Who owns the photos?
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
There's not enough info in that article to come to an informed opinion.
What were the circumstances under which the photos got into circulation on the web in the first place? If they were originally posted in a way that effectively put them into the public domain, then I'd have a hard time seeing this as anything other than the guy crying over split milk.
Did the guy watermark the images? Did he claim copyright when he originally posted them, did he donate them to the public domain, or just how were they originally posted?
I wouldn't be surprised if a court ruled that the original copyright holder was whoever owned the camera, but also, depending on the circumstances, they might conceivably rule that he surrendered the copyright when he posted the images online.
In any case, don't post stuff online that you don't want spread to hither and yon.
What were the circumstances under which the photos got into circulation on the web in the first place? If they were originally posted in a way that effectively put them into the public domain, then I'd have a hard time seeing this as anything other than the guy crying over split milk.
Did the guy watermark the images? Did he claim copyright when he originally posted them, did he donate them to the public domain, or just how were they originally posted?
I wouldn't be surprised if a court ruled that the original copyright holder was whoever owned the camera, but also, depending on the circumstances, they might conceivably rule that he surrendered the copyright when he posted the images online.
In any case, don't post stuff online that you don't want spread to hither and yon.
Putting a photo online does not mean you surrender the copyright.
From what I read the monkey ran off with the camera and the photographer later found the camera. The monkey had managed to take at least a 100 photos, of which only a handful were good photos.
The photographer says that he contributed to the photos because he fixed the cameras settings. Wikipedia has said that that isn't enough or else photos from a camera booth would belong to the person who set the booth's camera when they actually belong to the people who take the photos.
From what I read the monkey ran off with the camera and the photographer later found the camera. The monkey had managed to take at least a 100 photos, of which only a handful were good photos.
The photographer says that he contributed to the photos because he fixed the cameras settings. Wikipedia has said that that isn't enough or else photos from a camera booth would belong to the person who set the booth's camera when they actually belong to the people who take the photos.
I'm aware of that. But there are circumstances when you can surrender a photo to the public domain. That's why I said "depending on the circumstances." Donating a photo to Wikipedia would be one of those circumstances.
Eh, but a photo booth actually spits out the photos for the customer to take away. Getting that hard copy for the cash is part of the transaction.
The photographer said he sold copies of the photo in 2011 but not to Wikipedia.
He says he holds the copyright, whereas Wikipedia say no-one can hold the copyright as no human took the photo, and only humans can own copyright.
He says he holds the copyright, whereas Wikipedia say no-one can hold the copyright as no human took the photo, and only humans can own copyright.
Obviously a monkey can't own anything, so therefore ownership falls to the nearest convenient human. Which is Mr. Slater, since it's his camera.
This is exactly what Wikimedia has stated
Does anyone know who owns the copyright If I own a camera and I hand it to a friend to take a photo of me, she or me or jointly owned?
^ IIRC, whichever human takes the pictures is the one who owns them, regardless of whose camera it is.
In this case, however, no human took the picture, so Mr. Slater is the only one who could own them.
In this case, however, no human took the picture, so Mr. Slater is the only one who could own them.
To hell with the photos, he needs to get ahold of that super-smart monkey and market that.
It's his camera, he processed the photos whether film or digitally, he selected those for publication, and posted them. They're his. Wiki is just trying to wiggle out of it because they too often believe they have some sort of special importance making them immune to copyright law.
Technically, every poster here could claim copyright on every one of their posts.
Technically, every poster here could claim copyright on every one of their posts.
How?
So if a camera is on a trip sensor and an animal triggers the sensor, does the animal own the copyright because a human didn't press the shutter button?
I think that it could be argued that the human was responsible for the photo being taken as he had set the trip wire and therefore caused the photo to be taken.
It would seem that the Wiki lawyers are arguing that the photographer had no control over the camera once the animal stole it. I think the lawyers are on totally untested ground because I doubt such a case has arisen before. I think it is petty of the lawyers because Wikimedia's monetary advantage of being able to show the photo on Wikipedia is minimal whereas the photo is of more significant value to the photographer. Unfortunately Wikipedia could win the case because they might be able to show legal right even if though they aren't in the moral right.
It would seem that the Wiki lawyers are arguing that the photographer had no control over the camera once the animal stole it. I think the lawyers are on totally untested ground because I doubt such a case has arisen before. I think it is petty of the lawyers because Wikimedia's monetary advantage of being able to show the photo on Wikipedia is minimal whereas the photo is of more significant value to the photographer. Unfortunately Wikipedia could win the case because they might be able to show legal right even if though they aren't in the moral right.
theoretically the copyright lies with the monkey. However, if the monkey fails to claim his/her copyright the picture goes to whoever publishes it and claims the rights to it. In that case that'd be the photographer.
If that photographer first published the pic with a copyright note, I think Wikimedia will stand no good chance.
If, however, he failed to add that note and published it at twitter or some other social media, the pic could be considered public property. Unless he published it on facebook: their TOS clearly state that by posting a pic you grant *full* rights to them, regardless whether you add a copyright note or not.
If that photographer first published the pic with a copyright note, I think Wikimedia will stand no good chance.
If, however, he failed to add that note and published it at twitter or some other social media, the pic could be considered public property. Unless he published it on facebook: their TOS clearly state that by posting a pic you grant *full* rights to them, regardless whether you add a copyright note or not.
Yeah, this. It's a shame to even see an argument on this. His pictures would be more valuable as part of an art exhibit at a gallery than at Wikipedia.
Reminds me of a documentary I saw a few years ago about an experiment that was conducted at a zoo, where they placed a video camera inside a box and left it in an inclosure. The idea was to see what an ape's reaction would be to it in the course of a year or two and if they could learn to use it and correlate what they could see on a screen.
Have you seen the picture? the monkey totally is making the TROLLFACE and thinking "I'll take this picture to screw up with tha human"
We'll see about that!
(Yeah, I know it's a picture of a chimpanzee. Closest thing I could find on short notice.)
