Monkey owns Selfie Copyright!

[Tin Can]

PETA steps in and the poor photographer whose gear was used by theft by the monkey is deemed screwed

Just saw this on TV 5 minutes ago.

If you have a monkey keep a close eye on him/her and lock up your cameras!

PPA help!

[Mark Sawyer]

Well, obviously, the photographer should have hade the monkey sign a release.

[diversey]

If the photographer had a release from that monkey, what is going to happen?:)

[Tin Can]

Really good selfies!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/earth/11021255/David-Slaters-monkey-selfie-photoshoot-the-unseen-pictures.html

[Jac@stafford.net]

Isn't there an issue here with model releases?

[Jeff Conrad]

Randy,

What exactly did you see? The PETA lawsuit (Naruto v. David John Slater et al.) doesn’t look it’s even on the calendar yet.

[Tin Can]

Randy,

What exactly did you see? The PETA lawsuit (Naruto v. David John Slater et al.) doesn’t look it’s even on the calendar yet.

I saw it on WGN OTA 9.1 TV show, "Crime Watch" at 3pm CDT today in Chicago.

[Jac@stafford.net]

What exactly did you see? The PETA lawsuit (Naruto v. David John Slater et al.) doesn’t look it’s even on the calendar yet.

I understand that PETA's lawyer is taking the case ProBongo (http://pangeasoft.net/iphone/monkeybongo/files/monkeyBongoTitle.jpg).

[Doremus Scudder]

This was on CNN a couple of weeks ago. The issue seems to be media companies, etc. trying to weasel out of paying the photographer royalties for the shot. They maintain that since the photographer didn't click the shutter himself, but just let the monkey play with the camera, that the resulting photograph wasn't taken by him, and therefore, he owns no rights to it. Whether the monkey owns the rights or the photo ends up in public domain or, as it should be, the photographer gets to retain rights hasn't been decided yet.

Doremus

[Peter Mounier]

I hope if there is any release from the monkey that he throws it at the lawyers!

[Old-N-Feeble]

I hope if there is any release from the monkey that he throws it at the lawyers!

The only kind of release I can think of that a monkey can produce will come from its behind... so yes, that's a perfect thing to fling at the lawyers. :D

[Wayne]

A monkey owns all of my copyrights...

[Bill Burk]

Watch it prove to be work for higher.

or with just a little work this could be funny...

It's a good thing the macaque took the pictures from where the camera was setup. Because if he took it up into the trees, then David Slater could claim he was working for higher.

[Jac@stafford.net]

The monkey also made pictures of the camera owner. I think a null declaration of copyright is in order.
.

[Drew Wiley]

I was under the impression that all selfies are taken by monkeys.

[Tin Can]

The only kind of release I can think of that a monkey can produce will come from its behind... so yes, that's a perfect thing to fling at the lawyers. :D

I visited San Diego Zoo in the early 70's and came upon a gorilla throwing green shit, direct from his source and hitting the audience. Fortunately I got the idea real quick and was able to enjoy the show as much as the gorilla was.

It was hilarious and not a camera to be found...

But my memory is clear. Later a camel spit at me, he also missed.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I visited San Diego Zoo in the early 70's and came upon a gorilla throwing green shit, direct from his source and hitting the audience. Fortunately I got the idea real quick and was able to enjoy the show as much as the gorilla was.

It was hilarious and not a camera to be found...

But my memory is clear. Later a camel spit at me, he also missed.

Primates are notorious for flinging sh... stuff. And so are lawyers. :D

[Jeff Conrad]

Primates are notorious for flinging sh... stuff. And so are lawyers. :D

PETA are notorious for flinging similar ... stuff, if perhaps from different openings. OK, perhaps a bit judgmental, but this case seems stretch, to say the least.

PETA are correct that nothing in §102(a) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102) of the US Copyright Act specifically require human authorship. And nothing in that section requires that a work be made by something living or that the thing even reside on this planet.

In December 2014, in Chapter 300 (http://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf) of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, the Copyright Office stated “the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work.” The decisional law cited for this position is pretty old (late 19th century), and apparently PETA are unconvinced that it is controlling. Their attorney, Jeffrey Kerr, claims “Copyright law is clear: It’s not the person who owns the camera, it’s the being who took the photograph.” I’d say he’s pulling this out of an orifice that has previously been discussed ...

It also looks as though Slater’s dispute with Wikimedia has yet to be resolved, and I assume that it won’t be unless the matter goes before a judge. Hard to say what might happen, but Slater’s case seems more plausible than PETA’s, probably hinging on how much of the creative effort was Slater’s, as several IP lawyers have pointed out. Does your assistant own copyright absent a written assignment to you? Whether any conceivable judgment could justify the cost of litigation is another matter.

The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3245807/PETA-sues-nature-photographer-hopes-giving-MONKEY-copyright-ownership-selfie.html) has a fairly good summary.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Well, if the courts rule that those monkey's own image copyright then I guess they'll have human rights including the right to vote. Maybe they'll do a better job of electing officials than we do.

[Jac@stafford.net]

It also looks as though Slater’s dispute with Wikimedia has yet to be resolved, and I assume that it won’t be unless the matter goes before a judge.

By US law, a copyright infringement case will not be heard in Federal court unless the item is officially copyrighted first. How can the monkey do that? PETA or a proxy would have to do it, and it seems unlikely the US Copyright office will allow it.
.

[Jeff Conrad]

By US law, a copyright infringement case will not be heard in Federal court unless the item is officially copyrighted first.
Doesn’t Slater’s UK copyright count? His infringement claim and PETA’s claim (whatever it may be) are of course separate pieces of monkey business.


How can the monkey do that? PETA or a proxy would have to do it, and it seems unlikely the US Copyright office will allow it.
Especially since they say they won’t ... But perhaps PETA are trying to force them. I haven’t been sufficiently interested to cough up money to PACER to read the filings, so I don’t really know what PETA are claiming. Until shown otherwise, though, I’ll stand by my previous assessment.

[Nodda Duma]

What really sucks is that the photographer has to pay for a lawyer. That is a lot of money to shell out. In that regard, he's already lost.

[analoguey]

Copyrights to the monkey, licensed to the photographer exclusively and pay them both - with the money for monkey used to provide better enclosure/safety and/or environment?
(or is that too Easy to do?)

[Old-N-Feeble]

If a big grasshopper bumps my shutter and takes a photo do I have to find that grasshopper to get a release? How will he sign it? More importantly... how will I find that specific grasshopper?

[Drew Wiley]

Monkeys taking money? Isn't the practice of politics banned from this forum?

[DannL]

". . . they're claiming the monkey owns the copyright."

If this is true . . . . then Wikimedia is admitting they are infringing in on the monkey's copyright. How can this monkey pursue a living selling images, if Wikimedia is giving them away. Who is representing the monkey here?

This sounds like an April Fools joke to me. Since when are primates allowed the benefits afforded by Copyright? What next, chickens and fish? I must call foul. If the photographer allowed the monkey to take the picture, he has non-verbally contracted with the monkey, which is obviously incapable of understanding such concepts in law. All rights must belong to the photographer. That's my final ruling. :p

[Liquid Artist]

My girlfriends brother was kidnapped by monkeys when he was a baby. Now I wonder if they are legally my family.



Primates are notorious for flinging sh... stuff. And so are lawyers. :D
I have a photo of an old manure spreader I named The Politician for a reason

[Jeff Conrad]

What really sucks is that the photographer has to pay for a lawyer. That is a lot of money to shell out. In that regard, he's already lost.

Slate (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/09/25/peta_monkey_selfie_lawsuit_it_s_not_just_absurd_it_s_cruel.html) and The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/24/peta_sues_photographer_macaque_selfie/) address this pretty well. The complaint (http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/Complaint.pdf) seems pretty ridiculous. I hope the court has the wisdom to throw this out on its ear, find it completely frivolous, and stick it to PETA for court costs, attorneys’ fees, and damages, though I have little hope this will happen.

As usual, Slater’s publisher, Blurb, Inc., have an indemnity clause, so he appears to be on the hook for legal costs. Yet another reason to treat all “indemnify and hold harmless” provisions seriously (photo contests and similar come to mind).