• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Do animals own copyright on the images they take?

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Bart,

Hi folks,

An interesting dilemma, and maybe even a costly one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html

Also: http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/2011/07/27/dog-days-news-notes/

I suppose it boils down to, do animals enjoy the same legal protection as humans (which in most jurisdictions they don't), or does the Copyright act specify that only humans are covered (I'd have to look into that one)?

The report I saw on this matter indicates that under US copyright law copyright protection is only available to persons (that is, human beings and corporations).

The suggestion is that in this case, since the photo was not "taken" by a human nor a corporation (by its human agent), no qualified entity has the original copyright, and the picture is in the public domain.

I have seen no credible suggestion that the monkey has copyright in the image.

Of course there is some question as to what it means to be the "creator" of a picture. Suppose John composes and frames the picture but his assistant takes off the lens cap (at John's direction) to make the exposure. There is of course a whole continuum of such possibilities.

It is an interesting are of copyright law.

Best regards,

Doug
 
Of course there is some question as to what it means to be the "creator" of a picture. Suppose John composes and frames the picture but his assistant takes off the lens cap (at John's direction) to make the exposure. There is of course a whole continuum of such possibilities.

Exactly! The author of the work, doesn't have to push the button, or post-process the image him/herself. The work, is the tangible manifestation of his/her intellectual property, which is protected (assuming he/she is a human).

Ultimately it's up to a judge to decide, and that may be a costly route. So it might be wise in these cases to never mention the procedure leading to the tangible version of the work.

Cheers,
Bart
 
Very Interesting.

My brother has a lot of wildlife that comes around his cottage and has set up some game cameras that activate when they sense movement. Now the intention is his, but the movement of the animals is what actually makes the picture happen. So, who is considered the photographer? :-D
 
Very Interesting.

My brother has a lot of wildlife that comes around his cottage and has set up some game cameras that activate when they sense movement. Now the intention is his, but the movement of the animals is what actually makes the picture happen. So, who is considered the photographer? :-D

Hi Maggie,

Yes, a similar situation ;) . In a normal (not litigation crazy) society, your brother is the photographer and copyright holder. But in a country where e.g. dogs can sue their owners for poor food quality or too few walks, I'm not sure how a judge would rule ...

Cheers,
Bart
 

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
An interesting subject.

Disclaimer: IANAL

For me there is a fundamental difference between a trap made to take photos and a being pressing the button. The latter is less accidential.

It is sad that the photographer godwinned the discussion quire early.

Looking at the latest feats of civilisation I have the impression that the line between humans and animals is pretty much blurred anyway...

Why did the photographer not just claim copyright of the post-processing (his original work) and donate the money obtained by the licensing to a charitable institution?

Best regards,
Michael
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Well, I've read a little more about the case.

I understand and support the concept that a person may be the creator of the image if, for example, he composes it and directs the camera setup, even if an assistant might actually squeeze the bulb.

But this may be different from that paradigm. Apparently the monkey (a crested black macaque) stole the camera (or phone cu​m camera) from the photographer, ran off, and proceeded to take numerous selfies (wonder where he learned to do that), including the one at issue here.

All very interesting.

Best regards,

Doug
 
I read quite a different take on this by the photographer. He says that he had worked up a relationship with the monkeys over several days. He had the camera mounted on a tripod and encouraged the monkeys to take photos using a cable release. While this was happening he lay on the ground and hung onto the tripod to ensure nothing went missing or got damaged. This is quite different from the monkey stealing the camera and I would think that in those circumstances he probably does have copyright. (Update: You can download his account from his website).

Now, did he also have a project to persuade them to write an undiscovered Shakespearian play?
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Murray,

I read quite a different take on this by the photographer. He says that he had worked up a relationship with the monkeys over several days. He had the camera mounted on a tripod and encouraged the monkeys to take photos using a cable release. While this was happening he lay on the ground and hung onto the tripod to ensure nothing went missing or got damaged. This is quite different from the monkey stealing the camera and I would think that in those circumstances he probably does have copyright.

If that is indeed the story (and you likely have access to a "more authentic" recitation of it than I did), then I agree.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
Hi Murray,
I read quite a different take on this by the photographer. He says that he had worked up a relationship with the monkeys over several days. He had the camera mounted on a tripod and encouraged the monkeys to take photos using a cable release. While this was happening he lay on the ground and hung onto the tripod to ensure nothing went missing or got damaged. This is quite different from the monkey stealing the camera and I would think that in those circumstances he probably does have copyright. (Update: You can download his account from his website).
Same disclaimer as previously.

Sorry, but someone has to ask this question:

How much is this different from a photographer *cough* who sets up the camera at [insert location here] on tripod with [insert color here] background and asks people to stand in front of it and take a photo of themselves, claims the copyright on these etc...?

If the photographer fails to make these people sign an agreement that transfers rights to him, this is basically the same situation with the only difference that the monkeys are not considered as legal persons.

I cannot recall the above situation with names, but I am pretty sure that someone here could come up with a name and maybe a link to a series like that...

I have the impression that the simple view on who pushed the button obscures the bigger picture.

Best regards,
Michael
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I have the impression that the simple view on who pushed the button obscures the bigger picture.


Let me add, Michael, that some of us have an assistant press the shutter release when we are in the picture and the pose is what we want!

Surely it's the person who frames the image and decides on the moment the image is as they wish, that should have credit! When I do giant Polaroid pictures, I choose the subjects, arrange and pose them, take pictures first with a digicam to confirm what I want and then one of us, the technician/owner of the LF camera I've rented for the shoot, or myself, would "take" the picture. Of about 20 images, i have no idea which one was made by which of us releasing the shutter.

Asher
 
There was also a case where identical images were entered into a photo competition in China by different people. It turned out that a photographer had been running a workshop and set up his camera on a tripod and composed, focused and made all the settings for the image. The attendees at the workshop all then swapped their cards into the camera and pressed the cable release. The images were rejected as essentially not being the work of the author.

So, the important thing is the intention and the control, not the tripping of the shutter.

My understanding is that: if the subjects were tribesmen who had never seen a camera, they would probably hold the copyright; if the monkeys had stolen the camera, it would be in the public domain; in this situation where the photographer set up and controlled the image, he probably has the copyright.
 
That would seem to suggest that all wildlife images tripped by electronic beams are public domain. Assuming this is not so, I suspect that whether the image was "taken" by the monkey may at least remain an open question.
 
That would seem to suggest that all wildlife images tripped by electronic beams are public domain.

Hi Murray,

I don't think so. Trigger traps have to be set up by humans, and the resulting image is therefore a product of a formal process with creative/documentary intent, including the positioning, choice of location, time of day/season, exposure settings, etc.

[/quote]Assuming this is not so, I suspect that whether the image was "taken" by the monkey may at least remain an open question.[/QUOTE]

The monkey apparently stole the camera and the resulting images were more of an accidental nature (unless the monkey can testify why he took the images the way he did, which would still not result in copyright, because he's an animal).

Based on the evidence and testimonies presented, it does look like the images are without copyright.

Cheers,
Bart
 
Hi Bart

No, "the monkey stole the camera" comes only from an unsupported report in a British tabloid. A monkey did previously steal the camera and they retrieved it. It was partly that and partly the fascination the monkeys had shown with their reflections in the camera that led him to set up a situation to encourage the monkeys to take a photo. As I said earlier:

I read quite a different take on this by the photographer. He says that he had worked up a relationship with the monkeys over several days. He had the camera mounted on a tripod and encouraged the monkeys to take photos using a cable release. While this was happening he lay on the ground and hung onto the tripod to ensure nothing went missing or got damaged. This is quite different from the monkey stealing the camera and I would think that in those circumstances he probably does have copyright. (Update: You can download his account from his website).
 
Hi Bart

No, "the monkey stole the camera" comes only from an unsupported report in a British tabloid. A monkey did previously steal the camera and they retrieved it. It was partly that and partly the fascination the monkeys had shown with their reflections in the camera that led him to set up a situation to encourage the monkeys to take a photo. As I said earlier:

Hi Murray,

"Unsupported report" ..., I'm not so sure about that, as they seem to be quoting the photographer (since the monkey was not available for comment):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk said:
British nature photographer David Slater was in Indonesia in 2011 attempting to get the perfect image of a crested black macaque when one of the animals came up to investigate his equipment, hijacked a camera and took hundreds of selfies.

Many of them were blurry and some were pointed at the jungle floor, but among them were a handful of fantastic images - including a selfie taken by a grinning female macaque which made headlines around the world and brought Mr Slater his 15 minutes of fame.

"They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button," he said at the time. "The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it. At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to watch."

"The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it. At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to watch.

"He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet.

"I wish I could have stayed longer as he probably would have taken a full family album."

The story on his web page seems to be made later, detailing him setting up a camera on tripod which he was holding with one hand, of which there was no indication in the 2011 article. In fact he is quoted saying he wished he could have stayed longer. No mention of his organized self portrait session in 2011...

It's his word against an earlier interview, which seems to have been legitimately quoting him. No rectifications were requested that I'm aware of...

Cheers,
Bart
 
Hi Bart

Ah, OK. If the earlier interview is accurate then that would be quite different and Wikipedia would appear to be within their rights.
 
Top