Monkey Self-Portrait
Continues To Raise Issue of Copyright Control
If an animal takes a
photo, who owns it?
Usually, the issue of
who owns a photograph is fairly straightforward. Barring contracts or
agreements, the person who pressed the shutter gets it. But what happens if
it's not a person who presses the shutter? That's a question that's still proving incredibly
difficult for photographer David Slater, ever since a monkey took his
camera and grabbed a self-portrait back in 2011.
A celebes crested
macaque took Slater's camera while he was shooting in Indonesia. According to
Slater,
At first there was a lot
of grimacing with their teeth showing because it was probably the first time
they had ever seen a reflection. They were quite mischievous jumping all over
my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when
one hit the button. The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it. At
first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to
watch.
Out of the hundreds of
images, only a couple came out in focus—and rapidly went viral, but it also raised
questions of copyright, questions that exist to this day. Slater didn't press
the shutter button, so some argue that he doesn't have the copyright—and since
monkey's aren't capable of owning copyright, then it must be in the public
domain. It was a debate that first popped up in 2011 when Slater licensed his images
through Caters News, and it's one that's going on today.
The most recent arena
for this fight is Wikimedia Commons, a repository of Creative Commons and
Public Domain images, that as of press time has three copies of the images
uploaded. All three of the images are simultaneously marked as "nominated
for deletion" due to it being under Slater's copyright, but at the same
time stating "This file is in the public domain, because as the work of a
non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is
vested."
Talking to the Telegraph, Slater has
successfully had the image removed multiple times—but it has always been
re-uploaded by those who think it's in the public domain. And Slater faces a hefty
legal battle if he goes to the courts to get a proper ruling. A number of legal
blogs weighed in in 2011, coming out against Slater.
There's an awful lot to
pick apart in trying to figure out who owns the copyright. If we assume the
monkey can't have it (due to not having most legal rights), then that springs
up a whole series of other questions. If I strap a camera to an animal, and
take images from its point of view, do I own the copyright? What if I'm not
triggering the camera directly, but it's on a timer? What if I set up a
wildlife photography trap that's triggered by motion or sound? Technically,
isn't the animal "pressing the button" then? Does intent matter? What
if an animal makes a painting?
It's definitely a tricky
issue, and one that doesn't seem like it will be resolved soon.
Source | http://www.popphoto.com/
Continues To Raise Issue of Copyright Control
If an animal takes a
photo, who owns it?
Usually, the issue of
who owns a photograph is fairly straightforward. Barring contracts or
agreements, the person who pressed the shutter gets it. But what happens if
it's not a person who presses the shutter? That's a question that's still proving incredibly
difficult for photographer David Slater, ever since a monkey took his
camera and grabbed a self-portrait back in 2011.
A celebes crested
macaque took Slater's camera while he was shooting in Indonesia. According to
Slater,
At first there was a lot
of grimacing with their teeth showing because it was probably the first time
they had ever seen a reflection. They were quite mischievous jumping all over
my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when
one hit the button. The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it. At
first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to
watch.
Out of the hundreds of
images, only a couple came out in focus—and rapidly went viral, but it also raised
questions of copyright, questions that exist to this day. Slater didn't press
the shutter button, so some argue that he doesn't have the copyright—and since
monkey's aren't capable of owning copyright, then it must be in the public
domain. It was a debate that first popped up in 2011 when Slater licensed his images
through Caters News, and it's one that's going on today.
The most recent arena
for this fight is Wikimedia Commons, a repository of Creative Commons and
Public Domain images, that as of press time has three copies of the images
uploaded. All three of the images are simultaneously marked as "nominated
for deletion" due to it being under Slater's copyright, but at the same
time stating "This file is in the public domain, because as the work of a
non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is
vested."
Talking to the Telegraph, Slater has
successfully had the image removed multiple times—but it has always been
re-uploaded by those who think it's in the public domain. And Slater faces a hefty
legal battle if he goes to the courts to get a proper ruling. A number of legal
blogs weighed in in 2011, coming out against Slater.
There's an awful lot to
pick apart in trying to figure out who owns the copyright. If we assume the
monkey can't have it (due to not having most legal rights), then that springs
up a whole series of other questions. If I strap a camera to an animal, and
take images from its point of view, do I own the copyright? What if I'm not
triggering the camera directly, but it's on a timer? What if I set up a
wildlife photography trap that's triggered by motion or sound? Technically,
isn't the animal "pressing the button" then? Does intent matter? What
if an animal makes a painting?
It's definitely a tricky
issue, and one that doesn't seem like it will be resolved soon.
Source | http://www.popphoto.com/
