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

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: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: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

[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

[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.