"The facts and the law don't matter, it seems."
Yet another case of "feels>reals"
We've seen that a lot lately.
In the inverted morality of the obsessive copyright hater, criminals are folk heroes, and the innocent must be punished. The latest internet victim-shaming is directed against British wildlife photographer David Slater, who snapped a grinning macaque in the Indonesian jungle. US animal rights group PETA (People for the Ethical …
Sems to me, that as a digital camera can be substantially demonstrated to be a computing device that if 'the monkey tooks its own photo' and that it can be treated 'on an equal basis with a human under law, re copyright' then that naturally extends its rights to be arrested under the computer misuse act or maybe unauthorised access to a computing device. Citing PETA as a conspirator.
If a monkey can hold (C) then presumably it can be prosecuted for unauthorised access to a computing device (the digital camera) or the misuse of computing equipment laws as it's gonna be easier to prove the camera should be treated as a computing device for sure.
Haul PETA in as co-conspirators / incitors.
In fact have the monkey testify that it wasn't attempt to plant a virus in an attempt of cyber-terrorism, then you get the terror laws in on the act.
https://weatherlawyer.wordpress.com/2015/09/23/it-never-rains/
All we have to do now is demand that the state of California rules the edict in Genesis is against the law:
New International Version
The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands.
Was the monkey grinning in fear or pleasure and which one is applicable where?
Meh, lots of Californians think the only decent "PETA" is stuffed with schwarma. The motive is clear and extortionate. PETA wants to administer any funds accumulated around the image for the ape. They will then charge the ape a fee for that administration. The courts could end this quite simply by finding for the ape and designating the photographer as the administrator in perpetuity. When discussing PETA it is always advisable to remember the only animals whose rights they will not "defend" is human.
Does this mean that I hold copyright of all the cctv footage and anpr photos that I undoubtedly trigger as I make my way around this green and pleasant land?
'Sorry officer, I think you'll find that I own the copyright to that speed camera image and I most certainly don't permit you to use it unless you pay for it. The rate is the cost of the fine x2.'
A person caught by a speed camera typically does not trigger it deliberately, and therefore cannot be said to have "taken the photo".
The degree to which the monkey may or may not have been aware of the purpose of the object he was holding is debatable, but the fact remains that he did trigger it by deliberately fiddling with it, and is therefore the "creator" of the result, in both the logical and moral sense. Even less ambiguous is the fact that in no sense did the owner of the camera actually take the photo, irrespective of what he may have been doing to stage the scene, manipulate the monkey, or anything else.
To put this into context, if I convince you to travel to Australia and take a photo of Ayers Rock, do I somehow become the copyright owner of the photo you took, just because I "set it up"?
The fact that the law does not support copyright ownership by anything other than humans means that this monkey's photo is unavoidably in the public domain, as should be any artistic work that is not actually created by humans.
I fail to see what is so difficult to understand about something as crystal clear as this. It really seems like a case of copyright extremists desperately clutching at straws.
Methinks a dose of conscription would sort that PETA mob out–they'd taste the real world for once. Trouble is, the army rightfully wouldn't touch them with a 50' barge pole.
No wonder the US is ungovernable when people actually take time to listen to mad, quasi-religious, West-Coast sects such as PETA. Why the hell do we even give them press oxygen?
What the fuck next?
You're right. I've been reading the commentary here and it all seems a waste. The lawsuit should be tossed out since the Copyright Office has added a line to copyrights that "animals can't own copyrights".
Cue the commentards who will now say we humans are animals.. followed by religious fundies sceaming "we're not animals"... more mayhem on the way for sure.
Firstly its a complete no brainer that he owns the copyright, anyone who argues otherwise can only be doing so out of stupidity/fundamentalism/to make a quick buck.
Secondly although Wikifiddlia has been vocal on this point in the past is there any evidence that they are involved in the PETA case?
I rather suspect that you are correct with the make a quick buck angle. As the article says:
The pressure group claims "Naruto has the right to own and benefit from the copyright in the Monkey Selfies in the same manner and to the same extent as any other author."
And who exactly would administer those benefits on behalf of dear old Naruto, PETA perhaps? Or someone rather closely linked to them?
Gosh, wouldn't that surprise us all :)
The pressure group claims "Naruto has the right to own and benefit from the copyright in the Monkey Selfies in the same manner and to the same extent as any other author."
I can see merit in the argument that the monkey[0] has the right to benefit to SOME extent from the copyright on the picture, by virtue of having SOME involvement in its creation, for instance through a percentage of the proceeds being used in support of preserving its habitat. In this case I'd consider 25..30% to be a fair rate, less in a case where it's something like an IR trigger placed along a known track. In some cases this support may have already been (partly) fulfilled via nature reserve access permit fees and the like.
But, while IANAL, assigning copyright to an entity which can neither express consent with the terms of an usage contract, nor appoint a representative who can do so on its behalf (and ipso facto, neither accept nor reject a representative claiming to represent it)? Excuse me, that's monkey business.
[0] Does he actually answer to the name ?
The name is clear evidence that the primatologist has been having a clandestine relationship with the ape. Clearly the process included preplanned entrapment of the photographer by PETA, the primatologist, and the ape. All are clearly in a criminal conspiracy.
This post has been deleted by its author
You can see "merit" in PETA filing a lawsuit on behalf of a Monkey and claiming to be its "friend"? Next you'll be saying the monkey was commissioned by PETA to take the shot and was simply waiting for an unsuspecting photographer to drop his camera and that once he'd "taken" the shot he'd give PETA a call.
You need to get out more.
So if I grant you the main point behind your support of this, in that the monkey in question is to be treated as an equal to a human in terms of property rights, then surely by extension this "person" is also liable to be billed for the use of the photographers camera (if such an agreement was concluded, and I would like to hear the monkey argue that such an agrteement was not reached, and if not then get the monkey for computer miss-use as already mentioned) - cost of such rental? why the rights to the photo in question...
Now go away and do something more productive than supporting a bunch of cyber-bullies.
That's not correct. http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/original_story.html
The camera was on a tripod, he didn't drop it. He set up the whole situation so that the monkeys would trigger the photograph.
I now wanted to get right in their faces with a wide angle lens, but that was proving too difficult as they were nervous of something - I couldn't tell what. So I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play. I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens.
He intended to get those photos. He set it up to make it happen. His skill and effort went into it. It's his creative effort. It's his copyright.
To be honest getting close enough to some wildlife is enough work, gaining their trust enough, wandering through crap conditions (35-40C 95% humidity and jungle to wander through is pretty knackering).. You never know how wild animals are going to react as well. I have seen a troop of crab eating macaques completely ignore me photographing them and sitting among them, and run straight past me to attack some other people who were watching them,monkey bites are not nice they have pretty decent incisors, they are also thieves who will grab anything that takes their fancy. I would have been pretty wary on first encounters with any monkeys.
> The photograph was taken by the monkey because it picked up the camera and accidentally pressed the shutter after the photographer had dropped the camera. The photographer had no involvement in either the setup or the action of taking the picture.
Per the article, none of this is true.
"The photographer had no involvement in either the setup or the action of taking the picture."
So buying the camera, loading the camera with a memory card, charging the camera, carrying the camera to the same location of the monkey, accidentally dropping the camera, rescuing the camera from the monkey, downloading the image from the camera and publishing the image, all count as "no involvement in the setup or action"?
Yes. Exactly.
Not to be a jerk. But none of those things creates a picture.
I don't get copyright on my kid's pictures even though I bought the camera, charge the camera, installed the memory card, drove them to the national park, let them out of the car, set the settings, watch them as they take the picture, download the picture from the camera, post the picture onto the internet, etc.
The authorship is established when they point the camera and press the button to do the exposure.
"This case is a little more complicated than that of a normal picture of nature."
er, no, otherwise you can make the argument that, for instance, jackson pollock doesn't have copyright in paintings because he didn't have control of what the paint did, it was all down to fluid dynamics
or, no copyright exists in any photographic image because it is based on detection of photons, which any fule kno are non-deterministic, so any photograph is simply the result of random chance
etc.
of course the photographer had involvement and is responsible for the existence of the image: the camera was his property, he took it there, hr dropped it, like jp's paint it was then outside his control, and as a result of this uncontrolled action an image was captured, he then made a deliberate decision to retain the image and cause it to be transferred and published, it's his
"The photograph was taken by the monkey because it picked up the camera and accidentally pressed the shutter"
So no evidence of intent or intelligence on the part of the monkey.
Also if PETA are arguing that the monkey exercised intelligence in performing this task (taking a selfie) then they will need to evidence how the said monkey actually instructed them to act on it's behalf...
"The photograph was taken by the monkey because it picked up the camera and accidentally pressed the shutter after the photographer had dropped the camera. The photographer had no involvement in either the setup or the action of taking the picture."
Erm, no, the camera was on a tripod and set up purposely by the photographer to capture exactly the sort of shot that was taken.
As per the article, the photographer hadn't dropped the camera, it was on a tripod with a remote trigger set up and pointed at a group of monkeys with the aim that one of them would trigger it. He was lucky that it happened to be looking at the camera when it was triggered, but that's a long way from the monkey picking up a dropped camera and pressing the trigger by accident.
By PETA's logic, any motion triggered photographs would be owned by whoever moved in the photo , which means you could argue that anyone who set up cameras like that was infringing on your copyright by storing copies of the photos you triggered without your consent
I don't believe they're going to be able to wrest control of the picture. Any right minded judge would throw that straight out the door. "NARUTO, a Crested Macaque, by and through his Next Friends," yeh, I'd like to see how they'd prove their friendship. I bet they've never even bought the poor thing a coffee or brought him the morning paper. Scum buckets.
Mind you, this is America we're talking about.
Do they have a signed statement from the Macaque asking and authorising them to act on his behalf?
It would be an interesting legal precedent if anyone can award themselves a power of attorney for anyone else just by saying that they have it.
I appoint myself a power of attorney over PETA's bank account. No, I haven't bothered asking them about it or telling them. Just give me the money.