One of our old members, David Slater, has got himself a very interesting case here which would have big implications either way on who/what actually has the copyright in a photograph! Camera traps, workshop setups, can an animal own copyright... what a pandora's box it could turn out to be!
Just goes to show that honesty really does not pay, especially on internet forums
Had he not been honest about how the images were taken he'd be in a much stronger position. By claiming the monkey had nicked his camera and took a pile of selfies might have sounded like a good story but to those with jealous intent it was all they needed to claim he didn't take or set-up the pics so therefore doesn't own the copyright.
Similar situation arose with the Norwegian (think he was) sports photographer at the London Olympics when Usain Bolt borrowed his camera and took a few shots, the photographer never made a penny from them due to copyright issues
No telling how a US court would judge on this one, but one thing to be sure of is that $10k won't take it very far
Is this any different to camera traps in which a remote unmanned trigger device takes a photo; the trigger can be a break beam, focus trap or a pressure plate etc. In these instances the something that took the photograph cannot, due to the fact that it it is not human, be assigned the copyright of the photo, but a photo was taken none the less; in these cases there is little doubt that image is the copyright of the photographer who owns the equipment.
A monkey cannot be assigned copyright, it is not human, but it took the image on equipment owned by David; hence IMHO the copyright is Davids.
This is worth fighting and one of the photographers unions, especially sports photographers who use remote triggers with autofocus traps, should aid David in fighting this else it will cause mayhem in later years.
According to the agencies I submit work to, they regard remote images the same as shot by tog images, simply because the photographers has placed and set-up the camera in anticipation of the shot.
A big worry would be for wedding photographers who leave disposable cameras on the reception tables for guests to use. They would have a hard time persuading anyone to believe that they own the copyright to the shots from these cameras.
Have to say though that the monkey images David got are stunners. And to me the will always be "his" images
Discussion
4 repliesTelegraph Article
Good luck if you do pursue it further David
Had he not been honest about how the images were taken he'd be in a much stronger position. By claiming the monkey had nicked his camera and took a pile of selfies might have sounded like a good story but to those with jealous intent it was all they needed to claim he didn't take or set-up the pics so therefore doesn't own the copyright.
Similar situation arose with the Norwegian (think he was) sports photographer at the London Olympics when Usain Bolt borrowed his camera and took a few shots, the photographer never made a penny from them due to copyright issues
No telling how a US court would judge on this one, but one thing to be sure of is that $10k won't take it very far
A monkey cannot be assigned copyright, it is not human, but it took the image on equipment owned by David; hence IMHO the copyright is Davids.
T
A big worry would be for wedding photographers who leave disposable cameras on the reception tables for guests to use. They would have a hard time persuading anyone to believe that they own the copyright to the shots from these cameras.
Have to say though that the monkey images David got are stunners. And to me the will always be "his" images