Copyright conundrum

[ThurlFan]

OK, it's been well established that it's the person that pushes the shutter that owns the copyright, not the person that owns the equipment. But what if the shutter is pushed by something not human? Early returns indicate that it would be instantly in the public domain. To wit:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/08/06/monkey_selfie_who_owns_the_copyright.html

Makes for an interesting legal discussion!

 

[Geoff_M]

Actually, it appears a lot clearer than the news stories want to make the issue.

ITV lawyer and author of The Law of Photography & Digital Images, Christina Michalos, said: "Unfortunately for the monkey she doesn't own the copyright in her photographs. Only a person or in some circumstances, a company can be a copyright owner.

"However, under UK law where an artistic work is generated by a computer, the person who makes the arrangements for creation is the copyright owner. Computer generated is narrowly defined in our law as meaning "without human involvement".

"It is arguable that the photographer is the owner on this basis or in equity - in other words on the grounds of fairness - because he owned the equipment and presumably had set up the camera for optimal focus and light in the jungle."

Bottom line, since a monkey cannot be a copyright owner, by law the copyright would fall to the owner of the camera... and I doubt this concept would be limited to the UK. This would be no different than a photo taken by a motion sensor triggered camera mounted in the woods that captures a trophy deer walking by it. The person that set up and owned the camera would be the legal copyright owner instead of the buck that tripped the shutter. I cannot see any court in the country seeing it any differently.

 

[disney_bob]

I don't think its that cut and dry. The camera owner didn't set up the camera. He owned it. That's it. He admits the monkey stole the camera and took hundreds of pictures. Of the hundreds, only a few were good (we've all been there right?).

Anyway, the camera owner did nothing to help compose the picture. That was all on the monkey - who as you pointed out cannot own the copyright.

Not saying it is or isn't the camera owner's copyright. I'm just saying your "its much clearer" isn't necessarily true.

 

[marius97]

I remember when that photo first came out. I always thought it was a faked picture. It is too creepy to be real. I love legal conceptual arguments like this. It does sound like since he had no intent to, and did not participate in, the setting up of the picture, then his argument for a copyright may not hold.

 

[ThurlFan]

I remember when that photo first came out. I always thought it was a faked picture. It is too creepy to be real. I love legal conceptual arguments like this. It does sound like since he had no intent to, and did not participate in, the setting up of the picture, then his argument for a copyright may not hold.

Setting up of the picture includes making sure the camera is using the proper settings for the conditions, which the camera's owner indisputably did put thought and effort into. Also, the act of transporting the camera to that particular location to get pictures of those particular animals also demonstrates intent on the part of the owner.

 

[Geoff_M]

It does sound like since he had no intent to, and did not participate in, the setting up of the picture, then his argument for a copyright may not hold.

I think it's safe that he own the rights if the issue is pressed. Copyrights can only be assigned to humans. There were no other humans involved in the creation of the images that could contend for the rights. Legal precedent holds that if all else fails, the owner of the equipment owns the rights of anything created using it. The only conceivable alternative to saying the guy owns the copyrights, would be do say that images are not copyrightable... but the "if all else fails" rule stated above would seem to eliminate that option.

 

[disney_bob]

I realize this specific issue is with UK Copyright law. However, if it were in the US it would be public domain and not copyrightable (says the US Copyright Office).

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-cannot-be-copyrighted-us-regulators-say/