Monkey selfie sparks intellectual property debate

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   


news.yahoo.com...
Stop us if you've heard this one before.

Guy walks into the jungle and has his camera swiped by a crested black macaque. The monkey, being a monkey, decides to have a little fun and takes a selfie. The photo winds up on Wikimedia Commons, where anyone can grab it for free. But the man who owns the camera wants it taken down, because he says the free downloads are eating into his income and he should have the copyright.k..

Does this guy have a point? It was his time and money that got him there but the monkey snatches the camera ans takes a selfie that cracks me up..What do you guys think




posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: switchqm8

Since the animal can't own the camera and the wouldn't be in the location for it. The rights belong the the cameras owner or current user, since the animal can't be used in legal since for using the camera it default to the owner.

What more important is how Wiki got the photo not who took it. Wiki didn't just magically have the photo after the monkey took it, so how did they end up with the photo?



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
First of all, the pic is hilarious.

Secondly, I would think since the photo was taken by this guys camera, that it belongs to him and he has sole rights to it. Just my 2



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Ok, the guy should have the rights, it's his phone, camera, whatever.

I am way more freaked out by the fact that the monkey knew how to do this, and smiled for the picture!!!



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
1. The guy that bought the Camera is the owner.


2. That monkey sure knows how to be photogenic.

3. Wiki knows stuff we do not know. This is Scary!
edit on 7 8 2014 by elixz because: correction



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
This reminds me of all the stupid people that steal phones and take a selfie with it and get busted cause of it.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
i think the guy who legally owns the camera ,would have to have the monkey sign a release for the photograph,but as the monkey has failed to sign a release the man should pay the monkey royalties



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Ok, I will admit, I'm not an artist. But I have been blessed with knowing MANY artists in my life. Out of all the artists in the world, I can honestly tell you there are two types that I can NOT stand, and it's because of their over-inflated ego's. Writers.......and photographers.

I understand photography isn't easy for many, and can be expensive to have the right gear. But the ego's of these people really make me want to smash their cameras over their head. Not all, but many. The things they will claim ownership of is ridiculous.

Now yes, I get that the camera belonged to the guy, so he wants to claim ownership of the photo. I've also heard stories of a photographer using someone elses camera to take a photo for the owner of the camera, finding that it was an extremely good shot, and trying to claim ownership of it all because they were the ones who took it. In this case, the guy didn't take the photo, but because it's his camera, he wants to be paid for it.

In my personal opinion, I don't think they should have to take it down. I say this, because if the monkey didn't take the camera, he never would have had that shot in the first place. It was his carelessness with his camera, that allowed the monkey to take the camera and take a selfie.

I do love the photo, it's like the monkey knew exactly what the camera was. XD



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
If I remember, there was a discussion on amateur photographer, a UK magazine over who owns the copyright of a photograph under UK law.

It basically comes down to, 'Whoever released the shutter'. Doesn't matter who owned the camera, the IP belongs to the 'photographer' who is the person who released the shutter.

So in this case, the monkey. Since a monkey can't legally own IP, I would guess that places the photograph in the public domain.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
If he splits the proceeds with the primate in question....or say, donates a portion of this allotment to the protection and conservation of these highly intelligent apes, I'm totally willing to pay for the right to use that photo.

Fair is fair - he may of provided the means, but it was the ape who provided the image.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
This Interview with the photographer tells a slightly different story. He says to get the shot, he set up a tripod to intentionally get this shot with a string release for the shutter, so that the monkeys could look at their reflections in the lens, play with the string, and hopefully get the shot.

So, he came up with the idea and set the whole thing up. Just because the subject pulled the shutter, shouldn't mean he loses ownership of the photo.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Zarniwoop

Yeah, and now we know why humanity is doomed.
Always justifying it's superiority over other species.
Whatever.

When all we have left are photos of these apes because they've gone extinct due to habitat loss, I'm sure his sales will skyrocket. Yay humans. Top of the food chain. Masters of all they survey. Homo-superious. Indifferent and disconnected.

Go for the money, man. It's all that matters anyway.




posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
To me is obvious that the photographer owns every right for that picture.
I mean, it may be the monkey who took the pic, but it was the man who uploaded and distributed it online, from his own camera. Without it there would be no pic.
And it's not like the monkey is disputing the copyrights with him. Is some other people who do that. So until someone with real rights comes forward it is his picture.
If my dog takes a poop on the street I am responsible for it, even if the dog did it.
What about the circus animals, or zoo? Did they get part of the profits?
We are still human and have a different status from animals, so who own the rights for that pic it's a kind of rhetorical question.

Regardless, he can come back to the monkey with a bunch of bananas as a thank you for the hilarious pic.
edit on 7-8-2014 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
This Interview with the photographer tells a slightly different story. He says to get the shot, he set up a tripod to intentionally get this shot with a string release for the shutter, so that the monkeys could look at their reflections in the lens, play with the string, and hopefully get the shot.

So, he came up with the idea and set the whole thing up. Just because the subject pulled the shutter, shouldn't mean he loses ownership of the photo.

Around 0:30 in the video interview, the photographer says he wanted to get the photo for his "self satisfaction and to give it to an agent, therefore I can promote the conservation issue" How much money can he possibly be losing out on if this picture was meant to promote the conservation of an animal? Seems slightly selfish IMO...

I understand it takes a lot of money, time, and in some cases talent to make a living as a photographer (or any artist for that matter). Isn't it common practice for a working photographer to put images online with a significant digital 'watermark' on top of the image to avoid this exact situation?



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zarniwoop

Ok, so that explanation makes the pic a bit less creepy for me. Maybe the monkey is just "posturing" for the monkey in the reflection. Because otherwise, I was having some pretty crazy planet of the apes daydreams, LOL

And, that makes it clear, at least to me, that he should have ownership of the picture.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
So it's not even a "selfie" in the first place!

Amazing how much mileage you can get out of a misleading title.

No monkey picks up a camera and takes a picture of itself.

The cameraman devised a rig that allowed an ape to see it's reflection (allegedly in a lens) and pull a string trigger.

How is that a selfie?

We already have pictures of animals that were taken by them triggering a camera.

Amazing what will get the public's attention these days.

And what doesn't.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: switchqm8

Camera is owned by him, picture is owned by him.





top topics
 
5

log in

join