'Monkey selfie ruined my life'

[Nearly Sane]

Utterly bizarre


http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/monkey-selfie-court-row-has-ruined-my-life-says-british-photographer-35929633.html

[floo]

CRAZY

[Rhiannon]

PETA. 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PETA

[Shaker]

"They are best known for their frequent inflammatory and downright irresponsible media stunts, such as [...] encouraging college students to drink beer rather than milk."

Pushing at an open door there, rather.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

selfie,selfie catchee monkey.

[Sassy]

Utterly bizarre


http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/monkey-selfie-court-row-has-ruined-my-life-says-british-photographer-35929633.html

Checked and it isn't April fools day.
Can't have it in July... Do you think he is making a monkey out of mankind by aping about a bit.
He should not post pictures he has no copyright to.  According to the written piece he isn't even making a monkey a month. LOL.

[Harrowby Hall]

Checked and it isn't April fools day.

He should not post pictures he has no copyright to. 

Sorry to add a touch of seriousness to this, Sass, but why do you think that he does not own the copyright?

[jeremyp]

why do you think that he does not own the copyright?

The reasoning is that the monkey took the photo, not the photographer.

Whatever the merits of the original case, PETA are being a bunch of wankers here. They actually have no standing in this case. I'm pretty sure the monkey did not ask them to pursue it for them. Also, their intention is to use the money for conservation purposes. There is no evidence that the monkey wants them to do that. More likely, he'd rather they bough a couple of lorry loads of fruit with it.

Also, nobody is completely certain that PETA have got the right monkey. In a just world the case would be dismissed and PETA would have to pay shed loads of cash to everybody for wasting their time.

[Harrowby Hall]

Indeed.

My understanding of the English law on copyright is that it is the creator of the work who owns the copyright. However the camera was activated it was not the monkey who"created" the photograph.

Since the photographer is Welsh, and since the photograph was not taken in the USA, PETA's involvement can only be considered
vexatious.

[trippymonkey]

Who did the camera belong to?
Monkey ?!!?!??

[Shaker]

The reasoning is that the monkey took the photo, not the photographer.

A monkey can't take a photo, lacking the cognitive/conceptual capacities to do so. The best a monkey can do is accidentally and incidentally press something which results in what humans call taking a photo.

I'm pretty sure the monkey did not ask them to pursue it for them.

So am I.

Also, their intention is to use the money for conservation purposes.

Excellent. More power to them on that account.

[Nearly Sane]

So it's only apes take photos?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

So it's only apes take photos?

I do remember a case a few years ago where a wildlife photographer in Africa put his camera down, went and did something else, and returned to see a chimpanzee scampering away with his camera. A few months later the camera was found by chance lying on the ground a couple of miles away, when it was activated the last image taken was a terrifying close up of a tigers open jaws. I am on hand held at the moment, but when I get home I will try to paste a link.

[Harrowby Hall]

if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

There are no tigers in Africa.

[jeremyp]

Indeed.

My understanding of the English law on copyright is that it is the creator of the work who owns the copyright. However the camera was activated it was not the monkey who"created" the photograph.

Except that this case started with the photographer suing Wikipedia for copyright infringement and he did so in the USA. I think he lost that because he didn't physically take the photo.

[jeremyp]

More power to them on that account.

Even though it meant ruining a photographer's life?

PETA, by the way, is an organisation that euthanises healthy animals because they think it's better than them being people's pets.

[Shaker]

Even though it meant ruining a photographer's life?

Sunday night is the time for melodrama, I guess.

In spite of everything, Mr Slater said he does not regret taking the picture of the monkey. On the contrary, he said he is "absolutely delighted".

"It has taken six years for my original intention to come true which was to highlight the plight of the monkeys and bring it to the world," he said.

"No one had heard of these monkeys six years ago, they were down to the last thousands."

He said that thanks to the publicity that his "monkey selfie" attracted, impoverished locals no longer shoot or eat macaques because "the locals used to roast them, but now they love them, they call it the 'selfie monkey'," he said.

"Tourists are now visiting and people see there is a longer-term benefit to the community than just shooting a monkey."

Clearly ruined

[jeremyp]

Clearly ruined

Well he's virtually bankrupt but hey ho.

[Shaker]

Well he's virtually bankrupt but hey ho.

I didn't know you knew him that well.

[Harrowby Hall]

Except that this case started with the photographer suing Wikipedia for copyright infringement and he did so in the USA. I think he lost that because he didn't physically take the photo.

According to Wikipedia: In USA Federal Law  The initial owner of the copyright to a work is the author, unless that work is a "work made for hire."

Physically taking the photo is NOT the same as creating the photo. The words "work made for hire" exemplify this. If your boss tells you take a photograph of a product your firm makes, you do not own the copyright of that photo. The camera operator on a film set does not own the copyright of a movie. In this case, the monkey, presumably by some process related to operant conditioning, had been trained to perform the actions which would result in the photograph being recorded. The human designed and created the photograph.

PETA is being opportunistic and vexatious - as is Wikipedia.

[Sassy]

Sorry to add a touch of seriousness to this, Sass, but why do you think that he does not own the copyright?

I am under confusion about the copyright. When I worked in the Labs we were encouraged to create and invent ways of making the work and tests easier.  He posted the picture on a public internet and therefore it should have had had a copyright preventing others reposting it.
I am not sure how he did one without the other. If he did not copyright his work before posting then he prevented himself from allowing himself to exercise authority over who could and could not repost his work.

The KJV of the bible has no copyright...so can be reposted in large chunks. Other versions cannot.
To prevent others reprinting it.

He owns a picture automatically if he took it. But as in law the laws of men do not apply to animals, I see no way he could be in the position he claims to be.  The subject of the picture could not legally give permission so does the owner of the subject say they own the copyright? The way I look at it, the person who took the picture owned the materials and took the shot. Unless they can establish it was somehow illegal to do so, ( sign saying no photographs to be taken) then I HONESTLY see no way copyright can be a problem.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Except that this case started with the photographer suing Wikipedia for copyright infringement and he did so in the USA. I think he lost that because he didn't physically take the photo.

I vaguely remember that the decision was that if the chimp had taken the photo, even accidentally with his bum, then the chimp owned the copyright.

[Sebastian Toe]

Sorted?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-41235131

[Harrowby Hall]

Sorted?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-41235131

No. The lunatics have taken over another wing of the asylum.

[floo]

No. The lunatics have taken over another wing of the asylum.

Yep.