
Photographer wins 'monkey selfie' legal fight - sp8
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-41235131
======
cjbprime
Huh. I get that the monkey doesn't own the copyright, US law seems pretty
straightforward there. But I don't see how that means that the photographer
does own it, since neither is he the creator of the photo; yet the article
talks about him benefiting from the funds when it's sold.

Anyone know what's up with that?

~~~
pavlov
Imagine a wildlife photographer trying to get a picture of a bear at night.
Maybe she would set up something to attract the bear, then use a motion sensor
to trigger the camera. Clearly she is the author of the photo, even though the
bear actually triggered its taking.

I feel a similar argument could be made for the monkey selfie: the
photographer didn't push the button, but he created the circumstances.

~~~
kbutler
The difference is in composing the photo and choosing the triggering of the
shot.

In the motion sensor scenario, the photographer frames the shot and defines
the conditions under which a photograph will be taken.

In the monkey selfie, the photographer did not frame the shot, did not direct
the camera, did not control conditions under which the photo would be taken
(beyond the manufacturer's button). This there was not creative input by the
photographer in the actual image captured.

~~~
moomin
This is a can of worms. What if the equipment malfunctions? What if you
misconfigured it? What if something else triggered it? What if you take the
shot yourself, but squeezed too early because someone shot a rifle?

~~~
belorn
creative input is not that impossible to define.

A malfunctioning equipment don't change the fact if a artist has made some
creative input. So long the creative aspect is still visible (ie, the image is
not all a single color), there is a argument to get copyright for the combined
result. What the creator do not get is exclusive right to any work that has
similar malfunctioning but with different creative input, so a interesting
looking artifact from malfunctions should not be copyrightable.

A misconfiguration could be argued to be a form of creative input. Debatable.
A write should still be entitled to copyright, even if their books has odd
words from when auto-correcting software misbehave.

Who trigged the image is not very important so long the creative input exist.
Arguable you could claim that a director has more claim to copyright that the
person behind the device, but this is the place which practicality comes into
place where society prefer to have a single author over many. From a
philosophical perspective I would say that every person involved in creating a
artistic work should get copyright ownership, similar to how every developer
of the linux kernel has copyright ownership for each part they made.

------
curiousgal
Huh, I am sure Peta's donors are thrilled knowing their funds are used in
courts over animal copyrights.

~~~
kuschku
The interesting part with all this is that Peta’s argument actually won: The
photographer has no rights to the photo, and can not collect any royalties.

Because you don’t have any copyright to photos made with your camera, but only
to photos made by you.

~~~
vilhelm_s
What, no.

PETA argued that the monkey should have copyright in the photo. That argument
was rejected by the district court, and didn't look super promising in the
appeals court oral argument.

There was a separate discussion about whether the photographer could have
copyright in the photo, in particular the Wikimedia Foundation claimed he
should not. That discussion has not been tried in court at all, and it seems
far from certain (lots of legal commenters disagreed).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute)

~~~
posterboy
He could've deleted the photo. Instead he had the right to copy the photo and
as exclusive owner that was his exclusive copyright. At which point would that
have been lost?

~~~
kuschku
Copyright protection only applies if you, personally, had a major share in
creating something.

A good example are music remixes, you need to actually contribute a lot
yourself to have copyright.

If your camera gets stolen by someone, and they take a picture, without you
having any influence in that, you do not own the picture. You can not force
people who want to use it to pay.

~~~
posterboy
music is an analogy and not informative.

A camera thieve shouldn't profit from a misdeed, and the picture shouldn't be
in the public domain by default. So, the photo has to be deleted because noone
can claim copyright?

------
mrfusion
It's weird this monkey is smarter than a baby but if a baby took a picture it
would own the copyright.

Seems kind of speciesist to me. It's kind of like the voyager episode where
the holographic doctor couldn't own the books he wrote.

~~~
aaron695
Except a baby probably shouldn't really hold copyright.

Realistically they are not a human just legally they are.

It's hard to say when human life begins but we seem to settle on treating it
as after they are born.

But this is nonsense in any scientific sense.

~~~
pitaj
Babies are absolutely human, but they may not be persons depending on the
definition of personhood. There is no definition of personhood.

~~~
aaron695
One hour before birth is it human?

If so how far back do you go before it's not human, is a fertilized embryo
human?

If not, whats the difference post birth?

We know many animals are more intelligent than babies. My point is, it's a
pointless comparison. Babies don't represent anything human.

And as per the monkey (in this case) can't create. It's the situation they are
put in that can create the art. They are just the tool.

------
AliAdams
If I put a camera inside a tumble dryer and the motion causes the camera to
trigger and capture a photo, I think I should still own the rights to the
image.

The monkey isn't acting with any real understanding of the creative situation
so is just an agent of randomness, like the tumble dryer.

~~~
coldtea
Even if the monkey did it consciously, it did it with stolen equipment, on a
mission somebody paid good money to go and setup. And of course the
photographer set the camera's settings too -- pressing the button is the
easiest part.

In fact, lots of nature photographers use "camera traps" with automatic
trigger sensor when an animal walks nearby -- which is the same as the "animal
pushing the trigger" and nobody seriously suggests those are photos the
animals took.

------
ringaroundthetx
Link to the appeal's court ruling? San Francisco court I assume will have it
up very quickly, but I'm not sure where to look. Usually people have legal
documents posted on Scribd very quickly, but my compulsory search found
nothing under "naruto v slater" today

~~~
jsjohnst
Here you go: [https://en.scribd.com/mobile/doc/282396752/Naruto-v-
Slater-P...](https://en.scribd.com/mobile/doc/282396752/Naruto-v-Slater-PETA-
s-Monkey-Selfie-copyright-complaint)

[http://www.loeb.com/~/media/files/publications/2016/2/naruto...](http://www.loeb.com/~/media/files/publications/2016/2/narutovslater.pdf)

~~~
bdowling
Those links are to the complaint and the district court's order dismissing the
case.

Edit: See above for link to LA Times article reporting that a settlement was
reached between PETA and Slater, not that the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion.

~~~
ringaroundthetx
OP's article says

> But appeal judges at a court in San Francisco ruled in Mr Slater's favour
> after a two-year legal fight.

but maybe this was just a denial of PETA's motion to dismiss.

------
Floatablecat
I think its strange that there isn't more discussion about the impact on the
photographer and the consequences this lawsuit has had on his life, he is
pretty much broke and it seems to have destroyed his career not to mention put
him and his family through what I would imagine to be pretty harsh emotional
distress over the last couple of years.

This article:
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/monkey-s...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/monkey-
selfie-macaque-copyright-court-david-slater) basically says a couple of months
ago he was broke, couldn't afford to replace his equipment or pay his
attorney. I hope this result will change his situation but even so this is a
huge impact on someone over an issue that realistically is fairly niche.

Questions like this are important to be answered, but surely there should also
be discussion about was there a better way to do this than ruining someones
life over a picture that could never have existed without his direct
intervention and creation of the circumstances needed for the monkey to come
into contact with the camera.

------
Marazan
This has been an absolutely horrendous case that has put the photographer
through hell.

I have total and complete sympathy with him and support him absolutely. Twunts
trying to deny him copyright on the photo (often based on ficticious versions
of how the photo was taken) are screaming arses.

------
wantonnoodle
The author could have avoided this whole mess and just lied and said that he
took the photo

"Yeah I made up the story of the monkey taking the selfie, I actually took it
myself"

It's not like the monkey can refute that story....

~~~
MichaelGG
Then it's just another picture of a monkey's face, hardly worth paying much
for. And anyone that had paid would feel defrauded.

------
gadders
Let's not forget Wikipedia/Media's role in this as well:
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedi...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-
refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html)

------
xupybd
Don't PETA have better things to focus on?

~~~
jbreckmckye
I think PETA see outrageous behaviour as a good way to raise their profile.
Whether that actually helps them achieve their goals, though, I'm not that
certain.

------
shmerl
Peta were surely way off. But photographer himself also incorrectly claimed
copyright on the photo, which is wrong, since he didn't take it. In short, the
photo is in public domain.

------
jimothyhalpert7
This was used as an example to question artistic intentionality in aesthetics,
in Crash Course Philosophy:
[https://youtu.be/gDL4Zf2yEa4?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNk...](https://youtu.be/gDL4Zf2yEa4?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&t=216)

------
davidhog
Well, it's quite interesting stuff!

------
glangdale
As a result of this decision most tech employers can rest easier, secure in
the knowledge that they also own the copyrights on code written by monkeys.

------
coldtea
The photographer probably feels like this person:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1tsGGz-
Qw0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1tsGGz-Qw0)

And PETA and those ruling against him are jerks of the "friend"'s in the clip
caliber.

