Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
PETA's heart is in the right place but often their brain absconds. UK did the right thing by awarding copyrights to the photographer because he had a hand in setting up the camera and the intent. The monkey simply did what monkeys do - monkey around. Without such common sense interpretation, all time elapsed or motion detected nature photography would have no copyrights as WikiCommons wanted.
What PETA doesn't understand in their ideological zeal is that photographers like that capturing the beauty of nature is doing nature a favor not exploiting them, better to go after people like that dentist hunter.
But with US lawyers things can get complicated.
Here is a hypothetical that gets rid of the animal angle.
Say I am at a ball game and have my smartphone lying next to me while I am busy talking to a neighbor. The neighbor on the other side notices something amazing occurring on the field, grabs my phone and shoots a picture that turns out to be exclusive. Does he have the copright to the picture on my phone and force me to delete it or give him the proceeds of what I do with it?
What if it was a picture that included him, say he caught the ball with his teeth and wanted a selfie with the ball in his mouth? Would it be different than the above?
What if the picture was accidentally taken by a baby in the next seat who just happened to paw it the right way and had no concept of what it was doing?
You get the picture (sic) ...
My common sense would say, dude if you want to claim copyrights, get your own camera or get my permission, otherwise it is fair game with joint rights at the minimum. But I am sure this dude and his lawyers or anyone that benefits from his side would disagree.
Intellectual property may be created using property of others, but it is something distinct. In your hypothetical, I would suggest that you might sue your neighbor for conversion (the civil analogue of theft - using someone else's property as one's own). But the image would belong to the neighbor.
Artists can be (properly, IMHO) quite protective about what they create. See "moral rights". So even if you do own the picture, that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it, willy-nilly.
As to the broader question of animals owning property, I refer you to "Should Trees Have Standing", Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. From the cover: "... proposing that natural object such as trees, mountains, rivers and lakes should - like corporations - have legal rights." It's not exactly on point, because its focus is on the conservation, not property rights. Nevertheless, relevant.
There is an investing issue buried here. Should you invest in those 1,000 monkeys at typewriters?
If they come up with the script for Star Wars Episode 8, who owns the rights - you or the monkeys? If the Force Awakens within them, will Disney sue you or the monkeys for copyright infringement?
Not much to talk about in this falling market is there? So off-topic it is...
@msf appears to be right on the first point that the person who shot the picture has the copyright even if he killed you to get your camera.
Copyright laws are just nuts creating an antagonistic system between those that want to copyright something and those that want free access neither of whom are willing to see the other side (does reind you of our political process).
Doing some research on this (but I am not a lawyer to cite case law), here are some potential consequences of the current situation of not using common sense to decide the parameters of copyright granting
1. You ask someone in the crowd to take a picture of you with your camera vacationing. This person can send a take down notice of you posting those pictures on Facebook if so inclined. Unless you had a written assignment of copyright for meaningful consideration (i.e.,paid him/her). There is no concept of context.
2. If the baby in that hypothetical accidentally touched your camera which resulted in a unique copyrightable picture, the baby would have the copyright even if the baby had no intent or awareness that it was creating "art".
Whether animals can have copyright is not even close to some of the silliness we have in the current system.
If you look at the online debates, almost always they are between groups that want absolute copyright protection without context and those that are averse to copyrights at all because it costs them or prevents them. Common sense out the window when everyone wants to maximize self-interests.
@davidmoran This thread that began in August 2017 and has ,until today , been dormant since January 2018 shows that there has been little interest. Regards, Ted
@davidmoran This thread that began in August 2017 and has ,until today , been dormant since January 2018 shows that there has been little interest.
Perhaps.
Also shows that whatever you put out on the internet lives forever. Scary thought. Some dumb kid of 16 can post something that may haunt him/her for the rest of their lives.
Re MFO, I’d be all for cleansing (deleting) the archives after a reasonable period - say 6 months or a year. The idea’s been floated in the past and shot down.
Comments
I can see Mo you can't tell the boys from the gals when it comes to Celebes crested macaques
He's a she. Don't want to upset the other half, you know.
>they'd likely tell you that the monkey has equal rights to humans and owns the photo.
that would be a slippery slope. then 5 monkeys could start a corporation and move it offshore to evade taxes.
then giant ant farms and colonies, would be trying to get farm subsidies when the incentive was really to help the little solitary ants.
it would wreak havoc the whole animal world out to exploit the system, find loopholes in tax laws, and so on.
Beautiful! Really a good one!!
And since the Supremes have said that corporations are people that would cinch the whole thing.
David
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-says-copyrighting-a-monkey-selfie-is-bananas/
What PETA doesn't understand in their ideological zeal is that photographers like that capturing the beauty of nature is doing nature a favor not exploiting them, better to go after people like that dentist hunter.
But with US lawyers things can get complicated.
Here is a hypothetical that gets rid of the animal angle.
Say I am at a ball game and have my smartphone lying next to me while I am busy talking to a neighbor. The neighbor on the other side notices something amazing occurring on the field, grabs my phone and shoots a picture that turns out to be exclusive. Does he have the copright to the picture on my phone and force me to delete it or give him the proceeds of what I do with it?
What if it was a picture that included him, say he caught the ball with his teeth and wanted a selfie with the ball in his mouth? Would it be different than the above?
What if the picture was accidentally taken by a baby in the next seat who just happened to paw it the right way and had no concept of what it was doing?
You get the picture (sic) ...
My common sense would say, dude if you want to claim copyrights, get your own camera or get my permission, otherwise it is fair game with joint rights at the minimum. But I am sure this dude and his lawyers or anyone that benefits from his side would disagree.
Artists can be (properly, IMHO) quite protective about what they create. See "moral rights". So even if you do own the picture, that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it, willy-nilly.
As to the broader question of animals owning property, I refer you to "Should Trees Have Standing", Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. From the cover: "... proposing that natural object such as trees, mountains, rivers and lakes should - like corporations - have legal rights." It's not exactly on point, because its focus is on the conservation, not property rights. Nevertheless, relevant.
http://www.amazon.com/Should-Trees-Have-Standing-Environment/dp/0199736073
(As always, if purchasing, consider using the MFO link.)
If they come up with the script for Star Wars Episode 8, who owns the rights - you or the monkeys? If the Force Awakens within them, will Disney sue you or the monkeys for copyright infringement?
@msf appears to be right on the first point that the person who shot the picture has the copyright even if he killed you to get your camera.
Copyright laws are just nuts creating an antagonistic system between those that want to copyright something and those that want free access neither of whom are willing to see the other side (does reind you of our political process).
Doing some research on this (but I am not a lawyer to cite case law), here are some potential consequences of the current situation of not using common sense to decide the parameters of copyright granting
1. You ask someone in the crowd to take a picture of you with your camera vacationing. This person can send a take down notice of you posting those pictures on Facebook if so inclined. Unless you had a written assignment of copyright for meaningful consideration (i.e.,paid him/her). There is no concept of context.
2. If the baby in that hypothetical accidentally touched your camera which resulted in a unique copyrightable picture, the baby would have the copyright even if the baby had no intent or awareness that it was creating "art".
Whether animals can have copyright is not even close to some of the silliness we have in the current system.
If you look at the online debates, almost always they are between groups that want absolute copyright protection without context and those that are averse to copyrights at all because it costs them or prevents them. Common sense out the window when everyone wants to maximize self-interests.
Boom in Retiring Lab Chimpanzees Fills New Sanctuaries With Apes
chimpanzee-haven-retired-research-animals/
Regards,
Ted
https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/planet-of-the-apes-1968.jpg
Regards,
Ted
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53f119fde4b0cc6081eeaacb/t/5965029e6a496308d1489594/1499792036807/planetapes.jpg
(Why do you have a movie still for your image? You know movies are not real, right?)
Also shows that whatever you put out on the internet lives forever. Scary thought. Some dumb kid of 16 can post something that may haunt him/her for the rest of their lives.
Re MFO, I’d be all for cleansing (deleting) the archives after a reasonable period - say 6 months or a year. The idea’s been floated in the past and shot down.