Photography and copyrights behind this famous image

[amirm]

Hard to believe story. Can't believe Wiki would refuse to take the picture down.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/73232...elfie-broke-after-years-long-copyright-battle

Freelance photographer David Slater, once one of the most talked-about photographers in the world because of his serendipitous 'monkey selfies,' is now considering dog walking... or giving tennis lessons. According to The Guardian, the selfsame selfie that made Slater famous has left him broke after years of legal disputes between Slater and both Wikimedia and PETA.

In case you've not been following this strangest of copyright battles, the details are as follows. In 2011, Slater traveled to Sulawesi, Indonesia where, by his account, he managed to coax some macaques to start playing with his camera gear. Slater did this on purpose, he says, because he was having trouble getting a close up wide-angle shot of the monkeys with their eyes open.

His gambit worked. One of the macaques took a few 'selfies' that immediately went viral, earning Slater a few thousand pounds... then the legal troubles started.

Wikimedia refused to take down the photo at Slater's request, claiming that he wasn't the copyright holder since he didn't press the shutter. Then the US Copyright Office ruled that animals cannot own copyrights, leaving the photo ostensibly author-less. And finally, since Slater continues to claim copyright, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued him on behalf of the macaque in 2015.

That pretty much brings us to yesterday's article in The Guardian, in which Slater admits that years of legal battles have left him broke and ready to 'pack it all in.' He couldn't even afford the airfare to attend his own trial in San Francisco this week—instead, he watched a livestream of the trial from his home in the UK.

 

[RayDunzl]

Keep reading...

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/12/monkey_selfie_and_appeals_court/

https://www.animallaw.info/sites/default/files/PETA_ monkey_selfie 2015.pdf

 

[amirm]

https://www.animallaw.info/sites/default/files/PETA_ monkey_selfie 2015.pdf

Naturally they ask for a jury trial:

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Worrying that a judge who would go by the law alone, would not side with them.

If the animal owned, setup said camera, and took the picture, maybe they would have a case. But not when the photographer did all of that.

 

[RayDunzl]

That would be interesting.

A jury of his peers...

 

[Old Listener]

Slater would have been smart to donate part of the proceeds (half?) to an organization working to preserve the macaques' habitat and protect them from poachers before the lawyers went to work.

 

[RayDunzl]

Slater would have been smart...

Is it still extortion if you give in before they demand?

 

[amirm]

If I take a picture of a bullet with a light trigger, does the bullet own the picture??? After all it is the bullet that causes the picture to be taken.

 

[The Smokester]

If I take a picture of a bullet with a light trigger, does the bullet own the picture??? After all it is the bullet that causes the picture to be taken.

This is an outrageous lie. I'm suing.
Signed, Light Trigger

 

[The Smokester]

Hard to imagine how this is not Slater's intellectual property.

 

[amirm]

Maybe his "mistake" was to call them Selfie.

 

[The Smokester]

Maybe his "mistake" was to call them Selfie.

Yes. I would think his IP would be the idea of having an animal take its own picture and the where-with-all and expertise to make it happen. Quite an achievement.

 

[RayDunzl]

Herd all the deer and various other wildlife together and I think you'll have a nice Class Action suit in the works against the Trail Cam users...

Maybe we own the rights to Stop Light Cameras.

"I triggered it, it is mine, and you, Your Honor, are not permitted to use it in your Court of Law".

 

[Cosmik]

I do find there to be something a bit odd about this photography business, though. If I simply press the button on a camera - which any idiot can do - I somehow own some rights related to whatever I photographed..? So if I photograph a piece of hi-fi equipment that I don't even own, I can, apparently, make money from it, publishing it in a magazine or whatever. But if the manufacturer of said piece of equipment wants to use my photographs for their own purposes, I can sue them because pressing the button conferred on me some ownership of the images of their design..?

It also reminds me of this case. The writer has it exactly right, in my opinion:

Of course they looked identical – because we are not expressive artists when we take pictures...

...Photography can easily degenerate into a pseudo-art, with millions of people all taking pictures of the same things and all thinking we are special.

This amateur delusion of photographic art is everywhere today – from Instagram to the streets and hills, where there is always someone taking their holiday snaps too damn seriously.

This strange plagiarism row exposes the illusion on which today’s mass camera cult rests. Both these amateur photographers were convinced their creativity was special. The truth is that words like creativity, individuality, talent and originality don’t readily apply when you have a planet of people all taking photos.

 

[davidB]

If I make a photograph of a product for an ad, I own the rights. The logo may be owned by my client, but not the image in question.People making imitations own the rights to their imitations, but can run afoul of the law if presenting it as other than an imitation. I shot an album cover, and was not credited with the excuse that it was altered in Photoshop-it was made grainier. I checked with lawyers and a judge, and it was clearly mine, but the bastard died broke, so no one to sue. Now if someone reissues...

 

[HedgeHog]

Monkeys get 25%?: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...ghts-to-monkeys-selfie-photo/article36234839/

 

[amirm]

It is a shame it got settled and did not settle the case for others in the same situation in the future.

 

[Cosmik]

It's an amazing case. What it says, sort of, is that you can claim copyright on an image if you created it - you don't need to press a button; presumably it could be a movie camera running all the time.

But the dilemma this bloke had was that in order to make money from the image, he had to tell the story of the "selfie" - otherwise it's just any old image of a grimacing ape. No one would have known either way whether he pressed the button remotely, or left the camera in movie mode or whatever, but in order to make the news it had to be that month's new trend: the selfie. And thus it allowed people to exploit the image because of a loophole in the law, and the immense cost of legal action to say otherwise. Bad luck!

 

[NorthSky]

It is an amazing world we live in. It is totally crazy @ times, like in this case here.

That selfie belongs to the monkey, period.

● https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/44457...er-peta-legal-battle-copyright-what-happened/

● https://petapixel.com/2017/09/12/photographer-settles-monkey-selfie-copyright-lawsuit/

 

[ArnoldWilliams]

This is an interesting and slightly sad situation for the photographer, in fact, arguing I can not find any reason not to consider the photographer as the owner of the photo.

 

[Cosmik]

This is an interesting and slightly sad situation for the photographer, in fact, arguing I can not find any reason not to consider the photographer as the owner of the photo.

I suppose the counterargument might go like this: While visiting a friend of yours who happens to be famous, you leave your phone lying around. While you are elsewhere he/she picks up your phone and takes a 'selfie'. You later try to sell the image to the press. Who, in fact, owns the copyright to the picture? You own the camera but they pressed the button. I would say it is obvious that they own the copyright to the picture.

Presumably an ape can't own copyright, but that doesn't mean it automatically transfers to you just because you own the camera. If there is no copyright, then anyone can use the picture for free.