Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wikimedia, the non-profit organisation behind Wikipedia, has refused a photographer’s repeated requests to stop distributing his most famous shot for free – because a monkey pressed the shutter button and should own the copyright
The photographer owns it as it was his camera that was used. When you give your phone to someone else and ask him/her to take a picture of you for you, is that picture rightfully his/hers?
Besides, even if the monkey owned it, what permission has the monkey expressed to post it online?
Wikimedia, the non-profit organisation behind Wikipedia, has refused a photographer’s repeated requests to stop distributing his most famous shot for free – because a monkey pressed the shutter button and should own the copyright
Let's keep in mind that this is not the photographer's famous shot--photographers make their own photographs, like painters make their own paintings. It was certainly made with the photographer's camera, but the photographer admits that this was not even set up--the clever monkey stole his camera and took dozens of photos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tisnjh
The photographer owns it as it was his camera that was used. When you give your phone to someone else and ask him/her to take a picture of you for you, is that picture rightfully his/hers?
Besides, even if the monkey owned it, what permission has the monkey expressed to post it online?
Copyright actually belongs to the person who created an artwork, not to a person who owns the equipment on which it was created. Copyright does not protect physical property, but ideas--intangible property. I don't think you can make an argument that the photographer is expressing any ideas in this photo. The photographer did not take the photograph.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessxwrites89
That monkey takes some good selfies! She should teach me, LOL.
Hmmm, I'd say the monkey and Slater co-author it... but as far as I'm aware, the monkey has no legal standing, so I would say it's Slater's picture.
Slater didn't author anything, and chose to distribute an image for which he has no copyright (no one has a copyright for this image). I am 100% with Wikimedia on this one. Slater is trying to make a living off of a monkey stealing and using his camera. He could have chosen not to distribute the image digitally and sold prints to protect his right to the information on his equipment, but he can't distribute the image digitally and prevent people from copying it without a valid copyright. It does not matter how much he spent on the equipment or the trip, what matters is whether he made the image. He did not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjh
The human made the photo possible and has the legal standing of ownership. Animals cannot legally own anything. Let the man have his picture.
The human had the legal ownership of the camera itself, and had control over the information on the camera. By distributing the image, he relinquished that control, and has no copyright in the image. It's just not his picture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
