenomenon, and no more a work of authorship, as far as copyright goes, than the man in the moon or a rainbow.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)OMG, it's even worse than we thought!
"However, the monkeys still control the cabana" -- voicemails from my landlord today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018577487
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)Ladies and gentlemen, the langurwallah has reported the monkeys are fouling the cabana, and throwing filth at him.
OMG - hilarious stuff