If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On 2014-08-22 04:51:25 +0000, sobriquet said:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...copyright.html You are a couple of weeks late to this story. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On 22/08/2014 12:51 AM, sobriquet wrote:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...copyright.html I missed the original threads, but legally an animal can't own a copyright unless contract law has changed. This is a stupid as the USPTO granting Amazon the patent of shooting against a white background. -- Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On Friday, August 22, 2014 5:09:35 PM UTC+2, Usenet Account wrote:
[..] I missed the original threads, but legally an animal can't own a copyright unless contract law has changed. This is a stupid as the USPTO granting Amazon the patent of shooting against a white background. If nothing else, this serves to illustrate that today's camera technology is so good that even a monkey should be able to take a decent picture. http://i.imgur.com/CFxWvm0.jpg (except for the crop and rotation afterwards) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
In article , Usenet Account
wrote: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...ho_owns_the_co pyright.html I missed the original threads, but legally an animal can't own a copyright unless contract law has changed. in this case the photographer legally can't have a copyright because the photographer didn't take the photo. the monkey did. therefore, nobody owns it. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On 2014-08-22 17:10:16 +0000, nospam said:
In article , Usenet Account wrote: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...ho_owns_the_co pyright.html I missed the original threads, but legally an animal can't own a copyright unless contract law has changed. in this case the photographer legally can't have a copyright because the photographer didn't take the photo. the monkey did. therefore, nobody owns it. However, the photographer/camera owner chose to run those files though PP and to publish his finished work. Just because his story tells how the images came to be, shouldn't create a loophole for Wikimedia to drive though to enter the public domain. His claim to copyright not too different from an agency or studio holding copyright. See what Getty or Magnum feels about copyright they own when all of their work comes from cameras & photographers they don't own. Even NatGeo sponsored photographers usually have a rights agreement with NatGeo. Ultimately who funded the trip and the purchase of equipment to make it possible for the image to exist? ....and Mr. Slater could have chosen not to publish it denying all an interesting capture, or he could have left out the story of the monkey selfie completely. Then even if the monkey had tripped the shutter the ownership would have been undisputedly Slater's. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On Friday, August 22, 2014 7:10:16 PM UTC+2, nospam wrote:
[..] in this case the photographer legally can't have a copyright because the photographer didn't take the photo. the monkey did. therefore, nobody owns it. So if people set up their camera to take pics with motion detection, they can't claim copyright either, because effectively the animals are taking their own picture by triggering the motion detection mechanism? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
In article ,
sobriquet wrote: in this case the photographer legally can't have a copyright because the photographer didn't take the photo. the monkey did. therefore, nobody owns it. So if people set up their camera to take pics with motion detection, they can't claim copyright either, because effectively the animals are taking their own picture by triggering the motion detection mechanism? they can, because the person set up the equipment, composed the scene, and configured it to automatically take a photo. they did all the work. with the monkey, the monkey grabbed the camera from the photographer and then took a pic of himself. the monkey did it all. the photographer had nothing to do with the photo, other than his camera was used. if a person had taken his camera and took a selfie, that person would have had the copyright. however, a monkey can't have a copyright. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On Friday, August 22, 2014 8:20:06 PM UTC+2, nospam wrote:
In article , they can, because the person set up the equipment, composed the scene, and configured it to automatically take a photo. they did all the work. Ok, so if they just put their camera on a chain to prevent it from being taken away and let the monkey take the pics themselves (with or without motion detection), then there is no copyright on the pictures, but if the photographer fixates the camera on a tripod, now suddenly he has done a lot of work and he has the copyright when pics are taken with motion detection? with the monkey, the monkey grabbed the camera from the photographer and then took a pic of himself. the monkey did it all. the photographer had nothing to do with the photo, other than his camera was used. Maybe the photographer has configured his camera so it's set to automatically focus on the eyes if it detects them in a scene, and automatic exposure and everything, so the act of just pressing the shutterbutton isn't really the most essential aspect of the creative process. Likewise, if the camera shoots lots of megapixels, you can compose (crop and rotate) afterwards, so if you just get other aspects of the photo right, it doesn't matter whether the image is carefully composed or not. To some degree one might even say the creative process happens afterwards where you spot a good picture in a very large selection of failed or mediocre pics. Given that cameras have so much memory and one can shoot endless pics so the chances are higher there are some good ones amongst them. if a person had taken his camera and took a selfie, that person would have had the copyright. however, a monkey can't have a copyright. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
copyright nonsense
On 2014-08-22 18:49:46 +0000, sobriquet said:
On Friday, August 22, 2014 8:20:06 PM UTC+2, nospam wrote: In article , they can, because the person set up the equipment, composed the scene, and configured it to automatically take a photo. they did all the work. Ok, so if they just put their camera on a chain to prevent it from being taken away and let the monkey take the pics themselves (with or without motion detection), then there is no copyright on the pictures, but if the photographer fixates the camera on a tripod, now suddenly he has done a lot of work and he has the copyright when pics are taken with motion detection? with the monkey, the monkey grabbed the camera from the photographer and then took a pic of himself. the monkey did it all. the photographer had nothing to do with the photo, other than his camera was used. Maybe the photographer has configured his camera so it's set to automatically focus on the eyes if it detects them in a scene, and automatic exposure and everything, so the act of just pressing the shutterbutton isn't really the most essential aspect of the creative process. Likewise, if the camera shoots lots of megapixels, you can compose (crop and rotate) afterwards, so if you just get other aspects of the photo right, it doesn't matter whether the image is carefully composed or not. To some degree one might even say the creative process happens afterwards where you spot a good picture in a very large selection of failed or mediocre pics. Given that cameras have so much memory and one can shoot endless pics so the chances are higher there are some good ones amongst them. if a person had taken his camera and took a selfie, that person would have had the copyright. however, a monkey can't have a copyright. Just do the normal human thing. Lie about how the shutter got tripped. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders? | Colin B | Digital Photography | 191 | January 19th 07 09:00 AM |
HOA nonsense | Tony Rice | Digital Photography | 6 | October 3rd 06 09:04 AM |
nonsense posts | Robert | Digital Photography | 9 | April 26th 06 12:57 AM |
Nonsense Posts? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 8 | April 16th 06 08:16 AM |
What's this "mint" nonsense? | WinkenBlinken& Nod | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | July 1st 03 07:51 AM |