Who Has the Copyright?

[ballup]

I was listening to a podcast and a topic came up about copyrights and an interesting situation. Apparently, a monkey took a photographer's camera and accidentally took a selfie. The photographer claims that he has the rights to the picture, but Wikimedia commons claims that the picture is public domain.

Do you agree with either side or do you believe that the monkey should have the copyright?

A link to a CBS news article and the website of the photographer are down below
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/monkey-selfie-ignites-a-copyright-dispute/
http://www.djsphotography.co.uk

[KevinNYC]

I was listening to a podcast and a topic came up about copyrights and an interesting situation. Apparently, a monkey took a photographer's camera and accidentally took a selfie. The photographer claims that he has the rights to the picture, but Wikimedia commons claims that the picture is public domain.

Do you agree with either side or do you believe that the monkey should have the copyright?

A link to a CBS news article and the website of the photographer are down below
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/monkey-selfie-ignites-a-copyright-dispute/
http://www.djsphotography.co.uk


Photographer has the copyright as it was on his equipment is how I would rule.


However, if the monkey was chained to the camera and forced to take pictures a la Monty Burns, I would give copyright to the monkey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no_elVGGgW8

[GimmeThat]

I was listening to a podcast and a topic came up about copyrights and an interesting situation. Apparently, a monkey took a photographer's camera and accidentally took a selfie. The photographer claims that he has the rights to the picture, but Wikimedia commons claims that the picture is public domain.

Do you agree with either side or do you believe that the monkey should have the copyright?

A link to a CBS news article and the website of the photographer are down below
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/monkey-selfie-ignites-a-copyright-dispute/
http://www.djsphotography.co.uk

for the fact that the photographer does not own the monkey, but simply the equipments.

I would have a tough time ruling it for the photographer if he intends to file it for copyright and for monetary purposes.

however, if he considers the picture as something to be personal to him, I think he has the right to keep it and not share it with the public.


I don't think he could charge others for it, but I don't think he is liable to share.

[I<3NBA]

if you work at a company and you use their camera to take photos during your free time, who has the copyright?

[gts]

huh... tough call

If the photographer puts the camera down for the monkey to play with knowing/hoping he'll take a selfie that would have to count for something wouldn't it?

[ballup]

Sure he owns the camera, but the dispute is over creative license.

Ownership isn't a great way to go about this. Let's say in a rare situation, someone else has taken child pornography photos on your camera that you don't even use and you only keep it around as a novelty decoration for your home. If the police get their hands on said camera, should you be prosecuted for owning child pornography even though you clearly are not guilty?

[ballup]

huh... tough call

If the photographer puts the camera down for the monkey to play with knowing/hoping he'll take a selfie that would have to count for something wouldn't it?
That is what the photographer is claiming, but people say that he changed his testimony after the legal pursuits. The original story supposedly was that he didn't intend for the monkey to take the camera.

[L.Kizzle]

if you work at a company and you use their camera to take photos during your free time, who has the copyright?
Agreement made?
paper work?

[Gr]

Copyright. :facepalm Complete waste of resources in the legal system. A complete waste of time for society. If you want it to be only yours, keep it to yourself.

[iamgine]

I was listening to a podcast and a topic came up about copyrights and an interesting situation. Apparently, a monkey took a photographer's camera and accidentally took a selfie. The photographer claims that he has the rights to the picture, but Wikimedia commons claims that the picture is public domain.

Do you agree with either side or do you believe that the monkey should have the copyright?

A link to a CBS news article and the website of the photographer are down below
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/monkey-selfie-ignites-a-copyright-dispute/
http://www.djsphotography.co.uk
In this case I would rule for the camera owner.

If a human being took the picture then he should have the right if he can prove that he took the picture. If he can't then it's up to the camera owner whether he wants to give the right to that person.

[Gr]

In this case I would rule for the camera owner.

If a human being took the picture then he should have the right if he can prove that he took the picture. If he can't then it's up to the camera owner whether he wants to give the right to that person.

IMO, he lost his exclusive rights to the picture the second he shared it. He let's something enter the public domain and then cries for the government to flex its muscles for him to suppress others' peaceful actions. Copyright laws are a cancer on society.

[KevinNYC]

[QUOTE=Gr

[KevinNYC]

[QUOTE=Gr

[KevinNYC]

Sure he owns the camera, but the dispute is over creative license.

Ownership isn't a great way to go about this. Let's say in a rare situation, someone else has taken child pornography photos on your camera that you don't even use and you only keep it around as a novelty decoration for your home. If the police get their hands on said camera, should you be prosecuted for owning child pornography even though you clearly are not guilty?
This is a bad analogy, but you are clearly guilty of POSSESSION of child pornography which is a crime. You are not guilty of the separate crime of producing child pornography.

[KevinNYC]

http://www.picanova.com/monkeyselfie/

There is a way to get the image for free.

[ballup]

This is a bad analogy, but you are clearly guilty of POSSESSION of child pornography which is a crime. You are not guilty of the separate crime of producing child pornography.
So just because something is on your property or in your property, you are in legal possession of it? If someone else produces something within another thing, of which you own, do you really own the creation as well?

If the other being gives up their ownership to the creation, then it is surely now in your possession. This is a part as to why this copyright situation is tricky. The monkey has no idea of copyright nor how to express the act of giving up legal ownership.

[KevinNYC]

So just because something is on your property or in your property, you are in legal possession of it? If someone else produces something within another thing, of which you own, do you really own the creation as well? /QUOTE]
The way you described in your previous post is clearly legal possession of child pornography[QUOTE]someone else has taken child pornography photos on your camera that you don't even use and you only keep it around as a novelty decoration for your home

[ballup]

[QUOTE=ballup]So just because something is on your property or in your property, you are in legal possession of it? If someone else produces something within another thing, of which you own, do you really own the creation as well? /QUOTE]
The way you described in your previous post is clearly legal possession of child pornography
Should you really be charged with possession of child pornography because they were in your camera and you just so happen to be given them without knowing it?

[KevinNYC]

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]
Should you really be charged with possession of child pornography because they were in your camera and you just so happen to be given them without knowing it?

If you have no knowledge that should be a defense against it. See the quote below, you need "consicious possession." That is, to be charged with the crime you need to know you possess something. However, if you do know the photos exist and you keep them, that is most likely chargeable as possession. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/possession)


However, in criminal cases possession usually requires conscious possession. In other words, the person must be conscious of the fact that the item is illegal and that he or she possesses it. A person with possession of illegal drugs may avoid conviction if he or she believed the drugs were legal. Generally, to be guilty of criminal possession, a person must either know the item is illegal when it is received or must keep possession of the object after learning it is illegal.

[ballup]

"The US Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being," the rules state, adding that "the Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants."
A decision has been made. Wikimedia wins this case. The photo is to be of public domain. (http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Tech-Culture/2014/0822/US-government-Monkey-selfies-ineligible-for-copyright)