| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/06/2014 12:23:54 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 12:43:17 PM · #2 |
| Very interesting. But again, the laws would be different in every country. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 12:45:43 PM · #3 |
| All copyrights are for monkeys. The Iliad and the Odyssey would not exist with copyright law. Nor would the Blues. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 12:56:27 PM · #4 |
| Maybe Wikipedia is paying the monkey. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 01:06:23 PM · #5 |
Wikipedia can probably claim a "fair use" exemption under the "educational uses" part of US copyright law regardless of whether the monkey or the camera owner (or no one) has a copyright interest, but that would not give them the right to relicense it to others or to use it for "commercial" purposes.
Copyright law among signatories to the Berne Convention should be relatively similar, at least as far as international use is concerned.
Originally posted by Preamble to the Berne Convention on Copyright:
The countries of the Union, being equally animated by the desire to protect, in as effective and uniform a manner as possible, the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works ... |
|
|
|
|
08/06/2014 01:08:18 PM · #6 |
| waiting to see monkey's selfie in the current challenge. sure to be several. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 01:24:20 PM · #7 |
| If Slater WINS his case, doesn't that mean that the copyright belongs with the owner of the camera, not the photographer? |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 01:46:21 PM · #8 |
Screw all that brou-ha-ha....what a *GREAT* shot! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
08/06/2014 01:50:14 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Screw all that brou-ha-ha....what a *GREAT* shot! LOL!!! |
Seriously. The most important thing to come of this is that monkeys know how to take selfies. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 02:02:39 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by LN13:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Screw all that brou-ha-ha....what a *GREAT* shot! LOL!!! |
Seriously. The most important thing to come of this is that monkeys know how to take selfies. |
Thus, they are clearly poised to take over control of the planet - as I've been claiming for years that they would. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 02:08:23 PM · #11 |
My Wild Affair
Originally posted by Episode Synopsis:
About The Ape Who Went to College
This episode features Chantek, the orangutan raised as a human child on an American university campus during the 70s and 80s. Taught to speak in sign language, he is now living among his own kind at Zoo Atlanta, although he describes himself as an “orangutan person. |
|
|
|
|
08/06/2014 02:12:28 PM · #12 |
| Right or wrong - monkeys are not deemed to be persons, but property. Thus, since the monkey took the photo, the copyright would belong to the monkey's owner. If the monkey has no owner, there is no person to claim the copyright, and the photo would be public domain. Wikipedia's claim is valid - Slater does not hold the copyright, UNLESS he can prove that he owns the monkey, or can prove that he paid the monkey (in a manner acceptable to its owner) for its work. Ownership of the equipment used to make the photo is irreverent. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 02:18:27 PM · #13 |
| Maybe he has a release signed by the monkey. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 02:22:06 PM · #14 |
| the monkeys have set this up to confound us. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 02:29:57 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by tnun:
the monkeys have set this up to confound us. |
If the monkey is indigent (he did have to borrow the camera) is he entitled to a court-appointed attorney? And who pays for the interpreter? |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 02:37:49 PM · #16 |
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.
Message edited by author 2014-08-06 14:40:55. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 02:38:08 PM · #17 |
If you look at this monkey's face, you can tell he's clearly thinking "I'm gonna f#@kin' BLOW EVERYONE'S MIND with this photo.
Mission accomplished monkey. Well done.
Message edited by author 2014-08-06 15:02:16. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 02:38:54 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by tnun:
the monkeys have set this up to confound us. |
... And who pays for the interpreter? |
that's the most important part =8-) |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 02:40:02 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by dtremain:
Right or wrong - monkeys are not deemed to be persons, but property. Thus, since the monkey took the photo, the copyright would belong to the monkey's owner. If the monkey has no owner, there is no person to claim the copyright, and the photo would be public domain. Wikipedia's claim is valid - Slater does not hold the copyright, UNLESS he can prove that he owns the monkey, or can prove that he paid the monkey (in a manner acceptable to its owner) for its work. Ownership of the equipment used to make the photo is irreverent. |
I wouldn't have thought that is the case for all monkeys surely. Monkeys in zoos may be thought of as property but not in the wild. Perhaps it makes a difference what part of Borneo the photo was taken. Borneo is a big place and has large communities of Christian, Muslim, Hindu and people with older animist beliefs. At some temples the monkeys are seen as protectors of the sacred sites and even the incarnation of the Hindu monkey god, Hanumen. If that turns out to be the case then it could get messy as copyright cases involving deities can get tricky. I don't know if you remember that time Ganesh attempted to take that t-shirt company to court or when the entire Summerian upper pantheon of gods spent weeks arguing with an internet company in California over a logo. Messy stuff indeed.
Message edited by author 2014-08-06 14:41:45. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 02:46:04 PM · #20 |
| the monkeys are communards from way back. they do not recognize private property, or rather they feel that those who "have" cameras are depraving the deprived. the monkey selfie movement is doomed, unfortunately, and will go down in history as mere monkeyshines. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 02:56:57 PM · #21 |
| If the photographer does not own the copyright to the image, then what do we do with timed shutter release images where the photographer's finger did not physically press the trigger? Are those images public domain? Maybe the photographer's contribution to the circumstances and environment that created the photograph should count for something as well... |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 03:18:36 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by rooum:
... it could get messy as copyright cases involving deities can get tricky. |
The story I heard was that when Lou Gottlieb (of the folk group The Limelighters) tried to transfer the deed of his Morning Star Ranch to God, the county official told him that the governement didn't recognize God, to which he responded by pulling a quarter out of his pocket, pointing to the motto In God We Trust and saying "I mean this one."
Message edited by author 2014-08-06 19:00:54. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 06:37:13 PM · #23 |
| You people talk as if the monkeys don't read these forums. |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 06:47:38 PM · #24 |
|
|
|
08/06/2014 06:57:36 PM · #25 |
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...??? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 10:54:47 PM EDT.
