| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/06/2014 07:02:33 PM · #26 |
Copyrights protect the creator of a work, or those who hire them for a specific task, not the owner of the means of production.
Message edited by author 2014-08-06 19:02:52. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 07:24:16 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Mike:
the owner of the camera owns the copyright. if i handed my camera to you and you took a pic. i still own the copyright. when i get hired by another photog to shoot for him, he rents my camera from me for the day and i still use it, in which case he gets the copyrights since he owns the camera for the day. |
What? So if I rent a camera, do a shoot with it, the copyright for all the images from that shoot belong to the store I rented the camera from...??? |
No, of course not. You "own" the camera when you rent it anyway, but copyright protects the creator, not the gear. We're pointing out the fallacy in the lawsuit. There can't BE a copyright on that image unless the monkey has an "owner"... |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 07:51:49 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Mike:
the owner of the camera owns the copyright. if i handed my camera to you and you took a pic. i still own the copyright. when i get hired by another photog to shoot for him, he rents my camera from me for the day and i still use it, in which case he gets the copyrights since he owns the camera for the day. |
What? So if I rent a camera, do a shoot with it, the copyright for all the images from that shoot belong to the store I rented the camera from...??? |
No, of course not. You "own" the camera when you rent it anyway, but copyright protects the creator, not the gear. We're pointing out the fallacy in the lawsuit. There can't BE a copyright on that image unless the monkey has an "owner"... |
...and of course if the monkey took a photo (sans release)and the monkey's owner sold it...he would be held liable right???
What has this world come to.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 08:51:06 PM · #29 |
| Hey, if corporations are people, monkeys can be too. |
|
|
|
08/07/2014 11:49:12 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Hey, if corporations are people, monkeys can be too. |
Can't be...to be people one needs at heart...sooooooooooo the monkey is in but the corporations... not so much. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
08/07/2014 12:01:49 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Hey, if corporations are people, monkeys can be too. |
Can't be...to be people one needs at heart...sooooooooooo the monkey is in but the corporations... not so much. :O)
Ray |
+1 |
|
|
|
08/07/2014 12:56:26 PM · #32 |
| wikipedia isn't claiming the monkey owns the copyright, simply that nobody does. thus putting the picture in the public domain. |
|
|
|
08/07/2014 01:30:50 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by dtremain:
Right or wrong - monkeys are not deemed to be persons, but property... |
... Monkeys in zoos may be thought of as property but not in the wild. ...monkeys are seen as ... the incarnation of the Hindu monkey god, Hanumen. ... |
Owned, wild, or deity - still not "person" in human law, where "copyright" is defined. Owned - owner owns copyright; Wild - no "person" owns copyright; Deity - expect they can defend their own rights regardless of human law. |
|
|
|
08/07/2014 01:33:28 PM · #34 |
| Question: If we incorporated the monkey... |
|
|
|
08/07/2014 05:16:15 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Neil:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Hey, if corporations are people, monkeys can be too. |
Can't be...to be people one needs at heart...sooooooooooo the monkey is in but the corporations... not so much. :O)
Ray |
+1 |
Speaking as the owner of a corporation, the employee of a corporation, and a consultant to many corporations....
+3 |
|
|
|
08/07/2014 05:39:41 PM · #36 |
| Can't remember who said it, but my favorite response to the SCOTUS' Citizens United decision was "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one." |
|
|
|
08/07/2014 06:25:41 PM · #37 |
After hearing this interview with Slater, I'm leaning more towards his claim, as it appears he deliberately set up the shot rather than the monkey just grabbing the camera ... the monkey is either a sophisticated remote control, or else functioning in a "work for hire" capacity.
Originally posted by David Slater:
"I went to northern Sulawesi, Indonesia, and spent several days following a troop of crested black macaques around so much so that they became very happy in my presence, began to look interested in my camera. I became accepted as part of the troop, they touched me and groomed me ... so I thought they could take their own photograph. I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right ... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and, lo and behold, you got the picture." |
Wikipedia itself may have a fair-use right to post the image (as does the site hosting the linked interview), but not to relicense it or profit from it. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/23/2025 10:56:52 AM EDT.
