Can a Monkey Get a Copyright & Issue a Takedown?

An anonymous reader writes "Last week, the Daily Mail published a story about some monkeys in Indonesia who happened upon a camera and took some photos of themselves. The photos are quite cute. However, Techdirt noticed that the photos had copyright notices on them, and started a discussion over who actually held the copyright in question, noting that, if anyone did, the monkeys had the best claim, and certainly not the photographer. Yet, the news agency who claimed copyright issued a takedown to Techdirt! When presented with the point that it's unlikely the news agency could hold a legitimate copyright, the agency told Techdirt it didn't matter. Techdirt claims that using the photos for such a discussion is a clear case of fair use, an argument which has so far been ignored."

Comments

Maybe a million monkeys

[perpenso]

Can a Monkey Get a Copyright & Issue a Takedown?

Maybe a million monkeys could do it, as they do with Shakespeare.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

A million monkeys with a million typewriters might eventually type the works of Shakespeare, but more likely they'd get a million typewriters covered in monkey poo.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it sounds like some monkeys are trying to get a copyright on the photos.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[kale77in]

1) Does copyright apply to random generation? The Shakespeare issue captures the essential point... Would the monkeys hold copyright on their text, having produced it by chance?

2) Is intentionality is required for moral rights of art creation? If I'm camping and a rock falls on my camera and somehow causes a photo to be taken, does the rock have the copyright? What if a monkey falls on the camera, with the same effect? What if the monkey tries to eat the camera, with the same effect? What consciousness of the act of creation is required? In this case, the monkeys framed their reflections in the lens, which was a creative act if using a mirror is a creative act. There can't have been any consciousness of others publishing these images; are the 'portraits' thus portraits to us but not to them?

3) Copyright is a human social construct that prevents the exploitation of creativity to the detriment of authors. Does this have any meaning in whatever system of exchange impresses monkeys?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

A million monkeys with a million typewriters might eventually type the works of Shakespeare, but more likely they'd get a million typewriters covered in monkey poo.

Yes--you would need much more than one million monkeys to come up with the works of Shakespeare, unless the monkeys are immortal and the typewriters have really good maintenance.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[LordLimecat]

3) Copyright is a human social construct that prevents the exploitation of creativity to the detriment of authors. Does this have any meaning in whatever system of exchange impresses monkeys?

This is the most relevant part. Copyright's intention is to encourage works by providing the author with certain privileges. When there is no human author and no intentionality behind it, there is no reason for copyright.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

Can a Monkey Get a Copyright & Issue a Takedown?

Maybe a million monkeys could do it, as they do with Shakespeare.

Correction: ..., as they *did* with Shakespeare.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[RazorSharp]

Shakespeare is public domain so the monkeys wouldn't be able to copyright it. The monkeys would have to come up with their own works of literary genius, which isn't plausible since Monkees only reproduce works written by others. However, that may not stop them for trying to take the credit.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[martin-boundary]

Preach it, AC! That Shakespeare fellow stole their work and slapped his own name on it, the fiend! Time to go LulzSec on his ass!

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[willworkforbeer]

...not to get too technical, but in the industry that's known as one "Michael Bay Script Unit"

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[jbeaupre]

Shakespeare's works are public domain, which is why monkeys can do it. It might take a million of them to figure out how to do it, but every one of them knows they'll be turned into monkey stew if they try to write anything by J K Rowling. An encyclopedia of her works, they are still debating.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

the whole million monkey thing is stupid. i'll make it easier.

if you can generate 32 random characters from a subset of a limited set of characters 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c,d,e,f that match "99e8c986d8c144d2b23614106ca49449" talk to me.

should be easier than a whole manuscript.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Ol Olsoc]

Copyright is as copyright does. Chance is not in the equation. A human photographer or painter can and often does hold copyright on randomly shot photos. And for a good reason. At what point does randomness stop? If say you set up a camera with method of taking photos of lightning, it will do it. And you hold copyright and can sell that photo as yours. Lightning is very random.

I find this issue interesting in the extreme, esp since copyright is now becoming badly abused. Apparently perpetual copyrights, and shrinking concept of fair use - the legals are involved to the hilt, so now they are going to get involved in this.

First off, those photos are pretty good. Better than many human taken photos. So there is tangible worth. Next we look at what a copyright owner is. Must the holder be human? Where is that defined? Now we move on to the comparative aspects of non-human copyright. Certain animals have been shown to be self aware, and there is no doubt that many animals could learn that there is something happening when they press the shutter on a camera. They can create. Now compare that to say a 3 year old human taking photos, I allowed my son to take photos with my professional camera at that age. An African Gray Parrot for instance is functioning at an intellectual level of around a 4 year old. So were my son's photos not copyrightable? How about an autistic or schizophrenic person?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[snowgirl]

3) Copyright is a human social construct that prevents the exploitation of creativity to the detriment of authors. Does this have any meaning in whatever system of exchange impresses monkeys?

Seems to me that if the photographer properly and adequately reimbursed the monkeys then the paper would have purchased said portraits by contract from the monkeys.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Midnight Thunder]

Then again there is the matter of what context and who's equipment was used. Copyright is not always clear cut and usually depends on who has the better lawyers in those murky parts.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[blackbeak]

...which isn't plausible since Monkees only reproduce works written by others...

Uhm, I beg to differ! Ever hear of "Last Train to Clarksville"?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Adrian Lopez]

Monkees only reproduce works written by others

No kidding. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters will produce some variation upon Finnegan's Wake.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Lakitu]

In (1), the monkeys wouldn't have produced it by chance together. One of the monkeys would basically be indistinguishable from Shakespeare, and type the entire works in succession.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[AK Marc]

Does copyright apply to random generation?

Copyright applies only to creative generation. Random would not count. Logical (i.e. alphabetical listing of people and numbers in phone books) is explicitly not covered by copyright. It does not apply to discoveries (pretty rocks, math, photos taken by monkeys). Many photos are uncopyrightable. A photo of a painting taken to replicate the painting as closely as possible, even if it requires great technical skill for lighting and such, is not a creative work, but an uncopyrightable derivative of the painting. However, in almost all other cases of taking a picture of art, the photo is copyrightable. The assumption is that there was some creativity in picking the location or lighting or such when taking the photo, even if it is just a picture of a random building taken from across the street without actual care or creativity expended in taking the picture.

So, unless there is some creativity required for the creation of the item in question, one may not copyright it. If they argue that the monkeys were creative, then the monkeys would hold the copyright, as the human discovering the monkey picture did not create anything and thus can't hold the copyright to it.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Roachie]

Actually its INFINITE monkeys, and an infinite number of monkeys would produce that string instantly.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[phantomfive]

Claiming copyright on the output of an algorithm (ie, randomly generated numbers) has been tried before. The consensus at the time (not that I looked deeply) seemed to be that the law is vague on the issue, and it might manage to stand up in court.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Surt]

"It was the best of times, it was
  blurst of times."

You stupid monkey!

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[HJED]

What if the humans setup the situation with the monkeys by training them to use the camera and then putting them in a specific location to take photos (not the case here, but something to consider)? Creative effort would have been expended by both the human and the monkeys. Would it then be considered a work for hire?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[polymeris]

Maybe a million monkeys could do it, as they do with Shakespeare.

That's an entirely different monkey-right case, a million monkeys trying to get credit for the work of infinite monkeys.

(Or finite monkeys with infinite time)

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[WalksOnDirt]

Ever hear of "Last Train to Clarksville"?

Written by Boyce and Hart, as were many of their early hits. This is true of most artists, but the Monkees did write a few nice songs, like Randy Scouse Git and Goin' Down .

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[unitron]

Actually Michael Nesmith wrote several of their songs, as well as songs recorded by others.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[unitron]

Well, actually that song was written by Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart, although it was their band "Candy Store Prophets" that played it for the album, since The Monkees were busy being actors filming a weekly TV series.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Whiteox]

The Monkees wrote "Mary, Mary," "For Pete's Sake," "The Girl I Knew Somewhere," "Goin' Down," "Listen to the Band" and some others, mainly by Nesmith

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[gnasher719]

Seems to me that if the photographer properly and adequately reimbursed the monkeys then the paper would have purchased said portraits by contract from the monkeys.

You can't form a contract with a monkey. Therefore you cannot get the copyrights for a work created by a monkey. And lastly, a DMCA takedown notice by a person who doesn't have the copyright is a criminal matter.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[jimshatt]

The photographer, David Slate, was there with his camera to photograph the monkeys. That's your intentionality right there. It doesn't matter if he shot the photos themselves, used a tripod and a random interval for taking pictures, or used monkeys. I know I'm stretching the glorified tripod analogy, but still...

When I ask a passer-by to take a picture of me (and my family), who owns the copyright? I really don't know.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[queBurro]

"finnegans wake" the missing apostrophe is important as you're not supposed to be sure if it's about the wake of finnegan or a bunch of people called finnegan waking. (->jonathan creek)

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Pharmboy]

This is the most relevant part. Copyright's intention is to encourage works by providing the author with certain privileges.

You forgot the most important part: Copyright exists to give the creator exclusiverights to profit from the creation in exchange for the public gaining ownership after a fixed period of time. We protect you now, you give it to us later.

The idea that you "own" what you create is an artificial construct, a mutually beneficial social contract, and a point that most corporations don't seem to care about anymore. Disney in particular, wants to buy or create "creative works" and own them forever, yet have society pay to secure that right. That is not a sustainable or justifiable system, and certainly is not what the original intent was.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[ComaVN]

How about an autistic or schizophrenic person?

What does that have to do with anything?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[mcvos]

But a DMCA takedown is a lot easier, clearly.

Everything about this story makes me wonder if lawyers might be monkeys.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[AK Marc]

Training a dog doesn't give you copyright over the dog. Raising a child doesn't give you copyright over everything they produce.

As such, I'd have to say there's no mechanism for a human to get copyright over the work of some other creature (short of grabbing a starfish and using that as a brush, but that's obviously not the creative work of the starfish).

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[sFurbo]

I think a work has to be the product of creativity to be applicable for copyright (it does in Danish law, anyway). That is why the AACS encryption code could not be covered by copyright.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[sFurbo]

The passer-by (damn, I read that yesterday in an article about this story, but now I can't find it).

With respect to your point, I would agree if he had given the camera to the monkeys, but AFAICT, the monkeys took the pictures with him unaware, so it wasn't his intention to make those pictures.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[ArsenneLupin]

Look at the pictures. They are quite good, doesn't look random to be. Monkeys are intelligent creatures, not random rocks that fall on cameras.

Maybe they don't know the finer points of focus and exposure (but for that we have autofocus...), but they apparently know enough about keeping the camera level, and composition (probably by observing how the photographer did it and "monkeying" him... but it still takes "intelligence" to pick out the important bits to imitate... it's not enough to just hold the box any old way and press the button)

Now you owns the copyright? Obviously not the monkey's, as they are not "persons" in any legal sense (unless they incorporated, hehe).

Usually, for pets, it would be the owner... but as far as I understood, these were "wild" monkeys not pets...

In some places in Africa, you legally own any wild animals who happen to wander on your land. So, the rightful copyright holder in this case would be the owner of the land where the pictures were taken...

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[sFurbo]

A photo of a painting taken to replicate the painting as closely as possible, even if it requires great technical skill for lighting and such, is not a creative work, but an uncopyrightable derivative of the painting.

I thought that the photographer explicitly had the copyright of the photo in this situation. Are you saying that if I take a photo of a painting in a museum, the photo is covered by the painters copyright?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Blahah]

This is the only comment on /. that's ever made me burst into laughter.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that makes sense. By that logic, would an artist who produces his/her art by putting a camera purposefully in a cage with monkeys
and seeing what they photograph then be copyright holder? I would say he/she would, as he/she came up with the process of making that art
in that way. But what if that same artist would make the art by giving his camera to random people on the street and asking them to make a
picture. In that case, the copyright of the photographs would not be his/hers.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[jeremyp]

There are several software products available similar to one by Adobe called "Photoshop" (you may have heard of it). These products have the ability to, for instance, crop a badly composed photo or to rotate a skewed image to make it appear level. They can also do things like compensate for bad exposure or contrast. You don't think that, just maybe, the photographer applied some of these techniques to these photos, do you?

This also answers the copyright issue. If the photographer has modified the image to improve composition, lighting etc with Photoshop, then he has had some creative input and can claim copyright on the processed images (in my opinion as a non lawyer).

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[nospam007]

"A photo of a painting taken to replicate the painting as closely as possible, even if it requires great technical skill for lighting and such, is not a creative work, but an uncopyrightable derivative of the painting."

What about:
A musical recording of some notes taken to replicate the musical notes as closely as possible, even if it requires great technical skill for breathing and such, is not a creative work, but an uncopyrightable derivative of the musical notes.

Does that mean recorded songs are not copyrightable?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[RegularFry]

For a photo that includes artwork still in copyright, yes, the photo you take in the museum is covered by the painter's copyright. It's *also* covered by yours.

For reference photos of artwork, whether the photographer gets copyright or not actually depends on the jurisdiction. They don't in the US, thanks to a case in the 90s, but they do in Europe. That's why, for instance, MOMA has two different licensing arrangements: they use artres.com for the US, and scalarchives.com for everywhere else.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[ccguy]

3) Copyright is a human social construct that prevents the exploitation of creativity to the detriment of authors. Does this have any meaning in whatever system of exchange impresses monkeys?

This is the most relevant part. Copyright's intention is to encourage works by providing the author with certain privileges. When there is no human author and no intentionality behind it, there is no reason for copyright.

What's wrong with encouraging the million monkeys to write another Shakespeare quality novel?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[icebraining]

In the US, copyright exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". How does giving copyright to monkeys achieve this purpose? Will the monkeys be more willing to create photos if they have a monopoly over them? Somehow, I doubt it.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[icebraining]

Of course not. They are derivatives of the original song as it was performed during the recording.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[pz]

I would argue that the human has good grounds to own the copyright in that case.

Here's another similar thought experiment: as an artist and engineer, I set up a camera pointing at the sky with a remote control that allows me to trigger the shutter whenever it pleases me. I randomly press the button over the next few days, whether I can view what is in front of the camera or not. Surely I own the copyrights.

I now replace the remote control with a randomly triggered circuit. I still own the copyrights.

I now restore the remote control and give it to a monkey to press at will. I still own the copyrights (animals cannot enter into contracts, and the photos are still the result of significant creative effort on my part).

I now give the remote control to my friend to press at will. I no longer own the copyrights; lacking any legal agreement to modify ownership, my friend does.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[icebraining]

You can't know that. You're assuming the probability of the monkeys writing all of those characters is greater than 0, when for all you know they'd all just type '4' repeatedly.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[julesh]

But a DMCA takedown is a lot easier, clearly.

A DMCA takedown requires making a declaration under penalty of perjury, which you cannot legally do unless you understand the meaning of the declaration. This seems to suggest that monkeys cannot file DMCA takedowns, however easy they are to generate. They'd need to employ a lawyer to do it for them. And working for monkeys should be no problem to the kind of lawyer that will work for, say, the RIAA.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[HJED]

but why does you friend own the copyright and the monkeys don't?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

Just post the pictures on Facebook, several monkeys lost their copyright on pictures already. Seriously, I'll not stop my research about breast cancer to meditate about monkeys. Get lost, media press.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

Fixed it for ya....

This is the most relevant part. Copyright's intention is to encourage profit by providing the author with certain privileges. When there is no human author and no profit behind it, there is no reason for encouraging works.

Thus these monkeys should *not* be taking pictures. Think of the profit!

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

The "passer-by" is a bad analogy (what's new on /.)

Since the passer-by has certain legal rights when it comes to copyright and image ownership.
A monkey does not have the same legal protection.

Technically you could argue the owner of the monkey holds the copyright, since it was his property that too the photograph.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[ewanm89]

Technically the passer-by owns the copyright, however, one could argue there is a implicit contract to pass copyright to whoever owns the camera in such cases even though it's that explicitly stated and/or put in writing. In this case, the photographer didn't ask the monkeys to take the picture, the monkeys just picked up the camera and did.

If I come along, see a nice picture a photographer missed and asked to borrow the camera for the shot (I accidentally left mine at home or something) presuming it is agreed and he/she lends me the camera, surely it was me that took the picture and so the copyright is technically mine.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[ewanm89]

Actually, that was the original intent of the Church lobbyists when they first asked for it to stop the bible being reproduced en masse with the new printing presses. Look at how well that worked out.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[ewanm89]

You still did some creativity in framing the shots, the fact that what was in the shots was unknown (although probably clouds most of the time) this causes let the lawyers decide ambiguity, I'd say in the friend option, you jointly own the copyright. You still framed them. In the case the article is about the monkeys framed the shots themselves as well as pulled the trigger.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[ewanm89]

It's also one reason why most museums in Europe forbid camera's. That and the fact they want to sell their own pictures at the gift shop.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

But, if I independently create a work identical to an existing one, I am protected as I have not infringed copyright. It's probably prudent to document as such, but if you didn't copy anything then you're (in theory) protected.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Overzeetop]

Yes, actually, you can. It's the difficult logic of infinity. It doesn't matter what the probability is of a particular keystroke, as long as there is a finite chance - no matter how small - of a keystroke being registered on every key.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Ol Olsoc]

It followed from trying to define where an entity can make creative and copyrightable works, and where they don't any more. Which eventually comes down to intelligence, ability and rationality. If we define the metric as human, it doesn't make the issue go away. Who owns those photos taken by the monkeys? No one? The camera owner? The company that makes the camera?

It isn't as simple as saying "only humans".

In my estimation, the monkeys are the owners of those photos. My admittedly slippery sloping the discussion to humans with disabilities that affect their mental state was just one of the avenues we might head down. Of course, they own the copyright. Both autistic and schizophrenic people can create stunning works of creativity.

But now what about those monkey photos?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the monkeys were GM by Monsanto to be photographers?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Ol Olsoc]

It isn't so much a question of "Monkeys owning photographs" as just who exactly does own those photographs? There might be a knee-jerk reaction to say "The Photographer who owns the camera". But note that he is in one of the photos, taken by a monkey.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like how we bought the this land from the Native Americans, then how we bought slaves from Africa to work these lands!

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[SpongeBob Hitler]

But a DMCA takedown is a lot easier, clearly.

A DMCA takedown requires making a declaration under penalty of perjury, which you cannot legally do unless you understand the meaning of the declaration. This seems to suggest that monkeys cannot file DMCA takedowns, however easy they are to generate. They'd need to employ a lawyer to do it for them. And working for monkeys should be no problem to the kind of lawyer that will work for, say, the RIAA.

That's it! I really must protest you and GP's libelous remarks about monkeys! Monkeys form communities. They look out for each other and care about the social groups they form. They lament the loss of their loved ones. Do lawyers or the RIAA do any of this???

How dare you, sir!

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[ArsenneLupin]

I know I'm stretching the glorified tripod analogy, but still...

Shouldn't that be pentapods? After all, monkey still use their arms for walking most of the time...

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[berzerke]

Absolutely nothing. Artistic talent and IQ are not the same thing. I've seen pictures drawn by a mentally retarded boy, and they were good. Better than a great many pictures I've drawn by people of normal intelligence. Likewise, artistic talent and mental disease are also not connected. Van Gogh suffered from depression, and even produced some his works while in an asylum (see the irises for example).

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[NekSnappa]

Or maybe it could be viewed as a work for hire. Then of course the copyright would be yours.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you argue the photographer's work to give the monkeys a camera was a creative endeavor?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Hatta]

2) Is intentionality is required for moral rights of art creation?

There are no moral rights of art creation. Copyright is at best an expedient. It exists to promote the progress of useful arts.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[jimshatt]

Actually, since the monkey used both his arms to make the photograph, it would be a bipod.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[doug]

You are absolutely right. But will the IP lawyers ever understand that point?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[ArsenneLupin]

since the monkey used both his arms to make the photograph, it would be a bipod.

I'd think that as a monkey, it would be better endowed than that... making it indeed a tripod. So yes, jimshatt was right about his analogy.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[alexo]

Copyright is a human social construct that prevents the exploitation of creativity to the detriment of authors. Does this have any meaning in whatever system of exchange impresses monkeys?

This is the most relevant part. Copyright's intention is to encourage works by providing the author with certain privileges. When there is no human author and no intentionality behind it, there is no reason for copyright.

And here I was, thinking that modern day copyright is a system to lock down and monetize culture to the benefit of middlemen.

Live and learn...

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Lectrik]

Next we look at what a copyright owner is. Must the holder be human? Where is that defined? Now we move on to the comparative aspects of non-human copyright.

I'd like to point out that many patents are held by corporations. Last time I checked those were not human.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[LordLimecat]

This would make far more sense than the unawares photographer getting the copyright.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[LordLimecat]

Youll need a source for that, and youll want to explain how that fits with history, particularly the Reformation and the explosion of popular access to German and English language Bibles.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[LordLimecat]

Perhaps you should read the relevant parts of the Constitution then, before commenting on it on slashdot.

Then again, ignorance has never been an excuse for not posting on slashdot.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[DavidTC]

I don't understand why you automatically think we can't reward the monkeys for this.

Now, they can't enter contracts, and can hardly walk into a store and buy things, but that just means we'd need to set up some sort of mandatory licensing. We could make every use of the photographs requires a payment of a certain amount into a fund, which is used to purchase things the monkey indicates they like, perhaps by pointing at pictures.

Monkeys are pretty smart, I'm sure we could explain things enough they'd understand that we're trading them this stuff for them taking pictures. We could have some copies of the pictures made, and posted on the wall, and every time someone licenses one, a person could walk in and take one off the wall and leave the stuff paid behind. I'm sure they'd understand it to some extent.

Of course, I'm not sure we want to incentive stealing someone else's camera and taking pictures. OTOH, if a human did that, we'd give them the copyright anyway, we've got no 'Made using stolen stuff' exception in copyright law, so it seems a bit unfair to do it with monkeys. The first thing the fund should pay for is a camera for them.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

Only humans or corporations can hold copyright. Claims of creativity can be so tenuous that all but the most lumpen results will gain copyright. There are many musical works that barely qualify as they contain little more than natural sounds, but the artist gets to claim credit for selection and editing.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[silentcoder]

So how exactly will you license the pictures from the monkeys ? Pay them in bananas ? How will you make them understand what they are paying for ?

If nothing else there is a massive degree of cultural background needed to even understand the concept.

In the case of your three year old - the law has a mechanism to deal with that- you are his ipso facto proxy on all contracts and can negotiate on his behalf until he is an adult.

Who would be the proxy for the monkeys ? If they can hold copyright - then how would one negotiate with them or appoint somebody to negotiate on their behalf ?

We have no (current) legal mechanism to answer these questions.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[silentcoder]

Actually according to the law - they are.

I agree with you that they shouldn't be, and they certainly shouldn't have the able to claim human rights like "free speech" (which instantly makes them inelligible to make campaign contributions - ever consider that all those pro-corporate/anti-people contributions are ipso facto anti-the-employees-of-the-company ?). But right now, they are legally speaking - a person , and a human one.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[DanTheStone]

Actually, it's that an infinite number of monkeys would produce it AT THE SAME TIME (emphasizing as you did). No monkey could type anything instantly, no matter how infinite in number.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[icebraining]

as long as there is a finite chance

That's my point - what if it's zero?

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[treeves]

Yes, monkeys do have tails.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

Ook !

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[DragonWriter]

A musical recording of some notes taken to replicate the musical notes as closely as possible, even if it requires great technical skill for breathing and such, is not a creative work, but an uncopyrightable derivative of the musical notes.

Does that mean recorded songs are not copyrightable?

I'm not sure GP is correct with the statement about photographs on which this is based, but, no, a recording to reproduce an existing musical work is a copyrightable derivative of the original (that is, it is subject to copyright as its own work, but it is also a derivative work and so the right to create it is impacted by the exclusive rights of the copyright holder of the original work with regard to derivatives.)

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[melikamp]

Copyright exists to give the creator exclusive rights to profit from the creation

This is wrong twice. The actual purpose of copyright is to give publishers, not creators, exclusive rights. This goes back to the Statute Of Anne which assigned copyrights directly to printers and hosed writers both retroactively and in the future. US law fixed the language, but neither the purpose nor the effect. It is still virtually impossible to collect monopoly profits unless you are a publisher. As a lone artist, you invariably find that in order to make any money at all, you have to become very famous first. There are two good ways to do it, and both involve giving up the exclusive right. Let your fans share your work or sign your copyright over to a publisher.

But even if you disagree with this observation, this is still wrong because no copyright law provides exclusive rights to profit. Rather, it's an exclusive right to make copies. Come on people, it's in the effing name.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

One could argue that but one would be wrong. Copyright law specifically requires a **written** transfer of rights.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically they tried this experiment with monkeys and all the monkeys were ever able to do was hit the same key over and over again. Turns out if you take a monkey and give it a keyboard the results are not random, but slightly predictable, and thus not likely to ever create something like shakespeare.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that you "own" what you create until the moment you distribute it is a natural construct. The idea that you continue to have the right to control all of the copies after you distribute your work is the artificial construct. Personally, I think the former is a much more natural definition of "own". The latter is both awkward and strange. Furthermore, since Copyright has now been extended to 90 years beyond the death of the author, the notion that it is some sort of exchange or deal is absurd. Am I really supposed to let the government manage my intellect in exchange for giving content to my great-great-grand-children? No thanks. Copyright is laughably broken.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Ol Olsoc]

Bingo berzerke! Exactly the answer I was looking for.

And that was my point. It wasn't that autistic or psychotic people don't have rights to copyright. That's just slashdot knee-jerk reaction by some, looking for some reason to be pissed off. Many differently abled people are capable of producing profound art. And they own it.

So now we get back to the animal. If the photos taken by those monkeys are published in a magazine (and you know they will be) who's name is on the check? Silentcoder asked about how they might be compensated. Very good question, because monkeys don't use money as we do. But they do have caretakers in many instances, such as this one. But they have needs that can be addressed. Since in almost all cases, a monkey with a camera is only going to have it in conjunction with a more or less managed environment, the monkeys would hold copyright, and any compensation would go to the folks managing the place, to be spent directly on the monkey(s)

Might seem like a bizzare setup, but it avoids unexpected-consequence situations.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

This is very much a US-centric statement. Much of it does not apply, for instance, in the UK.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[AK Marc]

Slashdot is very much a US-centric site. Much of the content does not apply, for instance, in the UK.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Lunzo]

Slashdot has been an international site for a long time.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[AK Marc]

All sites have been "international" since the Internet started. Slashdot is explicitly American. "Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S."

I disagree with you. The owners of the site disagree with you. But I'm sure you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

Is my shit public domain? can I copyright it now, can I copyright someone else's, like yours?
It may be worth a fortune after the singularity

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[unitron]

You left out Tapioca Tundra. : - )

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Whiteox]

My wife just informed me that "Randy Scouse Git" was written by Micky Dolenz.
I tend to believe her as she was an original card carrying (#42) Monkee Maniac and member of the Beechwood Drive Irregulars.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

If you tell the passer-by from where to take the photo and you set settings for it and then you pose, then you have the copyright.
If you just hand the camera to passer-by and you just pose while passer-by search the angle and moment, then passer-by has the copyright.

It does not matter who press the button, what matters is who visualize the photo.
It does not matter is it a tripod with self-timer or do you use remote control or is photo taken passer-by as long as you visualized the photo (told where to stand and/or how to frame).

Situation is same with painting. If you just handle the canvas and paints to someone and tell them to draw a setup on table you dont have copyright. But if you handle canvas and paints to someone and tell them to copy your painting, you have the copyright (unless someone does not copy it but does a new work of it, like paints the room where your painting is or change your painting setup so much that it is not anymore similar)

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[sFurbo]

OK. I guess that makes much more sense than what I thought was the case. Thanks.

First

[rhook]

Sue them, on behalf of the monkeys.

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello RightHaven!

Re:First

[phantomfive]

It probably wouldn't work for one simple reason: the Monkey's didn't take the picture. This is the Daily Mail, a periodical known for making false statements about their pictures if it wins them circulation. What reason is there to believe that the monkey accidentally took such a nicely framed picture of himself?

Re:First

[mat catastrophe]

I don't even think those are real monkeys. They look entirely too...well groomed. I'm just glad I'm not the only person to think that the Daily Fail is making it up.

Re:First

[HJED]

Wouldn't the company be avail to counter sue as the monkeys used the camera with out permission?

Re:First

[Tomun]

Here's a better source. With lots of quotes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/shutter-happy-monkey-photographer

So what about Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Monkeys have been editing the site for over a decade.

Re:So what about Slashdot?

[zill]

One could say that they were monkeying around with the site for over a decade.

Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week.

Re:So what about Slashdot?

[Whiteox]

Awww don't be a chimp!

Derivative works?

[BWJones]

Yeah, but what about derivative works like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwjones/5914210045/ or this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwjones/5914755036/

Re:Derivative works?

[PPH]

If you'd have the monkey inserted into a photo of Congress' debate over raising the national debt ceiling, we might not have suspected Photoshop.

Re:Derivative works?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'd have the monkey inserted into a photo of Congress' debate over raising the national debt ceiling, we might not have suspected Photoshop.

Well, I first suspected a Photoshop job with White House pictures of the current resident, and for the same reasons. Then I realized...

Re:Derivative works?

[rvw]

Yeah, but what about derivative works like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwjones/5914210045/ or this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwjones/5914755036/

That second one is fake! I suspect the monkey wasn't there at all!!! He probably just took the picture standing in front of a print of the other picture. Please!!!!!!

Re:Derivative works?

[rvw]

Yeah, but what about derivative works like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwjones/5914210045/ or this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwjones/5914755036/

That second one is fake! I suspect the monkey wasn't there at all!!! He probably just took the picture standing in front of a print of the other picture. Please!!!!!!

Will someone please think of the (monkey) children

[Sassinak]

Once again, it just sickens me that this sort of thing takes place.

Nothing to do with DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA says "The notice was not a DMCA takedown notice."

Anyone can make a request that something be taken off a website. If they have no basis for the claim and it's not a formal DMCA takedown, they're best ignored.

Re:Nothing to do with DMCA

[rhook]

Of course it wasn't a DMCA takedown notice, the Daily Mail is based in the UK.

Re:Nothing to do with DMCA

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

Of course it wasn't a DMCA takedown notice, the Daily Mail is based in the UK.

Doesn't mean they can't send one, from the states. For example : I am canadian, but I don't like what is being done elsewhere on the web. I can send a DCMA takedown notice, and it will be noticed, especially if the other party is in the states. Not enforceable in Canada ... doesn't mean I can't fire one off.

Re:Nothing to do with DMCA

[Midnight Thunder]

If you fire something off to someone in an incompatible jurisdiction, then should be smart enough to laugh at you. Of course there is abuse all over the place and someone is bound to try that trick. .

Re:Nothing to do with DMCA

[jonbryce]

A British citizen is entitled to claim copyright in the US just like everyone else, and if their copyright is infringed, they can take action in the US courts. So yes, the Daily Wail is entitled to serve a DMCA takedown notice to someone who infringes their copyright in the US.

Re:Nothing to do with DMCA

[julesh]

Of course it wasn't a DMCA takedown notice, the Daily Mail is based in the UK.

Doesn't matter where the Daily Mail is, it's where the infringement is taking place that's relevant. Techdirt have a designated infringement agent based in Sunnyvale, CA, so I assume they are a US publisher, hence any infringement that were taking place would be in the US and must therefore be dealt with under US law.

The monkey is the photographer

[juventasone]

And they take better pictures than I do...

Re:The monkey is the photographer

[mywhitewolf]

glad i wasn't the only one thinking "how the hell does a monkey take such a good self portrait when the best i can manage is a picture composed of about 2% my head, 18% the sky and 80% my arm...

Re:The monkey is the photographer

[gknoy]

Longer arms? :D

Re:The monkey is the photographer

[julesh]

Quality equipment helps. A proper digital SLR camera is a lot more ergonomic than a typical digital compact. It has a larger body which is easier to hold straight. It has a removable lens stuck on the front that extends the lens location forwards, reducing the likelihood of your arm getting in the way. It has a large lens, which you are likely to be able to see yourself reflected in. Also, the forward-protruding nature of the lens attachment will help you align it better. It will also have a lot higher resolution, meaning that you can more easily crop stuff out without a noticeable reduction in quality.

wiki monkey

[retroworks]

We post the photos on Wikipedia now, and wait to see who challenges copyright!

Re:wiki monkey

[Z00L00K]

Why not Wikileaks while you are at it?

And drop them at 4chan too while you are at it.

Seems fair

[physicsphairy]

I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work. Without necessarily knowing the specific laws, it seems it should be similar here. The alleged goal of copyright is to incentivize the creation and/or distribution of works. The fact that this typically involves rewarding the 'artist' is tangential. The pictures do not become accessible to the public unless somebody gives the monkeys an expensive camera and uploads them. That person should have the copyright. (But I also think Techdirt's fair use claim is legitimate.)

Re:Seems fair

[bipbop]

I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work.

[citation needed]

Re:Seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work. Without necessarily knowing the specific laws, it seems it should be similar here.

You “know” that? Really? How do you know that?

Re:Seems fair

[Lehk228]

that is an interesting belief you hold, it is not, however based on any semblance of reality

Re:Seems fair

[Ksevio]

Well if you have the only copy then you can run away and hide it - thus preventing others from copying it. That's what copyright is...right?

Re:Seems fair

[nedlohs]

What other things do you know that bear no resemblance too reality?

Re:Seems fair

[artor3]

I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work.

[citation needed]

The OP is clearly american, and americans are under the belief that their words and actions are law and always right.

[citation needed]

Re:Seems fair

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work.

[citation needed]

The OP is clearly american, and americans are under the belief that their words and actions are law and always right.

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

Re:Seems fair

[c0lo]

The alleged goal of copyright is to incentivize the creation and/or distribution of works.

I fail to see how the existence of copyright law incentivizes monkeys to take pictures.

As for the distribution of the work... don't go there... you should already have noted that the access to Internet does lower the distribution barrier that much I would not think that copyright laws now need to be used to incentivize the distribution (I rather think the contrary is happening in this case and many others).

Re:Seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the citation., therefore parent is accurate.

Re:Seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans are all priests????

Re:Seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

[obvious troll]

Re:Seems fair

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

I wish you hadn't posted AC. And I wish I could mod you up.

This is probably the most insightful thing I've read on /. today. Then again, I've been busy arguing with right-wing fascists about the travesty that is the USA.

Re:Seems fair

[artor3]

Sorry, no original research allowed!

Re:Seems fair

[Rob the Bold]

I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter

Re:Seems fair

[nedlohs]

Every instance of the applicatoin of copyright law does not need to incentivize the creation/distribution of works. The overall effects of the applications of them should in order for them to meet their goal.

Just because one doctor screwed up and killed a patient does not mean that having modern medical doctors does not meet the goal of keeping people alive longer than they would without.

Re:Seems fair

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

This is probably the most insightful thing I've read on /. today. Then again, I've been busy arguing with right-wing fascists about the travesty that is the USA.

Apparently you have battled too much with the monsters and stared too long into the abyss.

Re:Seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright doesn't physically prevent someone from copying something, it legally does so. What you are saying would actually prevent the possibility (if indeed it was the only version in existence). Just as the right to bear arms doesn't physically prevent the government from taking your guns away, or the right to free speech doesn't physically prevent the government from censoring you, and why these things have to be fought over, as unfortunate as that is.

Re:Seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Copy protection laws create disincentive to distribute works, because it could result in absurd infringement penalties. Out of print orphan works may die in history before they ever enter the public domain. A big reason a work may need incentive to be distributed is because it was being protected for so long that by the time it entered the public domain, it almost died in history to the point that very few entities actually posses the original works. Had copy protection laws not existed in the first place, or had they been limited to a reasonable period of time, the works could still be widely circulated and would never need the distribution incentive that copy protection laws allegedly creates.

"The overall effects of the applications of them should in order for them to meet their goal."

Do you have any evidence that the overall application of copy protection laws incentivizes the creation and distribution of works? Or is that just your opinion?

"Just because one doctor screwed up and killed a patient does not mean that having modern medical doctors does not meet the goal of keeping people alive longer than they would without."

and this is evidence that copy protection laws meet the goal of promoting the progress how?

and copy protection laws really can't create incentive to distribute works. If no one is interested in the works, there is no incentive to distribute them even with copy protection laws. Incentive to distribute works exists only if people are interested in those works. If people are interested in works, the incentive to distribute those works exists outside of copy protection laws. It exists because people are interested in the works, they have incentive to seek out the works and share them with others. The incentive to distribute works must exist apart from copy protection laws, copy protection laws can not create incentive to do something that wasn't previously there. I can write a book and if it sucks, copy protection laws creates no incentive to distribute that book. If the book is good, the interest in the book (and hence the incentive to recommend it to others and to distribute it) exists because people enjoyed the book and it exists apart from copy protection laws.

Re:Seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Without necessarily knowing the specific laws...

Didn't you mean: "without having a single fucking clue what the hell I am talking about, and pulling some complete bullshit out of my ass"?

Re:Seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, you don't need to be Amerkin to be an a**.

Re:Seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work.

[citation needed]

The OP is clearly american, and americans are under the belief that their words and actions are law and always right.

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

Re:Seems fair

[Midnight Thunder]

The truth is in many cases the copyright isn't there for the authors, but for the publishers, otherwise why have such long copyright terms?

Re:Seems fair

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

Apparently you have battled too much with the monsters and stared too long into the abyss.

2nd most insightful post today!

Re:Seems fair

[nedlohs]

Whether they meet their stated goals or not is irrelevant to whether they have to in every case in order to do so.

Re:Seems fair

[AK Marc]

If you have the copyright and choose not to copy it, you have the same rights/power as someone who has the sole copy and chooses to not copy it.

I don't think they were necessarily equating the two, but expressing where the two intersected.

Re:Seems fair

[Vegeta99]

to incentivize the distribution means to allow it out and not, say, make people sit quietly at a desk of your choosing to read your story or view your art.

Think.

Re:Seems fair

[polymeris]

I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work.

I am not so sure that would work... Do you mean, that by e.g. scanning it or typing it, you would hold copyright to the initial reproduction of that sole remaining book, and hence, any further copies would work derived from yours?

Re:Seems fair

[Linzer]

I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work.

That's true! By the way, I've just found the original manuscript of King Lear in my attic. Now the (only authoritative version of) the play is MINE! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Re:Seems fair

[bky1701]

And how often does that happen? How many people keep their work secret because someone MIGHT copy it? I'd be willing to bet, next to none. The historical cases of people keeping their works secret are either because they failed to have them published or because they were a bit mental. Copyright can never fix either of these issues, and the internet rather fixed the first now. Now copyright threatens the internet. It is time to abolish it, before our culture is irreparably damaged.

The only time the pro-copyright argument makes any sense is with large but homogenous works, like movies. However, as we have been seeing lately, you need not have a multi-billion dollar budget to make a movie, even ones quite comparable to those with multi-billion dollar budgets. So really - what's copyright doing for us, again?

Re:Seems fair

[c0lo]

to incentivize the distribution means to allow it out and not, say, make people sit quietly at a desk of your choosing to read your story or view your art.

Think.

I'm thinking. What exactly do you mean? Are u meaning the copyrighted item requires the "consumer" to go outside to "consume" it? Or what?

Re:Seems fair

[Vegeta99]

Keeping, say, another multi-billion dollar company from ripping off my film show film and just calling it their own? Or keeping one multi-billion dollar company from ripping off another multi-billion dollar company's movie?

If you were, say, Lionsgate, and tomorrow, Procter and Gamble decided to throw a copy of your movie in for free with your bottle of Crest toothpaste, you'd be jacked.

Re:Seems fair

[Vegeta99]

Yep.

If I make a movie, and I know that I make it possible for someone else to get their grubby little hands on my movie, it's game over for me, you'll be watching my movie in my theater. You'll be strip searched. You'll also be banned from seeing another movie again, EVER, if I catch you trying to video record it. And, since everyone else making movies has the same problem as me, you'll be doing the same thing to watch that artsy-fartsy movie across the street. Me and the artsy-fartsy guy charge about $500 a pop because we both know that the little snot running the projector is going to copy our film as soon as we leave our respective theaters for the night. We did try listening to our fans and hiring reputable projectionists that wouldn't dare do such a thing, but then we'd have to charge about $1,000 a head. We could probably make things a little cheaper if we could show each others' movies as a double feature, but fuck him! He'd take out all my credits and replace them with his own, leaving the movie unchanged. Not that I'd do any different.

Me and artsy-fartsy tried home distribution before. It's rather hard when some guy in Chinatown can have a stall outside our door, copying our movies and selling them for ten cents over the price of blank media. We can't stop him - there's no right to restrict copying! We came up with a brand-spanking-new media, that users never had to rewind, had over twice the video quality of the previous media, and never lost quality over subsequent uses. We added digital restrictions management to the media, not so strong to be overly obtrusive, but to no avail. Some shit teenager in the Netherlands said "INFOMASHUN SHOULD B FREE!", hacked our DRM, and now we're /really/ fucked because one can make completely bit-for-bit accurate copies for free, legally. We tried making it literally impossible to view the movies without the players phoning home and grabbing a key signature from our servers, but our customers weren't about to pay $1000 for a DVD /and/ have to ask me permission all the time.

We've even tried hiring cheaper actors, but nobody wants to see those hacks. They'd rather see the hacks on stage, where they can laugh and boo them off stage if need be. Turns out the real theater companies can't make any money either. A writer makes a beautiful stage play, and then next week, middle school drama classes are shitting all over his brilliance. Ever heard of The Oz?

We'd love to see some competition, but it just ain't happenin. Ya see, artsy-fartsy and I have worked for decades on perfecting the film medium. We are dedicated to the art - not the money - but finely ground lenses, camera bodies, film, lighting, all that aren't cheap. We have our own costs. Not only that, but we feel that our work is worth something. We'd love to write a book about it and share it with the world. We /could/ do that rather cheaply, but photocopiers can certainly copy our works even cheaper.

The most worrying thing, though, isn't some snot kid with a video camera or some nihil-anarchist from Dutch country, it's those fucking conglomerates. Like I said, we're dedicated to the movies, not the money. Those rich bastards can come pay the $500 a head I'm charging - for a whole team of transcriptionists - and record every detail of my movie. Then, they can reproduce it in perfection to a T, slap their name on it, and show it in their cheap nickelodeons. Now I'm really fucked.

But we do have copyright, so I can write an awesome play, let only reputable companies showcase it, make the movie myself, and do my best to market and show it at any theater, knowing that if someone tries to make a quick buck off of it, they're screwed. I can share my experiences with others in a fashion that I would like to - I'd rather not make a Movies for Dummies book, and I'd rather my methods not end up there. I'll sure share it with artsy-fartsy, as long as he shows me how to get that awesome effect perfect for my next movie.

Sorry, saying t

Re:Seems fair

[c0lo]

Now I understand. Doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with you, especially when you go down the path of:

If you're a farmer, and you came up with a better way to, say, pick corn, are you gonna tell a soul if once you do, anyone can copy your method? Likely not.

Call me crazy but this is exactly what I would do: I would tell all the other farmers how to do it, and this free of charge.

Re:Seems fair

[chrismcb]

I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work. Without necessarily knowing the specific laws, it seems it should be similar here. The alleged goal of copyright is to incentivize the creation and/or distribution of works. The fact that this typically involves rewarding the 'artist' is tangential.

According to wiki "The Berne Convention focuses on authors as the key figure in copyright law..." so I don't think that rewarding the 'artist' is tagential.

While possessing the sole copy of a piece of work gives you some way of controlling the copying of such work, it doesn't automatically grant you the copyright. Only the owner of the copyright can grant you the copyright.

Re:Seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Come on, that's not "[citation needed]".

That's "[a load of complete bull]".

Re:Seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if you have the only copy then you can run away and hide it - thus preventing others from copying it. That's what copyright is...right?

no.. that is copy ability.
Copy right is a legal term, copy ability is a technical term.
The two fields seldom interact well.

Re:Seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

No one suggested otherwise. Your argument is a strawman.

Re:Seems fair

[nedlohs]

The entire post I replied to was arguing that the copyright system isn't meeting it's goals.

All I claimed was the goals don't have to be met individually by every case.

So clearly someone else did suggest it was relevant.

And I didn't make an argument I just stated why I saw no need to answer the stupid questions that had nothing to do with my claim.

Re:Seems fair

[Anonymous Coward]

"The entire post I replied to was arguing that the copyright system isn't meeting it's goals.

All I claimed was the goals don't have to be met individually by every case.

So clearly someone else did suggest it was relevant."

The claim that copy protection laws aren't meeting their goals is different than the claim that the goal must be met in each instance for it to be met generally. No one is arguing that copy protection laws aren't generally meeting their goals just because they're not meeting their goals only in this particular case. That's a strawman argument that you made up.

Re:Seems fair

[Vegeta99]

I won't call you crazy, not one bit. Sorry for being harsh to begin with. But patent law protects your right to do that!

However, it might not be a great idea if one of those farmers that you tell is ConAgra.

Re:Seems fair

[pantaril]

And how often does that happen? How many people keep their work secret because someone MIGHT copy it? I'd be willing to bet, next to none.

This is actualy quite common. For example here in Czech Republic, copyright holders refuse to release lots of great old "new wave" movies (movies from 60's) becouse they fear piracy. They are waiting for distributors with strong DRM schemes, which would prevent the piracy, They of course never come as DRM is expensive, doesn't work and profit margins on old movies are small. The result is the movies are lost for genral public. There is similar situation with e-books.

Re:Seems fair

[RockDoctor]

in many cases the copyright isn't there for the authors, but for the publishers, otherwise why have such long copyright terms?

I have a friend who is the author of several books, all still in print and one onto it's second edition. They don't sell huge numbers, but he still gets a royalties cheque every couple of months, which nicely offsets the cost of running his hobby, the subject of several of his books ; you could view it as re-investing the profits from publishing into his art/ hobby. The printer gets a slice, the publisher gets more no doubt, but my friend doesn't want those cheques to stop, and so he doesn't want to release copyright on his works for the foreseeable future.

Those continuing cheques are why my friend supports substantial lengths for copyright terms.

What opinion my friend has about what happens to his copyright fees after his death, I don't know. I'll ask next time I see him.

Re:Seems fair

[RockDoctor]

The copyright holders will be aware that they are playing "chicken" between their desire for successful DRM and their desire to get some fees from the films. At some point, the copyright will expire, and then they've lost their gamble.

There are people pressing for eternal copyright, but while that's a theoretical possibility, it's unlikely to be realised in practice. At some point, no one is going to have an interest, there will be nowhere to send the cheques to. And that in itself will create more problems.

Re:Seems fair

[nedlohs]

All I said was "Whether they meet their stated goals or not is irrelevant to whether they have to in every case in order to do so."

How exactly is that different from "The claim that copy protection laws aren't meeting their goals is different than the claim that the goal must be met in each instance for it to be met generally."?

The sure seem to be saying the exact same thing to me.

So how is the sentence I said a strawman argument, exactly?

Given I haven't made a claim about copy protection laws meeting their goals one way or the other I can't see how I could be making a strawman argument about that...

Re:Seems fair

[c0lo]

But patent law protects your right to do that!

I can't agree with this either. To me, it's like saying you saved an elder from falling down the staircase after you actually pushed her/him. Patents are useful in a society using the trade-secret excessively and with a very low power to invent. The way I see, they are harmful for a "gift economy" society or a society in which the rate of re-discovery is high. And I'd argue that we currently are more towards the later than the former.

However, it might not be a great idea if one of those farmers that you tell is ConAgra.

Assuming no patent laws exists, can you please tell me why? As I'm already willing to share my invention with anyone free of charge, how ConAgra can stop or harm me?

Re:Seems fair

[Vegeta99]

Patent law protects your right to do that because it would prevent anyone else from patenting your discovery because there'd be prior art. However, once ConAgra gets their hands on your technology, considering their already monstrous size, it could raise their efficiency level to the point that you can no longer make a profit.

Re:Seems fair

[c0lo]

Patent law protects your right to do that because it would prevent anyone else from patenting your discovery because there'd be prior art.

Do I detect a bit of circular reasoning here?
Isn't it like: the patent law is necessary to protect you from others that try to patent the same invention? (this is why I said: it's like claiming you saved someone from falling after you pushed that one?).

Now, imagine that there would be no patent laws: would I still need protection against patent laws?

However, once ConAgra gets their hands on your technology, considering their already monstrous size, it could raise their efficiency level to the point that you can no longer make a profit.

As I'm already saying: I'm already willing to share my invention with anyone free of charge I'd actually be happy for ConAgora to raise the efficiency. In the absence of the patent laws, maybe someone (possibly me?) is lucky/smart enough to reverse-engineer their methods - it happens quite frequent nowadays, you know? - and return the improved result to the society at lower cost (or even free again?).

I'm repeating myself here: "patents are useful in a society using the trade-secret excessively and with a very low power to invent.". Are you sure that the current state of society is still so?

Re:Seems fair

[Vegeta99]

I am using a bit of circular logic here, but then again, the guarantee of patent protection in the US Constitution doesn't limit itself to excluding prior art just by its wording - and changing organic law is a bit more difficult than the rest of it.

I think that if we removed /all/ patent protection - and for the sake of argument, let's remove trade secret protection as well, leaving the only protection on technological advancement that which could be done via civil law, with non-disclosure agreements and such. In the pro-corporate environment that we're in now, wouldn't we just replace it with lock-downs and the like? I've seen PIN pads that, upon breaching the case, fry their epoxied-in crypto chips. I think that would start to appear in your run-of-the-mill iPod. While everyone would be free to try and circumvent the protection, what do you do once you do? You wouldn't be able to buy the hardware to place the reverse-engineered firmware in. Foundries would refuse to lithograph a die that you would certify that wasn't encumbered by any NDAs or non-competes, not because they're afraid of patents or copyright, but because their agreement with Apple states that the day Apple catches the foundry making a design that is the same or similar to one of theirs is the day the foundry quits making Apple chips.

I used ConAgra as an example because of their very, very poor corporate altruism. They crush the little guy; as a corporate argibusiness, their duty is to the stockholder, not the contract farmer, not their employees, and certainly not society. A good example is their policies with their chicken farmers: You will buy chicks from our suppliers (Owned by us). You will feed them feed from our suppliers (Owned by us). You will ship the finished product using our distributors (Owned by us). If we find out you're somehow making a higher profit than others in your area, you will be penalized, because you must be doing something shady (We know all).

Apple is a good example because, despite Jobs being King Dickbag of the tech world, they were just a short few years ago on the brink of bankruptcy. Their creativity has, despite the somewhat immoral business decisions, brought them back from the brink, as evidenced by the article here last night about them breaking the 10% mark again. I think that if patents were to disappear tomorrow, we would indeed be in a society that would use trade secrets excessively, and there would be a very low power to invent, if only because no Joe Sixpack or hell, even Joe Tenpack could find a manufacturer willing to risk their tail.

Patent law does, in a convoluted way, protect the small guy. Compaq proved that to us with their clean-room reverse engineering. While still very limiting, patents have lead to a pharmaceutical industry where America /still/ leads the world in technological innovation, yet some stores can give away thousands of now-generic, life-saving drugs at no charge. I'll concede that some (possibly drastic) changes are needed. Apple's bullshit screen-orientation patent from yesterday's story sounds fishy, and the fact that our tiny little (thanks, slashdot, for the new fucking layout that drove everyone away) community can find prior art in 20 minutes, and the examiners can't in 4+ years is as well. I completely and absolutely reject the DMCA - instead of buying a BluRay that won't play on my XBMC media server, I'll take a Matroska video file, thank you very much. But then again, without copyright, there's no GPL.

Monkeyshopped

[Adrian Lopez]

"Some monkeys in Indonesia ... took some photos of themselves. [People on Techdirt noted] that the monkeys had the best claim, and certainly not the photographer."

But the monkeys are the photographers! They're the ones who "framed" the picture and snapped the photo, with the former being essential to asserting copyright on pictures of natural objects and environments. Unless the photographer cropped the pictures in question in order to improve upon them, I'd say the credit goes to the monkeys and nobody else but the monkeys.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[MacTO]

I'm guessing that any claims to copyright will be made over processing done to the photo prior to publication and, perhaps any setup done to the camera before they monkeys started monkeying around. After all, it's hard to get photos that good by pure chance.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

I'm guessing that any claims to copyright will be made over processing done to the photo prior to publication and, perhaps any setup done to the camera before they monkeys started monkeying around. After all, it's hard to get photos that good by pure chance.

Well in that case, I've processed your contribution to slashdot and, by my mere presence, set up the need for the forums (and thus the forums themselves), which is the vehicle through which your thoughts were made reality. As can be seen by the pure number of posts, quality contributions don't happen often, or by chance.

So with my far-fetched but wordy explanation, I demand that slashdot pay me millions of dollars for reproducing MY WORK, even if my work was based on your work... you're not suing, so I'd better.

First the world news scandal, now this. Silly brits.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[Hognoxious]

Except monkeys aren't legal persons, and therefore can't hold copyright, enter into a contract. I would say that the copyright belongs then to the closest human in the causal chain, i.e. the person who gave them the camera.

It's similar to claiming that your cat agreed to an EULA when you set everything up and wait for it to tread on the mouse. Hooey. The animal is merely a servant of the human master.

Tying it nicely together: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13286470

Re:Monkeyshopped

[artor3]

You might as well say that the camera itself holds the copyright. After all, it probably had an autofocus or something.

I know Slashdot hates copyrights, but the argument that the monkey holds it is just puerile.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[Hognoxious]

You'll probably find, somewhere in the signup process, that you agree to waive all yadda yadda yadda or that by posting you're giving permission to slashdot to use your work.

Oh, and it's "News of the World". Silly you.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[dudpixel]

the whole issue is just silly.

So if I steal someone's camera and take photos on it, can I legally require that they return the photos to me once they reclaim their camera? can I stop them publishing the photos even though I took them on their camera?

The monkeys dont own the camera. Its exactly the same issue.

Take the monkeys out of the picture, and suddenly its not a confusing problem any more.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[AdamWill]

No-one is seriously arguing that the monkeys hold the copyright. We _are_ suggesting that there's no reasonable grounds on which anyone _else_ could claim to own the copyright. Shockingly, it's possible for data to exist without anyone holding a copyright on it, though some interest groups dearly wish things were otherwise.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[mywhitewolf]

using that logic though, if a dog bites a person, we should put the owner down, because "The animal is merely a servant of the human master."

Re:Monkeyshopped

[profplump]

You cannot compel them to return the photos. But you can probably require that they do not publish the photos.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[Adrian Lopez]

So if I steal someone's camera and take photos on it, can I legally require that they return the photos to me once they reclaim their camera?

No.

can I stop them publishing the photos even though I took them on their camera?

Possibly. It depends on whether or not it's considered fair use for somebody to publish pictures a thief took with their camera. One thing's for sure, though: the owner of the camera would not hold the copyrights to the pictures you took.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

You'll probably find, somewhere in the signup process, that you agree to waive all yadda yadda yadda or that by posting you're giving permission to slashdot to use your work.

Oh, and it's "News of the World". Silly you.

Damnit! Foiled by the non-enforceable EULA again.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[BKX]

To answer your two questions, no, yes.

That's right, if I steal your camera and take pictures with it you don't have any obligation to return the pictures to me upon return of the camera, but I, as the photographer (even though the camera was yours and stolen) own the copyright, and, thus, can stop you from publishing them.

More relevant to the monkeys, in order for the owner of the camera to have a copyright on the monkey's photos, he would have had to make a conscious creative act causing him to reasonably expect the monkeys to take the pictures. I don't think this has happened so there's likely no copyright at all on the photos, placing them by default into the public domain, since monkeys can't own copyrights. Had these monkeys instead been humans, they would unequivocally own the copyrights to the photos and not the camera's owner.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[sjames]

How about when Koko the gorilla took pictures? She was clearly self aware and knew very well what she was doing. A legal system that supports the idea of police suing money (the actual money, not the person who possesses it) for being used in a drug transaction surely has given up all moral right to claim only humans have legal standing.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[sjames]

So if I steal someone's camera and take photos on it, can I legally require that they return the photos to me once they reclaim their camera? can I stop them publishing the photos even though I took them on their camera?

Yes, the copyright on those particular photos is yours unless/until the court rules that you forfeit those rights to the camera's owner as partial compensation.

You cannot demand that they hand them over, only that they not make copies.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[Anonymous Coward]

the whole issue is just silly.

So if I steal someone's camera and take photos on it, can I legally require that they return the photos to me once they reclaim their camera? can I stop them publishing the photos even though I took them on their camera?

Yes, actually, you can under copyright law as written. (Stop them from publishing, that is; of course you can't make them return them, any more than Disney can demand a copy of every film you have. Copyright is the right to forbid others from reproducing a work, nothing more....)

Since your claim to copyright on the photos would be evidence you stole their camera, you might not choose to, but it's still your right to do so if you like.

The monkeys dont own the camera. Its exactly the same issue.

Take the monkeys out of the picture, and suddenly its not a confusing problem any more.

No, it's not, but it's "not confusing" in exactly the opposite way you think.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[dudpixel]

ok, but as a photographer I really dont think I'd have any recourse if in this example the camera owner decided to publish the photos.

And anyway I'd suggest that given the copyright owners are monkeys, the copyright would probably transfer to the "owner" of the monkeys. If they are wild monkeys, then who really cares?

Re:Monkeyshopped

[dudpixel]

ok, but as a photographer I really dont think I'd have any recourse if in this example the camera owner decided to publish the photos.

let me clarify that - sure the law says such and such, but taking it to the next step is often a matter of money...and lawyers...

Re:Monkeyshopped

[Anonymous Coward]

If you take the monkeys out of the picture it's not confusing it's magic. Under current law though a claim on the image rights would be legitimate since copyright automatically is assigned to the creator regardless of the circumstances, so while the person who stole your camera would most certainly be in trouble with the law, you wouldn't own the copyright if it was your camera, the thief could still argue for rights, though he may not be able to profit as the rights were obtained in the act of a crime. The issue is far more murky than you seem to understand.

The second issue is that the image is still considered fair use as it is used in a factual manner relevant to the issue.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not.... yes. You have a legitimate claim to the work, no matter whose camera it was. It is viewed the same as if you borrowed the device. If you have not signed over the rights to your work so yes it's yours.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[sjames]

Most likely, you wouldn't assert such rights because you'd have to confess guilt to the theft in the process.

However, in this case, it may actually matter. The monkeys clearly aren't going to sue anyone, but what we have here is a 3rd party (The Daily Mail) claiming a copyright interest in order to threaten someone else. The question is do they have any legitimate claim? If the monkeys are the proper copyright holders, then nobody need worry about using the photos (at least until the monkeys hire a lawyer).

Re:Monkeyshopped

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you can. If you took a picture, you own the copyright on that picture. You can insist on your property being returned to you. You can prevent publication of those pictures by someone else.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[Anonymous Coward]

If I lend you my camera, and you take an award winning photo with it, can I claim ownership of the copyright on the photo?

Re:Monkeyshopped

[gnasher719]

So if I steal someone's camera and take photos on it, can I legally require that they return the photos to me once they reclaim their camera? can I stop them publishing the photos even though I took them on their camera?

The Unabomber tried something like that. Claimed the police had no right to publish letters he had written. I would think that publishing letters in order to catch a murderer falls under fair use. Trying to catch the thief would likely fall under fair use.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[MacTO]

Ignoring any user agreement that we implicitly agreed to by posting to Slashdot, there is a quite clear statement posted at the bottom of each page: "Trademarks property of their respective owners. Comments owned by the poster." So yes, you own the rights to your comments just as I own the rights to mine. Similarly, you have the rights to "process" my comments (e.g. quote and comment upon the appropriate sections). What you don't have the right to is the original comment without "processing" (e.g. the entire comment without commentary).

At any rate, it probably depends a lot upon context. Slashdot is a venue for discussion. As such it follows a certain set of rules. Photography is a different context, with a different set of rules. Snapping pictures with a photographer at the helm (i.e. the initial camera's settings) and a photo editor at the stern (e.g. cropping, colour adjustments, etc.) is yet a different context.

What I would suggest, in this case, is the original photographs have dubious copyright status (since a bunch of monkeys were involved). This is because it is probably a first, as such it has no social or legal context. Yet the processed photographs would have a much better defined social and legal context, and they are most likely property of the company that they were contracted out to.

So unless you can get your evolved monkey fingers on the originals, republishing them is almost certainly a violation of their copyrights. Even if you could get your hands on the originals, you would still have to deal with the uncertainty of the legal system determining who actually owns the rights. Monkeys or humans. (Personally I'd support the monkeys, but I'm just one member of a larger society that has to make that decision.)

Re:Monkeyshopped

[Anonymous Coward]

That is already true (well, it doesn't go that far, you won't be put down, but you are responsible for the actions of your dog). This holds for anything you're responsible for, for example children.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[PRMan]

The monkeys stole his camera and the photographer even noted initially that he had no copyright claim because it was completely random.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[currently_awake]

Given that the creative element (required for copyright) was performed by the monkey then logically the owner of the camera has no claim to copyright. Given that monkeys aren't people and can't own copyright and that you can't copyright naturally occurring stuff (you can't copyright the forest, just your photo of them) it means the monkey photo isn't copyrightable. The techdirt use was clearly fair use.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[dudpixel]

That's how I interpreted it. A 3rd party cannot collect damages since they are not the copyright owners either, and have not entered into any agreement with the copyright owners.

Re:Monkeyshopped

[Hognoxious]

I'd debate whether the monkey is doing anything creative by merely pressing the shutter button. It's just a hairy remote release that runs on bananas instead of batteries.

If a photographer sets up the shot and gets an assistant (of any species) to press the shutter, who owns the copyright?

Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I've realized that the macaque can take better pictures than most 20 year-old college girls can.

Re:Fuck

[ccr]

And this surprises you exactly .. how?

Re:Fuck

[PPH]

You've got to wonder what Uwe Boll is thinking right about now.

Re:Fuck

[Hatta]

I dunno, I've known 20 year old college girls who took great pictures of macaque.

Ahead of Their Time

[Stormy Dragon]

And suddenly this story from 2002 finally makes sense:

US activists demand lawyers for chimps

This explains Youtube

[ChromeAeonium]

Well, that explains why, on YouTube, videos with good music always tend to get taken down. I think, 'Now what kind of idiot would force down free promotion? I never even would have heard of this music had it not been for YouTube.' I always figured a monkey, and an exceptionally stupid one at that, was behind those takedown notices.

Re:This explains Youtube

[uofitorn]

"I never even would have heard of this music..."

Then you must have never seen any Eve Online, CoD, UT, Planetside, Warcraft, Team Fortress, Tribes, Halo, etc. videos online ever. 99.999% of them use Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries for their music.

Infinite Monkeys

[retaj]

Would an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of cameras still have more fun flinging poo?

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[TibbonZero]

And companies. Don't forget companies! They have the same rights as people too!

Work for hire

[Anonymous Coward]

Monkeys and other animals are not legal persons, so copyright authorship would not initially vest in them. In all likelihood, a court would apply a combination of the work for hire and independent contractor doctrines, and copyright would initially vest in the owner of the equipment used to take the photographs. The photographer would have the copyright and the legal right to license the photos.

Also, just a note that since 1989, copyright notice is not required - so don't count on a lack of notice to mean there is no valid copyright!

Re:Work for hire

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

Monkeys and other animals are not legal persons, so copyright authorship would not initially vest in them. In all likelihood, a court would apply a combination of the work for hire and independent contractor doctrines, and copyright would initially vest in the owner of the equipment used to take the photographs. The photographer would have the copyright and the legal right to license the photos. Also, just a note that since 1989, copyright notice is not required - so don't count on a lack of notice to mean there is no valid copyright!

That's very american of you. Nice explanation, I'm sure all the americans appreciate it. I wonder if you've got an equally valid explanation for, say, the UK. That way your post would be relevant.

Re:Work for hire

[Anonymous Coward]

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU STUPID CUNT!










lollollollollollol
snafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafu











snafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafusnafu





er. so? blow my nuts hard, trick.

Re:Work for hire

[cammoblammo]

I wonder if you've got an equally valid explanation for, say, the UK. That way your post would be relevant.

Or, for that matter, Indonesia. These photos were taken in Indonesia so presumably Indonesian copyright law would have at least some bearing on the question of ownership.

Re:Work for hire

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's very american of you. Nice explanation, I'm sure all the americans appreciate it. I wonder if you've got an equally valid explanation for, say, the UK. That way your post would be relevant.

Seems to me that it's all covered by the Berne Convention which "harmonized" such laws across practically every country in the world. But if you weren't so busy being a smug bastard you probably would have known that.

Re:Work for hire

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that Techdirt, Slashdot, the poster, and the majority of readers, are all American? It's not unreasonable to talk about how American law applies to the situation. Keep your hate coming, though; it makes Americans look better in comparison.

Re:Work for hire

[realxmp]

In short no, Berne only harmonised certain aspects. There are known aberrations and slight differences between various countries copyright laws. For example, fair use is an American doctrine not applicable in the UK. Likewise, the copyright for Peter Pan is permanently vested in Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital, but only in the UK. If you tried to cite the Berne convention in a UK court, you'd have a very tough time of it. You could possibly use it as a guide as to what parliament meant when they passed the Copyright Patents and Designs Act but as a standalone document it has no legal force in the UK.

HEY hey

[Anonymous Coward]

WE're the monkeys.

Re:HEY hey

[Vermifax]

And people say we monkey around....

Re:Will someone please think of the (monkey) child

[zill]

And on an entirely more serious note:

In most states the act of bestiality is illegal, but pornographic photographs of animals are not.
In every state, sex with children, as well as pornographic photographs of children are illegal.
Which brings us to the question: is pornographic photographs of monkey children illegal?

Please help me out here, Slashdot armchair lawyers. I desperately need the answer for educational purposes.

Depends on what the work is

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the work snapping the photograph? If so, how is this any different than some automated mechanical method that requires little to no user interaction? Or actually any different than taking any picture with a digital camera?

I think that the important thing here is the selection and cropping of the image including preparation for publication. Under that standard, the copyright remains with the person who has selected and prepared the image for publication.

The question then remains, is the use of the image valid under the 'fair use' exception?

I hope they do

[hrtserpent6]

I hope monkeys get a copyright and issue a takedown notice to prevent "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" from being released.

Re:I hope they do

[urbanheretic]

I doubt any apes are actually used these days. CGI is cheaper.

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

More, actually.

Re:Will someone please think of the (monkey) child

[TheGratefulNet]

more to consider:

paying money to have sex is illegal in most places.

but not if you film it and sell tickets at a movie theater.

think about it.

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[presidenteloco]

1. People are animals.

2. Animals should have rights
e.g. the right not to be treated inhumanely, ironically
e.g. The right (of a species or population of them) to have habitat not destroyed or diminished to the point of extirpation by human activity.
e.g. The right not to be disturbed and be allowed to pursue their ways (of wild animals).

3. Rights are just socially maintained attitudes people have toward each other. Some of these right-conveying attitudes should extend to other animals. And no, the animal doesn't have to be able to reciprocate. There are people who are unable to reciprocate because they are unable to exercise their will (certain disablements). They have full rights. There are people whose behaviour (psychopaths) may not merit fair treatment, but societally we still grant them rights.
 

Maybe I'm just a speciest...

[Anubis IV]

...but don't you have to be a person (or company...ugh) to qualify for holding a copyright? Or am I missing something obvious?

Re:Maybe I'm just a speciest...

[Anubis IV]

*speciesist

Don't you hate when you finally find the correct spelling right after you post?

Re:Maybe I'm just a speciest...

[sunwukong]

It's kinda scary imagining what speciesist means to a jackal-headed man.

Re:Maybe I'm just a speciest...

[Anubis IV]

God of the dead, after all.

Re:Maybe I'm just a speciest...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're exactly right. The monkeys cannot hold the copyright because they aren't persons, as opposed to humans and collections of humans like companies, clubs, political parties, &c. And this situation is unlikely to change because a person has to be able to function as a full person with capacity to act like a human, with the rights and duties that entails. That means that to be a person you have to be able to hold possessions and debts, engage in contracts, sue or be sued. (And you have to be able to sign, but that can in principle be done by another person in your name.) There is currently only one species on the planet that somewhat qualifies and until we resurrect Neandertalers, genetically modify apes, or are invaded by aliens this situation won't change.

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[hedwards]

People aren't animals as the term "animals" is typically used. It's something that people use to erode the line people humans and animals. And it's a really important line to draw.

Planet of the Litigious Apes

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

I see it now. One monkey in Indonesia issues a takedown. Eventually, 100 monkeys demand compensation. Soon monkeys everywhere know about the DCMA.

You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!

Re:Planet of the Litigious Apes

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not nice to compare BPO to monkeys.

Re:Planet of the Litigious Apes

[Sulphur]

I see it now. One monkey in Indonesia issues a takedown. Eventually, 100 monkeys demand compensation. Soon monkeys everywhere know about the DCMA.

If your primative photos are being pandered without your permission, you may be entitled to financial compensation.

Time is limited.

Re:Planet of the Litigious Apes

[Anonymous Coward]

I see it now. One monkey in Indonesia issues a takedown. Eventually, 100 monkeys demand compensation. Soon monkeys everywhere know about the DCMA.

You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!

It's too late. They've already taken over the DMCA.

Litigation = Drama = Viewers

[Xacid]

Perhaps they're after the Streisand Effect.

I claim eating the rights to eating food

[Joe_Dragon]

Seem like the patent BS is coming to copyright is a there Eula on the camera that makes the rights / copyright owned by who made the crammer?

Nonsense

[Wrath0fb0b]

However, Techdirt noticed that the photos had copyright notices on them, and started a discussion over who actually held the copyright in question, noting that, if anyone did, the monkeys had the best claim, and certainly not the photographer.

Why the monkeys and not the camera sensor? Or the chip in the camera that processed the image?

Or maybe ownership is a human concept -- one we invented full cloth -- and one that monkeys and inanimate objects do not qualify for.

Re:Nonsense

[RazorSharp]

Or maybe ownership is a human concept -- one we invented full cloth -- and one that monkeys and inanimate objects do not qualify for.

Yeah right. Try taking a banana away from a monkey. Or a bone away from a dog. Animals have a sense of ownership, it just usually doesn't last long because they tend to consume the item.

Re:Nonsense

[Wrath0fb0b]

Yeah right. Try taking a banana away from a monkey. Or a bone away from a dog. Animals have a sense of ownership, it just usually doesn't last long because they tend to consume the item.

Funny, I have dogs and when the alpha takes a bone away from another dog, he or she just accepted it. As I understand, the same thing happens with monkeys.

Only humans have the concept that every individual can keep things even when an individual of superior social rank and physical power wants to take it away from them.

Don't let them make a monkey out of you

[flaptrap]

Except that news agency, if they said they held the copyright, just made monkeys of themselves, didn't they.

Animals can't hold copyrights

[jambarama]

Same issue as painting elephants. This has been discussed in copyright literature (PDF warning). Internally, the copyright office excluded works produced by animals, as well as works produced entirely by "mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author."

The U.S. Supreme Court's general rule that a copyrightable work's âoeauthor is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection." ... Broad and traditional notions of copyright authorship assumed the answer to that question was limited to human creators. But no definition of "author" appears in the copyright statute. Neither does the Constitution's reference to authors mandate that they be human.

From a theoretical perspective, the question often comes down to creativity - can animals be creative? Animal research tends to suggest that animals CAN be creative, to the same extent as humans. The issues are similar with computer generated "expression" - can a computer be creative? Should randomness be considered creativity?

However you come out on those questions, courts have decided, based on a policy choice favoring humans, to exclude animal authorship. Which makes some sense, since an elephant doesn't have capacity to enforce its rights (you could have a guardian do it, but we don't allow animal guardians to sue vets for malpractice, so it is hard to see why this would be different).

With elephant paintings, the copyright is typically in the name of the zoo, or whoever enabled the elephant to make the painting (e.g. selected colors, brush type, canvas type for the animal). In the case of a monkey who took a picture, probably the zoo or the camera owner.

Re:Animals can't hold copyrights

[nzac]

These are wild monkey who picked up camera lying around, according to the article/summary which you did not read. I guess you would have to give it to the person who left the camera there but that’s pretty weak.

By my thinking since there is no valid author copy-write law does not apply.

Re:Animals can't hold copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

The photographs shown are vivid, well composed and have amazing clarity. Isn't it likely that the images as they appear have been subject to a human creative process during in cropping, rotating, focus improvement, colour balance, etc.

The image are certainly be less protected than the image behind the "Obama Hope" poster (whose copyright violation theory was that the angle and timing of the original work was the creative process).

Re:Animals can't hold copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

"With elephant paintings, the copyright is typically in the name of the zoo, or whoever enabled the elephant to make the painting (e.g. selected colors, brush type, canvas type for the animal)."

Well, obviously. It's a "work for hire", with the elephants working for peanuts.

Re:Animals can't hold copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

With elephant paintings, the copyright is typically in the name of the zoo, or whoever enabled the elephant to make the painting (e.g. selected colors, brush type, canvas type for the animal). In the case of a monkey who took a picture, probably the zoo or the camera owner.

In a way, this is like an employer getting the rights to work done by its employee when at the office.

Re:Animals can't hold copyrights

[Devoidoid]

Seems to me, then, that whoever looked at these 'randomly' shot photographs and noticed they had some artistic merit - would have some value if a 'frame' were put around them - made a creative decision that could vest copyright with them.

It's obvious:

[lavagolemking]

The lawyers WERE the monkeys. Can't anybody else see that? They're beating their chests over some pictures, demanding compensation (in bananas), and monkeying around with the judge over how far their "property rights" extend (being territorial).

No copyright ownership needed for notice???

[wvmarle]

When presented with the point that it's unlikely the news agency could hold a legitimate copyright, the agency told Techdirt it didn't matter.

Strange that no-one commented on this sentence. I may misread it, but it sounds like the agency doesn't care whether it actually owns the copyright on the photos, it just wants Techdirt to take them down.

And I always thought that to legitimately send out such copyright notices, ownership of the copyright was a requirement. And that if you don't own the copyright, you're committing an offense. Now who owns copyright on those photos I don't know, and that's not the point here. You can't sue someone for infringing works that you do not own to begin with, isn't it?

Re:No copyright ownership needed for notice???

[glwtta]

it sounds like the agency doesn't care whether it actually owns the copyright on the photos, it just wants Techdirt to take them down

I think it's more likely that they don't care about Techdirt's disingenuous claim that monkeys own the copyright.

Re:No copyright ownership needed for notice???

[91degrees]

This may explain why they were so vague abut the reasons. They're not sure themselves as to whether they hold the copyright.

hey see their duty as protecting their client (the photographer). They are also ethically (and certain ethical requirements are backed up by some pretty severe penalties) obliged to stay within the law. They're not 100% certain that the photographer is the copyright holder so their obligation in this case remains unclear. By requesting that they take down the photos without citing any law, it simply becomes a genteman's request so they can use this to hedge their bets.

Royalties

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we pay the monkey's their due for the pictures in small unmarked bananas.

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

People have rights and copyrights, not animals. Stop with this inflammatory nonsense.

What if the monkey was sufficiently sentient to know it was taking a photograph when it took the photograph?

Police dogs

[Anonymous Coward]

If police dogs can become full-fledged deputies (so that the human police can use the dogs' acute noses to conduct warrantless drug searches on nonviolent consenting adults without stepping on the Constitution's toes), I don't see why monkeys can't own copyrights.

Re:Will someone please think of the (monkey) child

[jesseck]

But in the porno business, it would be like your friend hiring a prostitute to fuck you... the producer pays the girl to have sex with you. So, here's another one: if I cruise main street with a buddy, and he negotiates for a lady to have sex with me, who will go to jail?

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet, the news agency who claimed copyright issued a takedown to Techdirt! When presented with the point that it's unlikely the news agency could hold a legitimate copyright, the agency told Techdirt it didn't matter.

Aren't there penalties for issuing DMCA take-down notices in bad faith?

Re:Question

[erroneus]

Yes, this is willful abuse of DMCA take-down notices and I would definitely like to see action taken on that issue. Like many others, I have long suspected that quite a few if not most DMCA take-down notices are willful abuse and done in bad faith. It is difficult to prove bad faith without some sort of conversation which involves admitting that it was done in bad faith. It seems we have such evidence.

Re:Question

[Hatta]

No, of course not. Look at all the bad DMCA notices that have been issued over the past decade and how nothing has happened to anyone for it.

I mean, sure it says there are penalties in the law. But why would you assume the government would follow the law?

Developers! Developers! Developers!

[mevets]

If monkeys can be CEOs, why can't they hold copyrights?
I'm certain the first one was infringing on that MS exec's copyright though...

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[glwtta]

I wonder, why wouldn't you include the right to life with the rights animals "should" have? Seems like it's the most fundamental right of all.

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[qubezz]

The copyright owner would be the human who owns the camera, the digital film, and created the situation where the photos were taken. If going up to an ATM causes my picture to be taken, I don't have the copyright of that image, even if I know that the camera will take my picture and it is my sole action that caused the picture to be taken. The human photographer below owns the pictures, and can sell them to or be represented by another agency:

Visiting a national park in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, award-winning photographer David Slater left his camera unattended for a while. Slater, from Coleford, Gloucestershire, was on a trip to a small national park north of the Indonesian island of Sulawesi when he met the incredibly friendly bunch.

The notice sent by the Caters News Agency is this:

I have noticed you have used David Slater's images on your website. However we are representing David Slater and syndicating these images on his behalf.

That's about all there is to say.

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[MightyMartian]

Because if you don't draw that line then we have a lot explaining to the monkeys to do.

Who discovered the camera?

[sgunhouse]

Suppose I have a camera which someone borrows, takes some pictures, and returns (without telling me). When I go to save or print my own pictures, I discover theirs as well. Not knowing their identity but seeing some embarrassing (non-pornographic) content, I decide to post them - someone ought to recognize them, and I think shaming them might be good.

Do I own the pictures, or do they?

Re:Who discovered the camera?

[Anonymous Coward]

You own the pictures, they hold the copyright to those pictures. You cannot legally post the pictures online or otherwise copy them except as permitted for any other copyrighted work (i.e. fair use) -- and this is true even if you don't know who holds the copyright, because you know someone does, and it ain't you...

Re:Will someone please think of the (monkey) child

[davester666]

That's because it rises from base, immoral sex to become art. This magic happens once the act is captured on a recording medium.

It's a process similar to capturing souls using a regular camera.

Indonesian Copyright Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the photos originated in Indonesia, Indonesian law is going to be relevant (I think - doesn't the Berne Convention mean the US has to honour Indonesian decisions on this?) I wonder if Techdirt could ask for whatever the equivalent of a declaratory judgement is from the relevant Indonesian court/government authority.

Re:Will someone please think of the (monkey) child

[Sassinak]

I'll be in vegas, so I'll let you know..

Anyone want to ride shotgun?

And if the camera was made by Sony

[rcpitt]

Then in light of all that has transpired in the PS3 debacle, then Sony would claim they held copyright - at least so opines my cousin sitting here in the room beside me :)

Monkey Business

[thetsguy]

Now this qualifies to be a monkey business

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to assume that's an effort to show the bogosity of GP's claim that we should sort things into the categories we've been using, without consideration to whether we've been wrong, rather than trolling. (If I'm wrong, IHL, I'll HAND...)

The trouble with that analogy is that you have it backwards; since many/most people aren't in fact "niggers" in any use of the term, what you just posted was more or less nonsense. "Niggers" is a subset of "humans" so one wishing to justify racism would say that while biologically "niggers" are humans (or a human subspecies, or whatever racists call it),

Niggers aren't humans as the term "humans" is typically used. It's something that people use to erode the line people niggers and humans. And it's a really important line to draw.

Now I guess I'll find out tomorrow if our IT department does DPI and notifies HR on keyword triggers...
Also, the word "people" where I think GP meant to use "between" is bothering me.

"whole cloth"

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFY.

Possibly the person that developed the film

[NewToNix]

might have a copyright claim, if not superior to the monkeys, at least it could be argued to be the first enforceable position in creation of copyright of the images.

That brings up a question I've always wondered about --at the bottom of every /. page it says:

"Trademarks property of their respective owners. Comments owned by the poster. © 2011 All Rights Reserved. Geeknet, Inc."

If a poster can not edit or remove his post, how can he possibly own it?

Much like the monkey I may 'own' this post, but exactly like the monkey I have no say in it's future after I hit the submit button. So who really owns it? I don't think it's me...

Re:Possibly the person that developed the film

[anilg]

You make an interesting point. I'm guessing the fineprint when you signed up said you handover "non-exclusive, worldwide royalty free" permission to /. to use as they please (or suchlike).

So essentially this is the only copy of you work, and you already have one licensee to it. But you cannot get rid of this work, and you cannot unlicense it.

Re:Possibly the person that developed the film

[NewToNix]

You make an interesting point. I'm guessing the fineprint when you signed up said you handover "non-exclusive, worldwide royalty free" permission to /. to use as they please (or suchlike). So essentially this is the only copy of you work, and you already have one licensee to it. But you cannot get rid of this work, and you cannot unlicense it.

Exactly the way I saw it... I am but one of /.'s million monkeys and even if I 'own' my post, I can never issue a takedown... How odd to think of myself as just another monkey, exactly like the ones in TFA --but then I agreed to this state of affairs and the monkeys are simply unaware (of such human foolishness). But they sure look happy --possibly there is a lesson we should pay attention to, lurking somewhere in this...

work for hire?

[Lead Butthead]

Maybe the photographer baited the monkeys with bananas, and as such it could be construed as work for hire...

Re:Will someone please think of the (monkey) child

[Vegeta99]

Paying money to have sex is illegal in most places.

Filming other people having sex in private is usually illegal in most places.

Paying money to have sex and film it, and then selling copies is usually not.

Woah.

I think this sets a bad precident.

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

If monkeys can sue to prevent fair use, this means someday human photographers might think they can too.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyrights mostly only exist so that the author can get money (and/or honour) for his work. Seeing that monkeys don't need (or want) either, why would they care about copyrights?

Maybe they are more evolved than us? We spend time arguing about copyrights while they have a 24/7 party in the jungle!!!?

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[martin-boundary]

I don't think my paragraph was backwards. Historically, in the US and other slave owning nations, a line was drawn to separate people and slaves, even though biologically there is no difference. That same line is still drawn in places where racism is acceptable.

The analogy with animals is clear imho: "people aren't animals" refers to the viewpoint that human beings are somehow special among biological lifeforms, just as "people aren't niggers" refers to the (racist) viewpoint that the slave owners' race is somehow special among human lifeforms. In both cases, it's a self serving statement used by the dominant class among themselves to justify the importance of drawing a line, and consequently deny various rights to others.

Meh, time to go watch Chuck Heston play an astronaut again :)

Or..

[backslashdot]

100,000 monkeys for a Bush speech

Re:Or..

[Anonymous Coward]

100,000 monkeys for a Bush speech

At least he didn't read Navy Corpsman off the teleprompter as "corpse man" like the current Commander In Chief.

Re:Or..

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe one will suffice..

They stole the camera

[future assassin]

is that matter? The photos are evidence and the monkey should be thrown into jail.

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[HJED]

I would say that line still exists in most societies today, however it has been moved to be between 'animals' and humans.
I guess you have to draw such a line somewhere however, do Monkeys have rights? What about dolphins? What about snails? What about a virus?
We have to pick some arbitrary point, I wonder on which side of the line Neanderthals would fall if they weren't extinct?

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[HJED]

The right to live is not generally given to animals in our society, the others often are. Also I would say the right to be treated humanly is more fundamental the right to live. Death can be instantaneous, inhuman treatment can't

Re:Neanderthals

[presidenteloco]

The fact they ARE extinct might tell you the answer to that question.

Monkey see monkey not do...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect the paper or the photographer do own the copyright as the picture was taken by the photographer and not the monkey. They are very well framed and focused photos for a monkey to take mistakenly.

They can't admit this because it's not such an interesting story then "Photographer takes picture of monkey" - woopdeedoo.

slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

If a monkey can be granted a copyright surely this monkey should be charged with attempted murder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyD51iZCarE

Which one needs to evolve?

[Jane Q. Public]

I don't know. But I know which one looks more like a monkey's ass.

(Sadly, unoriginal. Borrowed from Twitter. But funny.)

If you don't copy it, it isn't copyright violation

[Anonymous Coward]

Since a million monkeys typing aren't copying copyright protection of existing works doesn't apply to what they write. Copyright law isn't like patent law where you are out of luck if you independently invent an already patented invention. If the monkey's write text identical to the latest Harry Potter book that is ok because it is simultaneous invention. Usually, that kind of claim doesn't work because the owner of the earlier work claims that somehow the second writer just must have read the first writer's work.

Brilliant own goal :-)

[cheros]

Either the monkey took the picture in which case the takedown notice was in bad faith and legally actionable, or the photographer took the picture and the newspaper lied - in which case we have deception with intend to issue a bad faith takedown notice.

Either way is going to be rather interesting - the latter more damaging, though, given that the picture has done the rounds.

Personally, I see option 2 as more likely as the picture was IMHO too perfect for a random event.

Time to get some beer and popcorn, this one will be fun to watch..

Re:Brilliant own goal :-)

[tulcod]

if Slater pretended he didn't make the photos, then he legally didn't make the photos, period. if you go to the police and lie that you've killed your neighbor, then legally you've killed your neighbor and might very well be locked up for a few weeks, until they find out that he's alive and well, but still you can be punished for at least pretending to be a murderer.

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[martin-boundary]

Not necessarily. A line doesn't have to be drawn based on the nature of the group ("human"/"animal" or "white"/"black"), categorization can also be based on the individuals in context. For example, a trained monkey in a lab could have authorship rights that a monkey in the wild does not have - same species, but the rules could be different. A person could have special burial rights, not because they're black, but because they're a veteran.

Invalid copyright claims should be punishable

[ZorroXXX]

The only way to fix the current sad state of affairs with regards to copyright claims is to make it illegal to claim copyright on things that you actually does not own copyright for. As it is now there are no juridical balance. For someone making a false copyright claim, there is no (juridical) negative consequences, and this is of course a disaster receipt. Remember that Lady Justice is using a scale. If someone copies copyright material non-compliant with the rights they have, they are only "stealing" from the copyright owner. If someone claims copyright on something that is public domain, they are "stealing" from every person in the whole world. In my opinion this is a much greater "theft", and it ought to be punished accordingly.

Re:Invalid copyright claims should be punishable

[Nadaka]

Issuing a DMCA take down notice if you are not the copyright holder is an act of perjury, so it is already a crime.

Re:Invalid copyright claims should be punishable

[Anonymous Coward]

Issuing a DMCA take down notice if you are not the copyright holder is an act of perjury, so it is already a crime.

I was going to say that TechDirt should request they send a take down notice before doing anything, but then I remembered it's only perjury if you *know* it's false. The people writing back to TechDirt are so poorly informed they think copyright violation is theft. Hell, they think that copying any image is theft, because they seem to believe everything has a copyright.

Re:Invalid copyright claims should be punishable

[Nadaka]

Everything in the US does have a copyright except for very very old works and anything produced in an official capacity by the government.

Monkey == Photographer

[polle404]

"if anyone did, the monkeys had the best claim, and certainly not the photographer."

The monkey IS the photographer!
IANA(Copyright)L, but does the law specify that the copyright-holder has to be human?
If not, the takedown notice would be fraudulent, as it's not the monkey or the legal guardian (owner?) issuing the takedown, but the owner of the camera?

Techdirt, however, is on rickety ground with their fair use, unless all copyright claims are disproved by all mammals?

Where does it say conscious creation is required?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does it say conscious creation is required? There are art pictures that are copyrighted created by elephants and monkeys playing around with paint. There is Cage's 4 minutes of silence (where it's supposed to be about the little noises that become noticeable when you are silent, hence not a conscious creation). That's copyrighted.

Heck, even the "expressive" bit isn't there any more: the object code of a program is not expressive.

Re:Where does it say conscious creation is require

[icebraining]

There are art pictures that are copyrighted created by elephants and monkeys playing around with paint.

Are there?

here is Cage's 4 minutes of silence (where it's supposed to be about the little noises that become noticeable when you are silent, hence not a conscious creation).

Of course it was a conscious creation. He intended to record four minutes of silence as a work of art. The purpose is irrelevant.

Heck, even the "expressive" bit isn't there any more: the object code of a program is not expressive.

You mean the compiled version? I think that's considered a derivative of the original work (the source code).

Already done

[Anonymous Coward]

We post the photos on Wikipedia now, and wait to see who challenges copyright!

The pictures have already been uploaded on Commons but aren't used on WP yet
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Self-portraits_of_animals

Hoax: Monkeys hack cell accounts, leave cute ...

[fygment]

Interesting discussion on copyright. But what if:

the photos and story are a fabrication. The photographer set it up and concocted the entire scenario to sell the story. So really, the copyright claim is valid since the photographer did do the work. The Daily Mail is reacting since it is trying to cover up the lie it published. If too much scrutiny is drawn to the pictures, then the hoax will become apparent.

Next story: monkeys hack in to cell phone accounts and leave cute messages.

The moneky speaks his mind

[RevWaldo]

And three monkeys sat in a coconut tree
Discussing things as they are said to be
Said one to other now listen, you two
“There’s a certain rumour that just can’t be true
That man descended from our noble race
Why, the very idea is a big disgrace, yea”
No monkey ever deserted his wife
Starved her baby and ruined her life

Yea, the monkey speaks his mind

And you’ve never known a mother monk
To leave her babies with others to bunk
And passed them on from one to another
‘Til they scarcely knew which was their mother
Yea, the monkey speak his mind

And another thing you will never see
A monkey build a fence around a coconut tree
And let all the coconuts go to waste
Forbidding all other monkeys to come and taste
Why, if I put a fence around this tree
Starvation would force you to steal from me

Yea, the monkey speaks his mind

Here’s another thing a monkey won’t do
Go out on a night and get all in a stew
Or use a gun or a club or a knife
And take another monkey’s life
Yes, man descended, the worthless bum
But, brothers, from us he did not come

Yea, the monkey speaks his mind


.

Re:The moneky speaks his mind

[powerlord]

At least throw an attribution or a link for more information if you're going to post someone else's work (especially ironic in a discussion of Copyright).

http://www.elviscostello.info/wiki/index.php/The_Monkey

Re:The moneky speaks his mind

[RevWaldo]

Done!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFgjGaIhkUs

.

Re:The moneky speaks his mind

[drainbramage]

Sweet but untrue.
Violence is not solely in the human domain.
A simple example:
http://www.google.com/search?q=monkey+cannibalism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Curses! You Dirty Rat!

[Mana Mana]

To GP:

You are thinking of a 'transformative act' on a work, public domain or not. Scilicet, operating on said work and poof! voila! it is copyrighted again. Yes it can happen, but it is tough work. Case in point.

Charade (1963 film), featuring Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn fell out of copyright into the public domain do to lack of copyright notice requirements in the film prints---that is why most times you catch on TV it is a gadawful grainy, dusty, out-of-focus subpar mess. They're using reused-abused prints and not preserved-protected prints.

However, The Criterion Collection has taken the time, effort and expense to take one of those prints and restore, improve Charade to a mint film---that is copyrighted---again.

I'm sure

[rossdee]

Mike Nesmith has produced and copyrighted some musical works.

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[roman_mir]

Well, hold on.

The companies have been made into people not only by one law.

How about income taxes? While people have income, companies in reality do not. They have a fund, which they use to do more work. The only time that the money is used not for work, when in a company, but for spending for various consumer goods, is when this cash is transfered from a company to a human.

So a human uses cash for enjoyment or any other spending, but a company only uses cash for work.

Company uses cash for work, even when it spend cash. The cash is used to generate productive output, not to enjoy life, certainly. So why is PRODUCTIVE capital being taxed?

By treating a company, a business in this way, it's as if the company is a human, spending the money for consumption purposes. That's the reason why it was possible to push forward this idea that companies are 'people' (it's not exactly that, but many laws apply, such as first amendment, because if they didn't a company could be destroyed by taking away such a 'right' by some other company, who, for example enjoys close government ties.)

The real question should be: why is a company taxed on its profit, while anything that a company can do with a profit is put it back to work, thus generating more products and services and hiring more people (maybe), but definitely doing work, not having a good time?

Why is work taxed? Do we not want to have more production?

I am against all income taxes, be it for companies or people, but if we are going to have income taxes, then how is it possible to justify these for companies? Their income is productive and it only becomes money for consumption when it's taken out of business.

I am sure nobody will agree....

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[JSBiff]

"And the people that own companies. Don't forget the people that own companies! They have the same rights as other people too!"

There, fixed that for you.

No C&D

[twocows]

As far as I can tell, the agency in question hasn't filed a formal C&D yet, so their requests hold no weight. They're just requests.

Planet of the Apes?

[antdude]

Will this be in the movie? :P

Standard techneque

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

A standard technique in animal photography is the use of tripwires/pressure plates/motion sensors. I don't see why a tiger standing on a pressure plate is any different from a monkey pressing a button. Dose a footballer take all the photographs of the goal? The people holding the camera are more or less reacting on instinct, he is providing all the volition. What about the photo-finish of a race?

Fair use?

[mythmanlegend]

The daily mail is a UK newspaper and so is covered under UK copyright law - which if memory serves does not have a fair use policy.

Can a Monkey Get a Copyright & Issue a Takedow

[arisvega]

Sure. They do it all the time -

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[Dewin]

I wonder, why wouldn't you include the right to life with the rights animals "should" have?

Mr. Lion, you are hereby sentenced to life in prison for murder of the first degree of one Ms. Gazelle.

Also, non-vegetarians would never go for that.

Bird/squirel cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of cameras taking pictures of birds, squirels and other animals, that are triggered by movement.

Re:Where does it say conscious creation is require

[Devoidoid]

4'33" isn't silence, it's a musician or musicians, with their instruments, in a performance space, not playing. Yes, the score is a completely conscious creation. The results of each performance sound different, but so does any live performance of music.

Re:Will someone please think of the (monkey) child

[Devoidoid]

paying money to have sex is illegal in most places.

but not if you film it and sell tickets at a movie theater.

Actually, this is only true in Southern California. Historically, most pornographers who faced obscenity charges also faced prostitution charges. This is almost never enforced any more, but it's still the law in most of the US.

Re:If you don't copy it, it isn't copyright violat

[jbeaupre]

One minor flaw in that logic. Call it the Schrodinger Cat paradox of Monkey Copyright. Monkeys can be typing randomly, which is fine. But at some point you have to confirm they duplicated the original works.

Unless you can guarantee randomness can produce a specific sequence in a finite time (statistically you can't), you have to periodically check the monkeys' work. It that confirmation that the output is identical that would indicate copying. Extremely inefficient way to copy, but copy none the less.

Re:Animals Don't Have Rights

[RockDoctor]

The copyright owner would be the human who owns the camera, the digital film, and created the situation where the photos were taken.

If the relevant law is written like that, I'd be utterly astonished. Leaving aside which law is relevant (Indonesia, where the pictures were taken ; the UK, where initial publication appears to have been based (Daily Flail) ; or the US, where I assume that TechDirt is based), a lawyer who wrote up legislation like that should be hung, drawn and quartered (more slowly than usual). Why? Because such a specification would utterly fall apart as soon as you had someone using a rented or borrowed camera. Or even worse, say a rented camera, into which s/he put a SD (or whatever) card borrowed from someone else, then took some photos of a situation which someone else had set up (e.g. a wedding).

I don't have a lot of respect for lawyers in general, but such a poorly phrased piece of legislation would fall below the logical standards of even a US Congressman.

The human photographer below owns the pictures

I dispute your assertion, regardless of the question of which country's laws apply.

That we are even discussing this..

[severn2j]

..shows what a farce copyright law has become..