"Monkey Selfie" Erupts into Copyright Battle on Wikipedia
- Thread starter BlameTheWizards
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm sorry, but this statement is simply not true at all. You can't determine the validity of a creative process based on how much effort it requires. And even if you could, the best photographers put as much time and effort into learning and perfecting their craft, and getting their shots as any writer or coder does. And what they do is clearly creative. So at what amount of work does photography transition from being uncreative to creative? Same question would apply to anything else deemed creative as well. That it's impossible to define it only further invalidates your statement.Alterego-X said:
Now I would happily say to anyone who will listen that there are a lot of problems with copyright, and many of those problems stem from the fact that the laws predate modern technology, and in many ways no longer make sense. But you can't make any kind of reasoned argument about why photography isn't creative, but writing or coding are. There's simply no objective ground to stand on there.
That is kind of what I got from it.CriticalMiss said:
We all know what Hitler and Stalin did, unbelievably evil people and you just compared them to a company that used your picture and wont pay you? Jesus Christ! Godwins law certainly applies here!
It's not so much about effort, as in time, or physical work, but about intent.Vivi22 said:
Let's not even talk about a novel, just about writing a poem.
Theoretically, I could scribble down a shitty little limerick, about as quickly as one could turn on a mobile camera, point it towards the mildly amusing thing they have found, and take a picture of it.
But the former inherently expresses a desire to express new ideas and produce a work that wasn't there before, while on it's own, the latter is just a practical, utilitarian action of archiving the reality that you see, with a machine.
OF COURSE Professional artistic photographers can be very creative, but the creativity is not expressed by the action of taking photogaphs, but by the surrounding behavior, and THAT can't be copyrighted.
Just like you can't copyright the difference between a single mom trying to put together some edible dinner, and a master chef creatively expressing himself. The former is clearly a purely utilitarian behavior, and the latter is an artistic one, therefore we shouldn't copyright the idea of mixing ingerdients into a food, because it's not a creative action in and of itself.
The fact that monkeys can't write poems or code games, (not even shitty ones), but they can take photographs, shows that the former two inherently require the creative vision of a human, while the latter is, at it's simplest, the mindless recording of facts.Vivi22 said:
That some artists find rituals that turn the purely utilitarian recording into an art form is interesting and admirable, but there is no way to give THOSE copyright without also giving it to the billions of photos that were made with about as much creative oversight as this monkey's one. If I had to choose, I would much rather choose a world where Wikipedia (and other sites) can freely use any photograph, than one where Internet comunication gets stunted just to make life slightly easier for the few people whose pictures happen to have artistic intent.
Ever since I read the story about this lovable old lady getting her face and hands ripped off by a chimpanzee, I can't help but get a sour taste in my mouth enever I sees me un of em primate kins.CriticalMiss said:
You damn dirty apes.. return to the world from whence you came and stop meddling in noble human business! *double fist shake at the sky*
Honestly though if that picture was such a big deal for Slater, then I don't understand why he didn't just claim "silly me, did I say the monkey grabbed the camera? I totally took it myself of course, ehem..", I doubt the monkey would have objected.
Judging by his behavior in the media shit storm he stirred up.. he probably was afraid he'd get sued by the monkey and so resorted to plan B: Public fecal fight.
Doubt that. Wikipedia, with which this started, is not a commercial site, they don't pay royalties for anything, but use Public Domain and Fair Use pictures, yet the whole thing started with him wanting to take it down from there.Cerebrawl said:
"It's potentially being run by people with political agendas. The people who are editing it could be a new Adolf Hitler or a new Stalin ... They're using whatever suits their agenda." --David Slater
This guy is delusional. He talks like editing Wikipedia is grooming people to become genocidal maniacs. Of course Wikipedia editors could be anybody, but they could be the next Einstein, Gandhi or Ansel Adams too.
Legally, I don't think he has a leg to stand on. I know he's argued that the monkey was his assistant in his employ, so he owns the work of his employees (http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/selfie-monkey-was-my-assistant-legal-battle-photographer-says-n174781). Of course if monkeys were doing my own job better than me, I'd be feeling anxious about my economic prospects too.
This guy is delusional. He talks like editing Wikipedia is grooming people to become genocidal maniacs. Of course Wikipedia editors could be anybody, but they could be the next Einstein, Gandhi or Ansel Adams too.
Legally, I don't think he has a leg to stand on. I know he's argued that the monkey was his assistant in his employ, so he owns the work of his employees (http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/selfie-monkey-was-my-assistant-legal-battle-photographer-says-n174781). Of course if monkeys were doing my own job better than me, I'd be feeling anxious about my economic prospects too.
Asked my lawyer mum's opinion of this and she said that he probably owns the copyright because it was his equipment, he was the one that trekked into the jungle and worked hard to get close to the monkeys, he set up the camera. It is a result of his hard work and not just a monkey taking a picture.
If he had set up a camera in the jungle with a motion detector to trigger it then there would be no question about the copyright.
If he had set up a camera in the jungle with a motion detector to trigger it then there would be no question about the copyright.
And this case is why I don't bother with wikipedia anymore because everyone there is just a differant kind of arsehole and the admins are mad with power and just abuse it tremendously
Honestly, playing the "my opposition is like Hitler/Stalin/communists" card right from the word go? Is this guy trying to lose this argument in the most spectacular way possible before it even begins?
That said, I find it hilarious that the phrase 'monkey selfie' is now a thing.
That said, I find it hilarious that the phrase 'monkey selfie' is now a thing.
so next time make sure you have some contract sheets and finger ink laying around, too, so you can take the animals handprint to sign the contract that they transfer all rights to you.
Animals are no legal entities (yet), so no copyright for them. End of case.
Good god, why I am commenting on such a fucked up topic anyway.
Animals are no legal entities (yet), so no copyright for them. End of case.
Good god, why I am commenting on such a fucked up topic anyway.
His equipment, his film, he probably developed the photo himself, and he paid all the expenses. No other human being was involved. It's actually pretty clear cut.
If you put a film plate out and radiation exposes it in an interesting pattern when you develop the photo, the photo isn't public domain. Neither is this.
Wikimedia is just trying to cover its butt, and sounding stupid in the process.
If you put a film plate out and radiation exposes it in an interesting pattern when you develop the photo, the photo isn't public domain. Neither is this.
Wikimedia is just trying to cover its butt, and sounding stupid in the process.
And they posted his image as public domain without his consent(in the wikimedia commons), essentially denying him royalties for it in the process, he hasn't released it as public domain, it was basically pirated into public domain by wikipedia. It's what this is all about. Royalties.Alterego-X said:
I think the monkey should get a banana every time somone watches the image as a compesation of violating copyright that belongs to the monkey.
You do know that a "communist view of life" is not an insult right?
And that is a bad thing because?BlameTheWizards said:
You do know that a "communist view of life" is not an insult right?
in practice any photo on the internet is public domain. nobody cares about copyright when taking image of google and noone can really stop anyone from using it legally. while technically coypright exist on those images, in practice it does not really work. heck, my avatar is probably copyrighted somewhere, but it probably changed hands so many times noone could trace back the original author.Alterego-X said:
DoctorM said:
The law apparently states that the copyright holder is the person who took the photo. The monkey took the photo. The monkey has no rights to property. This doesn't mean that the rights magically transfer to the nearest human. Regardless of who owned the equipment or developed the pictures, the law specifies none of these matter.Cerebrawl said:
The picture is in the public domain because there is no copyright holder. This is my understanding of the matter, Wiki are acting in accordance with an interpretation of the law, and from what I've heard it seems to be a correct interpretation.
First few things that came to my mind
Hands off the camera you damn dirty ape
Stop monkeying around with the law
Forget about what 1000 monkeys at a type writer can produce, look what one monkey did with a camera.
Did he have an original place he had the pictures, that said it may not be copied without permission? Because if he did, then he has a case. I am a bit mixed on pictures being copy righted, at least when taking pictures of real life. On the one hand, people with a camera can take a picture of the same scene and it would be the same. When someone takes a specific shot though, making sure that there are certain elements present, that takes skill and patience to have it set up, and those are scenes that one won't just get by going to that area. The only other question is where is he getting the money they owe him from, because that sounds like a lot for just one picture?
Hands off the camera you damn dirty ape
Stop monkeying around with the law
Forget about what 1000 monkeys at a type writer can produce, look what one monkey did with a camera.
Did he have an original place he had the pictures, that said it may not be copied without permission? Because if he did, then he has a case. I am a bit mixed on pictures being copy righted, at least when taking pictures of real life. On the one hand, people with a camera can take a picture of the same scene and it would be the same. When someone takes a specific shot though, making sure that there are certain elements present, that takes skill and patience to have it set up, and those are scenes that one won't just get by going to that area. The only other question is where is he getting the money they owe him from, because that sounds like a lot for just one picture?