Monkey’s selfie cannot be copyrighted, US regulators say

[PoliticAverse]

United States copyright regulators are agreeing with Wikipedia's conclusion that a monkey's selfie cannot be copyrighted by a nature photographer whose camera was swiped by the ape in the jungle. The animal's selfie went viral.

The US Copyright Office, in a 1,222-page report discussing federal copyright law, said that a "photograph taken by a monkey" is unprotected intellectual property.

Wikipedia says the public, not the photojournalist, owns the rights to ape's pic.
"The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. Likewise, the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit," said the draft report, "Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition."

The report comes two weeks after Wikimedia, the US-based operation that runs Wikipedia, announced that the public, not British photojournalist David Slater, maintains the rights to the selfie and the other pictures the black macaca nigra monkey snapped. The monkey hijacked the camera from Slater during a 2011 shoot in Indonesia and took tons of pictures, including the selfie.

Read the rest and see the 'selfie' at: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-cannot-be-copyrighted-us-regulators-say/

[Orrex]

1. Is it a monkey or an ape?

[PoliticAverse]

2. A macaque monkey in Indonesia apparently...

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8615859/Monkey-steals-camera-to-snap-himself.html

[In_The_Wind]

4. Will that have any bearing on the legality of this issue?

[Orrex]

5. Glad that you asked!

If it's an ape, then it has gibbon us an exciting new legal precedent.

If it's a monkey, then it tears legal precedent to Rhesus pieces!

[In_The_Wind]

9. Well then, that settles that.

[msanthrope]

35. You are very surili. nt

[PoliticAverse]

7. It does if some other animal wanted to ape its style... n/t

[Orrex]

10. They'd have to adjust the camera's aperture.

[Aerows]

25. It would need time

to monkey around with the camera

[leftyohiolib]

26. if it has a tail it's a monkey- no tail it's an ape

[Orrex]

30. That's what I thought. Then, by the article's reckoning...

We're dealing with some monstrous ape/monkey hybrid! Yikes!

[justiceischeap]

3. Funny, recent stories I've been reading about this says the photog claimed

he set the camera up and, if I recall correctly, gave the camera to the primate to take his picture but according to a 2011 article, the primate swiped the camera and took "hundreds of pictures" before figuring out focus and composition.

[Orrex]

6. That's about how long it takes a photography student to figure it out, too.

Hmm...

[Nye Bevan]

8. Cool selfie.

[bluesbassman]

17. Thank you. I thought it could've used more contrast, but I'm still happy with it.

[PoliticAverse]

22. I think I'll email that whenever someone asks me for a photo... n/t

[lunatica]

44. What an excellent sense of composition and color

veritable genius use of light too! The nuances are amazing!

[KittyWampus]

11. I disagree> the photographer owned the camera, the film and thus the rights to the images

taken with his camera and equipment.

The photographer also CHOOSE to make the image public.

The photographer also CREATED THE SITUATION.

[Orrex]

14. Interesting. If you take a picture with my camera, do I own that picture?

Can I distribute the picture however I see fit?

If Jane borrows John's camera and playfully shoots a tasteful nude selfie, can John upload that picture all around the internet, since he owns it?

[KittyWampus]

27. Having an animal take a picture is the exact same as simply having ones camera

take random shots.

I'd try and explain how choice is a big part of creating art… but it'd be pointless.

[Orrex]

33. Why should the photographer get to copyright random shots?

You claim that "choice is a big part of creating art," which is a lovely--if facile--sentiment. Since he had no choice in the monkey's "random shots," then he has no artistic claim to them.

[Ms. Toad]

53. Sometimes the photographer does -

but it isn't relevant here.

For example, if the photographer tossed his camera spiraling into the air, with it set to take pictures randomly all the while, not only did the photographer set the scene, he will also ultimately select which images to use, crop them, and likely also do some pre- or post- processing of them. All of those things are creative, even though the shots may be random.

My understanding is that the ape shot was completely unplanned, and a result of the ape grabbing the photographer's camera. That is not the photographer making creative choices.

[Orrex]

54. I agree completely (nt)

[Xithras]

20. Nope.

Under U.S. law, the copyright belongs to the photographer unless it's assigned to someone else by contract. Lets say that you and I are in New York looking at the Statue of Liberty. You pull out your Nikon, take a picture of the statue, and set your camera down. I pick your camera up, take a second picture, and set it down again.

The first picture is copyrighted by you. You took it, so you own its distribution rights.
The second picture is copyrighted by me. I took it, so I own its distribution rights. If you are browsing the memory card later and realize that I took a much better photo, you do not have the right to sell or distribute that photo without my permission.

The fact that I took the photo with your camera, on your memory card, without your permission, does not matter. I took the photo. The fact that visiting New York was your idea, and that you gave me a ride to the Statue are also irrelevant. Legally, the only question that matters is "Who took the photo?"

In this case, the monkey took the photo. Monkeys cannot hold copyright under existing law, so the image is public domain.

[KittyWampus]

28. a monkey isn't a person. Thus the photos are the same as if photographer had set camera up

to take random shots.

It's the photographer's camera/equipment and also their CHOICE AND EFFORT.

[cbdo2007]

39. I think that's the problem. If he had offered to sell the original film, which he owns, before the p

picture was public, he could have sold it because technically he owns the film. Now that it's been released though, the actual image can be used by anyone, essentially making his film worthless. (or at least substantially worth less than if he had tried to sell the film itself).

So next time this happens, sell the film before releasing the picture.

[Ms. Toad]

51. That's not the standard for copyright.

owning equipment and choosing to make it public have nothing to do with creating copyright (although the latter does impact duration).

Creating the situation is still not the same as the creativity of authorship, which is what is required to create copyright in works of authorship.

[hifiguy]

12. in any event, hornbook contract law

presents a solution. Offer the ape/monkey a banana for the pic. If the monkey/ape accepts the banana he/she clearly considers a bargain to have been struck and the banana to be sufficient consideration for the pic and a binding contract is formed. What the new owner does regarding the copyright is up to him/her.

[PoliticAverse]

15. The monkey must specifically transfer the copyright, mere payment isn't enough

(which is why wedding photographers retain the copyright to people's wedding photos)...

See 'Works Made for Hire': http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

[msanthrope]

36. First, you must prove the monkey capable of contract. nt

[hifiguy]

37. That monkey - or ape - is smart enough to take

a picture. That puts it reasonably far ahead of most Repuke officeholders in terms of intellectual competence.

[msanthrope]

38. You set a low bar, sir. nt

[Yavin4]

13. This is how Planet of the Apes got started.

Intellectual property dispute.

[procon]

16. This ruling just feels wrong to me.

Without the use of his camera, the monkey could not have taken its own picture. Intellectual property rights cover photos taken by cameras equipped with infrared triggers to capture wildlife, so how is this any different? The issue isn't what mechanism is used to activate the camera, but rather who owns the camera that made the photos possible.

I think this is another example illustrating that copyright laws are not keeping abreast with new technology.

[PoliticAverse]

19. You can submit an opinion/comment on the matter to the copyright office...

Comments on the Public Draft

The U.S. Copyright Office welcomes comments on the public draft of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition. Comments may be submitted on a continuing basis using the form below.

Link: http://copyright.gov/comp3/comments.html

[Orrex]

24. Why should ownership of the camera have anything to do with it?

If Zombie Picasso borrows my paintbrush and canvas, do I own the painting that he produces with them?

[KittyWampus]

29. Because the PHOTOGRAPHER CREATED THE SITUATION.

The photographer, using their own equipment, created a situation and did all the work required to make the photos a reality.

The monkey or animal is simply an act of nature.

[Orrex]

31. The photographer is also simply an act of nature

If anything, the monkeys did more to create the situation than he did.

[cwydro]

46. I know, I gotta agree with you here. nt

[procon]

32. Painting is a different medium than photography

but actually a similar case exists with the popular artist, Thomas Kincaid -- I know, his critics might very well compare him to zombies -- hired artists to add embellishments to prints of his paintings and profited handsomely. Nonetheless, the artworks were still his property, not the artists who applied the extra paint.

Back to camera, though, there are some well known photographers who have presented photo collections made from digital cameras that were handed out to random people to document a specific subject of interest. The photographers still retained the intellectual property rights to the work, not the people taking the shots.

[Orrex]

34. Neither of those is relevant here

Zombie Kincaid contracted with brush-pushers to assist with his paintings. Their work is explicitly and contractually his property. The current photographer didn't contract with the monkey (in part because you can't enter into a contract with a monkey) and is simply claiming that the photo is his because it was taken with his camera.

The photo collections that you cite also don't apply. In that case, the coordinating artist loaned the cameras with the specific purpose of creating such a collection. If the pictures were simply presented as-is, then I'm sure that there was some exchange that expressly spelled out the terms of the agreement between the coordinator and the contributors--otherwise one of the contributors would likely claim that he was stealing their work.

Alternatively, if the contributors' work is presented in the manner of a collage, then the artist has indeed created an original work by using the raw materials of the contributors' photos. That doesn't apply to the current case, in which the monkey's selfie was presented as-is.


I'm also not convinced that my example of the borrowed paints & brushes is different. Certainly photography and painting are different media, but I see no reason why photography should be afforded special status simply on the basis of ownership of the equipment.

If Eric Clapton composes a new song on my guitar, does the new song belong to me?

[procon]

42. Not to get too far removed from the ruling

which is specific to a, "photograph taken by a monkey", not another person. Let me return to my original assertion that current laws are not keeping up with all the new technology in this modern digital age.

The photographer used his expertise to purchase the right kind of camera equipment, and his knowledge to configure the correct exposure settings. As a previous Newsweek article documented, Slater "then set the self-timer on his camera and positioned it on a beanbag on a log." He “had one hand on the tripod,” while “they grinned, grimaced and bared teeth" at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens,” taking photos that soon went viral as the first-ever “monkey selfies.”

Using a digital camera with a timer doesn't translate to a"photograph taken by a monkey". The ruling is based on old, outdated copyright laws, and even the copyright office notes that they plan a “comprehensive overhaul" of "the practices and standards."

Thanks for your thoughtful rebuttal; good debates are hard to come by!

[PoliticAverse]

45. From Slater's website...

http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/Tropical%20Forests/Sulawesi%20Macaques.htm :

It was about midday on the second day and the monkeys, about 25 strong of all ages, halted for a rest and a grooming session. It had been a hard day as usual, slashing through tangled and very humid jungle, climbing over and squating under fallen trees, all with a 20kg backpack on full of expensive camera gear. I sat close by them, camera at the ready as always. I must have tuned in to them, because after some time a few brave monkeys began to come closer, and slowly but surely began paying me more attention. I held out my hand and WOW, one held my hand back. Shock! This went on for maybe 15 minutes. They started to groom me, picking through my hair as I knelt on the ground, hunched over my camera, but desperate to record it all. I knew about monkey etiquette from many previous encounters around the world, and this made that knowledge so much more than worthwhile.

I decided to set up the camera on a beanbag on a log, self-timer all set. I was afraid they would run off of course, but they didn't. Rather, they grabbed my camera! Quick thinking had my guide rushing to save it - lesson learnt. Setting up the camera again, some of the cheekier monkeys had now got bored, and now even my guide had wandered off for a smoke. I was alone and had to encourage the monkeys back to me for my intended contact experience photo. Soon enough, I was jokingly asking for his help again as the monkeys looked increasingly cheeky as they touched the camera with that glint in their piercing red eyes. It was now that I heard some frames reeled off when my guide struggled to keep the camera from little monkey fingers - the scene was set.

I wanted to keep my new found friends happy and with me. I now wanted to get right in their faces with a wide angle lens, but that was proving too difficult as they were nervous of something - I couldn't tell what. So I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play. I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in, fingering the toy, pressing the buttons and fingering the lens. I was then to witness one of the funniest things ever as they grinned, grimaced and bared teeth at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens. Was this what they where afraid of earlier? Perhaps also the sight of the shutter planes moving within the lens also amused or scared them? They played with the camera until of course some images were inevitably taken! I had one hand on the tripod when this was going on, but I was being prodded and poked by would be groomers and a few playful juveniles who nibbled at my arms. Eventually the dominant male at times became over excited and eventually gave me a whack with his hand as he bounced off my back. I new then that I had to leave before I possibly got him too upset. The whole experiance lasted about 30 minutes.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

18. Jesus Christ! Are these reports written by hand on Post-It Notes? nt

[PoliticAverse]

21. Here is the mentioned section of the compendium:

306 The Human Authorship Requirement
The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the
work was created by a human being.
The copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the
creative powers of the mind.” Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). Because
copyright law is limited to “original intellectual conceptions of the author,” the Office
will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the
work. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884).
The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. Likewise, the
Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings,
although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy(ies)
state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit.
Examples:
• A photograph taken by a monkey.
• A mural painted by an elephant.
• A claim based on the appearance of actual animal skin.
• A claim based on driftwood that has been shaped and smoothed by
the ocean.
• A claim based on cut marks, defects, and other qualities found in
natural stone.
• An application for a song naming the Holy Spirit as the author of the
work

Direct link to the full compendium (.pdf, 9.7MB): http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-full.pdf

[denbot]

23. O.F.F.S!

Even monkeys take better selfies then I can!

[cwydro]

40. This has GOT to be a hoax lol.

Right?

[cbdo2007]

41. I don't see how this is different than a motion sensor picture...

that is triggered by an animal walking by. If they are the ones to caused the picture to take, the rules should apply the same, regardless of how it was done.

[Ms. Toad]

49. The author's creativity in setting it up is different.

Someone setting up a motion sensor still has creative control of the camera and setting the scene.

When an animal grabs the camera and snaps a selfie, there is no creativity by the owner of the camera.

The rules are the same - copyright reqires creativity.

[LisaL]

50. That guy should have just said he pushed a button.

Monkey didn't know it was taking a selfie, so I don't understand how the monkey was the one creative here.

[Ms. Toad]

52. It isn't that the monkey was the creative one -

it is that there was no creativity, as defined in copyright law.

[Octafish]

43. Heh heh heh.

[GeorgeGist]

47. who is the monkey?

[font size = 5]

1,222-page report

[Uncle Joe]

48. How about this cat's selfie, have they ruled on it yet?

Thanks for the thread, PoliticAverse.