copyright nonsense

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...copyright.html

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

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.

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)

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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