Posted on 08/07/2014 2:34:38 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Monkey business — or legitimate copyright claim?
In Indonesia in 2011 a female crested black macaque hijacked the camera of British nature photographer David Slater and proceeded to snap hundreds of photos — among them several selfies, photos of himself, one of which made worldwide headlines and the animal’s Wikipedia page. Slater, citing royalty losses, has tried to have the photograph removed from the site. The Telegraph reports:
The Gloucestershire-based photographer now claims that the decision is jeopardising his income as anyone can take the image and publish it for free, without having to pay him a royalty. He complained to Wikimedia [the U.S.-based non-profit that hosts Wikipedia] that that he owned the copyright of the image, but a recent transparency report from the group, which details all the removal requests it has received, reveals that editors decided that Mr Slater has no claim on the image as the monkey itself took the picture.
Slater is attempting to take the matter to court — at a likely cost of more than $15,000. Slater believes the copyright should be his, since he made possible all of the conditions for the photograph. But Wikimedia’s editors disagree, contending that monkey owns the copyright, or that the image should be in the public domain.
Below is the contested photo as it appears in the Wikimedia database:
What a WONDERFUL photo!
Micaca nigra?
Double dipping.
I’m very sensitive to copyrights and patents, but I love that picture. I’m leaning to the opinion that the monkey owns it! LOL
#1 What college will this primate play football for?
#2 Can a non-human own anything and have legal rights to something?
There is no way a monkey took that photo. Perfectly cropped and perfect lighting. No way.
This is more of that “animals have rights” BS the wacko fringe left are into. Before you know it, they will say that beast is owed royalties.
” Slater believes the copyright should be his, “
Did the monkey sign a model release?
The original is canted. This is “cropped” and adjusted via PS or Gimp. I saw the “orig” earlier today.
So in the words of the gal on Storage Wars “Don’t forget to pay the monkey.”
Well, it was cropped by somebody else, and I’d guess that the lens and the speed were automatic. The speed setting is perfect.
The caption says the photo was cropped and rotated (by a human, one assumes). The camera controls the lighting, so that might not have needed adjusting.
My co-worker says the Macaque looks like Kim Kardashian... LOL
Why are there no George Allen jokes about this? Macaca? Nigra?
Yes I saw that if that is the case another hand was involved and why does not that person have a say in the dispute?
Does this mean that all photos taken with a game cam, which are triggered to shoot a picture when an animal steps in front of it, are public domain?
I think the nature photographer is just jealous because the monkey took such a good picture. He’s probably insulted too because the monkey got hold of his camera and wouldn’t give it back.
A photographer who sets the settings on a camera and hands it to someone to take his picture can still establish copyright.
Same with footage from a “security camera”.
Wikiloons
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.