Slashdot Mirror
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."
Can a Monkey Get a Copyright & Issue a Takedown?
Maybe a million monkeys could do it, as they do with Shakespeare.
Sue them, on behalf of the monkeys.
Yeah, but what about derivative works like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwjones/5914210045/ or this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwjones/5914755036/
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
And they take better pictures than I do...
Of course it wasn't a DMCA takedown notice, the Daily Mail is based in the UK.
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.
Would an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of cameras still have more fun flinging poo?
And companies. Don't forget companies! They have the same rights as people too!
Tibbon
tibbon.com
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.
[citation needed]
that is an interesting belief you hold, it is not, however based on any semblance of reality
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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.
[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]
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
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And people say we monkey around....
Vermifax
Logout
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.
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.
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.
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.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
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."
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...
It's kinda scary imagining what speciesist means to a jackal-headed man.
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Now this qualifies to be a monkey business
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?
Great Intellect...
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.)
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.
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.
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.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
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
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!