Monkey photo copyright in question as Wikipedia denies photographer's takedown request

I think that response is hilarious. Maybe you should go and make your case that the law is not about fairness at the major law schools. I'll run it by my fiancé who studied law at Cambridge and see what she thinks.

I am a photography professor, not a legal expert, so I would enjoy hearing her perspective.

Her's was the photographer and / or his business cannot be harmed or disadvantaged by this.

My intention in bringing in "fairness" (perhaps that is a confusing term) is that we may only interpret law, given the latitude afforded by the of language provided. I believe this circumstance seems to belie many individuals' notion of common sense and fairness - perhaps even the intent of the copyright protection in the abstract sense. But this would not be grounds for a different outcome in this situation, rather a call for different, perhaps clearer, crafting of the language of the law.

Actually, you just need a bit of common sense and consistency. It's easy to be consistent, because I'm guessing this is a complete one-off event. The copyright belonging to the photographer doesn't disadvantage the monkey (it was unknowing, obviously, and cannot own copyright, but also because it doesn't know what a photo is), and is fair as the photographer created the situation for this to happen, and that was his intent. Why should the photographer be disadvantaged by this? The entire concept of law, in the UK anyway, is about what is fair, and at the heart of that are property rights.

I'm not sure if I understand the point, pardon me.

The very cachet of the image, its advantage for Slater (ultimately the distributor of the image), was the idea of it being a "selfie". Without this condition, the image would have had vastly diminished appeal, perhaps not have garnered much attention at all.

That's as maybe, but he still created the situation for that monkey to take that selfie at that time and in that location with his equipment.

Again, his "intent" was unclear. Existing precedent supports the idea that he would have had to author a clear intent; I see no indication that he did that. In fact, he promoted the image in words that suggested he was quite surprised by this event unfolding in the manner which it did.

There's no reason for him to "author" a clear intent beforehand. Once he saw what was happening, he let it happen. That was his choice and his intent in that was the monkey taking pictures. To me it's no different to improvised / reality TV. You create a situation, see what happens, and respond to that as you want.

Not a half-bad analogy, but one that is structurally different in that in such cases contracts are drawn to reinforce creative and intellectual control of the producers of the show, not the participants, regardless of their activities contributing to the production. Still, worthy of consideration over my morning coffee.

Just as an aside (and perhaps something which can only distract from more primary issues): no animal can hold a copyright on an image - true. But, this "monkey" is actually an ape. Very intelligent. I wouldn't be so sure that it lacks the intellectual capacity to understand the idea of taking a photograph.

It is interesting to note that according to Slater, the camera remained on the tripod while the animal triggered the exposures. In fact, Slater now claims that he [Slater] kept one hand on the tripod while the incident occurred. But the camera was mounted on the tripod for Slater to take other images of the animals - which he did. No indications that he intended for the monkey to take the camera; as he states, it was a surprise. But once the monkey did grab the camera, I'm not sure Slater "let it happen" so much as he might have just waited it out. I don't think this has much to do in affecting the copyright but I am just responding to your statement suggesting Slater had control.

I think the more pertinent issue is the specific language used in the promotion of the image: "selfie". I think that usage greatly informed the US Copyright Office's decision not to grant Slater the copyright.

It is a queer circumstance. But, I think, while many might ridicule decision, they correctly applied the law as it exists.

The monkey is not capable of taking a selfie. It doesn't know what a camera is, or what a selfie is. It is not a selfie, it's a picture where the shutter was triggered by the monkey, where the camera was set up by the photographer.

You can check at the nearest supermarket if you live in Europe. And, BTW, the euro/banana conversion rate is much less volatile than the wit of your comment.

Very important and intelligent comparison, what NOW ???

"To lose" of course, I thought I had edited that, sorry.. :(

Apparently, the monkey gained a lot of satisfaction from it.

The owner of the camera is guilty of fraud if he claims both the creative force behind the picture and that the money took the camera without his permission or his control. If choosing the aperture and shutter determines who should own the copyright, would Nikon and Canon, etc.. own the copyright on all the pictures taken on Auto mode?

The owner trained the Minkey to do it; that is his pet Minkey...etc., continue parody of Peter Sellers in "The Party."

Don't be sorry - I was just playing on your typo for the movie name :-)

If he actually took or claims he took it then he is guilty of fraud as the picture has very little to no value except for the monkey taking it.

Vitruvius, search either 'conception' or 'intent' to hop down the page to a post that describes the issue at hand.

You are missing the point. You are implying the monkey has rights by saying it should share in the profits. If so, and the fact that the monkey is clearly identifiable in the pictures, then your argument IMPLIES that every photographer would need to get a copyright release according to current Copyright laws.

No.
No discussion of model rights. Discussion of rights for the being pulling the trigger, yes.

I'll stop short of explaining to you what you meant by your comment and withdraw ;^)

Exactly my point. Discussing 'pulling the trigger' rights infers all other rights as well whether you want to consider them or not.

Half the pictures I take have clearly identifiable subjects. Half the remainder have subjects not clear and the remainder have no clear subject.

For the parties of the first part, I suppose I do always get a release but hadn't thought of it quite that way...

I have received consent to perform in the form of dislocated fingers, strained muscles, dirty clothes and even knowing looks. All God's creation acknowledges my attempt to record by leaving some mark on my body/stuff/psyche. Only the higher forms use an 'X' or a signature.

I have a closet full of torn clothing and broken gear, all testament to some landscape or slug or flower consenting to my trespass...

I had always considered these things a 'payment' of a 'price'. I suppose they are simply best effort of a Corbett signing a contract. Shouldn't fault a slippery rock for its method of recognition.

Given proper thought, it is clear that relationships are made along every path through life. Not all with breathing things.

((Slater-Camera)/(Monkey+RemoteRelease))*Wiki= Buzz^2

And if you train the monkey to take good "Landies" instead of "Selfies" and one or more are commercially viable? Then can those be copyrighted?

That's the problem... the copyright office INCORRECTLY considers the monkey to be the author - which is an impossibility.

The shutter action is not what they should have ruled on. The other steps in the process were still a creative work, with only one human involved to lay claim to it. So I agree the monkey took the shot, but just like with a time lapse or other trigger method, there is still room for copyright to be claimed by the human who then sifts, processes, and shares the results.

No, I specifically said what took the photo was irrelevant. It's the rest of the process that earns a copyright in this case.

Who set the camera up?