Huh. I get that the monkey doesn't own the copyright, US law seems pretty straightforward there. But I don't see how that means that the photographer does own it, since neither is he the creator of the photo; yet the article talks about him benefiting from the funds when it's sold.<p>Anyone know what's up with that?
It's weird this monkey is smarter than a baby but if a baby took a picture it would own the copyright.<p>Seems kind of speciesist to me. It's kind of like the voyager episode where the holographic doctor couldn't own the books he wrote.
If I put a camera inside a tumble dryer and the motion causes the camera to trigger and capture a photo, I think I should still own the rights to the image.<p>The monkey isn't acting with any real understanding of the creative situation so is just an agent of randomness, like the tumble dryer.
Link to the appeal's court ruling? San Francisco court I assume will have it up very quickly, but I'm not sure where to look. Usually people have legal documents posted on Scribd very quickly, but my compulsory search found nothing under "naruto v slater" today
I think its strange that there isn't more discussion about the impact on the photographer and the consequences this lawsuit has had on his life, he is pretty much broke and it seems to have destroyed his career not to mention put him and his family through what I would imagine to be pretty harsh emotional distress over the last couple of years.<p>This article: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/monkey-selfie-macaque-copyright-court-david-slater" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/monkey-s...</a> basically says a couple of months ago he was broke, couldn't afford to replace his equipment or pay his attorney. I hope this result will change his situation but even so this is a huge impact on someone over an issue that realistically is fairly niche.<p>Questions like this are important to be answered, but surely there should also be discussion about was there a better way to do this than ruining someones life over a picture that could never have existed without his direct intervention and creation of the circumstances needed for the monkey to come into contact with the camera.
This has been an absolutely horrendous case that has put the photographer through hell.<p>I have total and complete sympathy with him and support him absolutely. Twunts trying to deny him copyright on the photo (often based on ficticious versions of how the photo was taken) are screaming arses.
The author could have avoided this whole mess and just lied and said that he took the photo<p>"Yeah I made up the story of the monkey taking the selfie, I actually took it myself"<p>It's not like the monkey can refute that story....
Let's not forget Wikipedia/Media's role in this as well: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedi...</a>
Peta were surely way off. But photographer himself also incorrectly claimed copyright on the photo, which is wrong, since he didn't take it. In short, the photo is in public domain.
This was used as an example to question artistic intentionality in aesthetics, in Crash Course Philosophy: <a href="https://youtu.be/gDL4Zf2yEa4?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&t=216" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/gDL4Zf2yEa4?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNk...</a>
As a result of this decision most tech employers can rest easier, secure in the knowledge that they also own the copyrights on code written by monkeys.
The photographer probably feels like this person:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1tsGGz-Qw0" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1tsGGz-Qw0</a><p>And PETA and those ruling against him are jerks of the "friend"'s in the clip caliber.