Copyright

[Black Pearl]

Properly interesting argument.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/313...kedown-request

[Glenn NK]

Yes, interesting for sure.

I will not ever post an image on a website that is commercially controlled, and now here is another reason.

And I strongly suspect he won't either - again.

The old adage "there is no free lunch" is being proven again. So I guess he doesn't have my sympathy.

"You can take them to school, but you can't make them learn."

[Mark von Kanel]

mmm very interesting, so if i set my camera up with control my nikon software to take a picture of my wifes bees via motion detector, the bee owns the copyright....? or is it my wife as their representative ?

confused? you will be!

[John 2]

I strongly suspect that Wiki didn't think that he would challenge them but he has. The outcome will be interesting and I suspect that if it gets into a court of law (some chance!), other factors like who set the camera up and more significantly, who's idea was it will play a part. Most of the intellectual property must attach to the idea rather than who or what pulled the trigger.

[Shadowman]

I still think it was a stall tactic by Wiki, generate enough traffic to your website, keep your name in the news, and enjoy the benefit of free photography.

[NorthernFocus]

I've been doing everything I can to prevent my wife from stumbling onto the article. She's always telling me a monkey could take better photos than me. Yet ANOTHER thing that she's right about....

[John 2]

I've been doing everything I can to prevent my wife from stumbling onto the article. She's always telling me a monkey could take better photos than me. Yet ANOTHER thing that she's right about....

[IzzieK]

I've been doing everything I can to prevent my wife from stumbling onto the article. She's always telling me a monkey could take better photos than me. Yet ANOTHER thing that she's right about....

So if you accidentally drop your camera (God forbid!) and the shutter button was accidentally pressed in the process (impossible to happen but you'll never know...), the world owns the copyright if it happened to be that good of a shot?

Next time the wifey criticized your shots, blame the dog...

[Shadowman]

If a friend borrows your camera and takes an award winning shot but forgets to remove it from the camera, who owns the copyright?

[davidedric]

[QUOTE]So if you accidentally drop your camera (God forbid!) and the shutter button was accidentally pressed in the process (impossible to happen but you'll never know...), the world owns the copyright if it happened to be that good of a shot?[QUOTE]

Not quite. Clearly, dropping your camera was an act of God, so it follows that.........

[pnodrog]

[QUOTE=davidedric;437690][QUOTE]So if you accidentally drop your camera (God forbid!) and the shutter button was accidentally pressed in the process (impossible to happen but you'll never know...), the world owns the copyright if it happened to be that good of a shot?

Not quite. Clearly, dropping your camera was an act of God, so it follows that.........

No - dropping the camera is an act of the photographer (yes, maybe a negligent act) and if it was a great shot they should claim all the credit they can and hope it earns them enough to repair the camera.

If you are a writer dictating to a typist does not make the typist the copyright owner. If I get a gorilla to take the photographs for me under my control and direction must be the same as a film director having cameramen working for him. Peter Jackson will have nightmares if his camera crew ended up with the copyright......

[Inkanyezi]

If a friend borrows your camera and takes an award winning shot but forgets to remove it from the camera, who owns the copyright?

This one is pretty simple. The friend who took the images owns the copyright according to copyright law.

Now "copyright" per se, are different concept, even if related. All countries do not have the same intellectual property laws, even though there are international treaties over the subject. In short, there are slight differences, and most countries have agreed to respect intellectual property according to the Berne convention.

What may remain a bit unclear about the originator of a work of several authors is the amount of creativity contributed by each one. Thus when two or more people have shared efforts in creating a work, copyright is distributed among them, and they may each one initiate legal action upon infringement.

It is also quite clear that only humans are applicable. A monkey or the monkey's agent cannot claim intellectual property on behalf of the monkey.

What is less clear to many people however is that in most jurisdictions, only the originator of the work, the author, can own intellectual rights. They cannot belong to a company or other juridical body, that was not the author and is not a physical person, except in the case of computer programs, where special rules apply. The caveat is that this is not exactly the same for all countries, and the law that applies is that of the country where the copyright owner resides, or the one where the work was created.

The convention is also interpreted differently in different countries, as for example Belize, where work must be documented in tangible form in order to have protection, while most other countries protect for example choreography, whether it is written down, recorded, or not.

So in essence, the creator or intellectual property owns rights to it. When two or more people are involved, each one owns rights according to their part in the creation, and only people have such rights according to intellectual property law. Interpretation varies, and there are slight differences in different countries. Afaik, no country grants intellectual property rights to animals, and work created by animals thus is not covered by intellectual property law.

[pnodrog]

There is a difference between creativity and tools. If an animal is just providing the tool/transport but not the intellectual input I think the photographer retains the copyright.

I doubt that the National Geographic and the researchers would forego copyright without a fight. Camera on shark link

[dabhand]

Could be a case of monkey see - monkey do, in which case is that imitation or parody ?

Seriously, does anyone care ?

steve

[Mike Buckley]

[Copyright] cannot belong to a company or other juridical body, that was not the author and is not a physical person, except in the case of computer programs, where special rules apply.

A lot of books on my bookshelf are copyrighted by companies, both profit and nonprofit, who did not author the book.

[John 2]

I can only speak for English Law (Scottish Law may well be different) under which a commercial organisation can be the "First Owner" of copyright in fact from memory, English Law differentiates between Intellectual property created by an employee and that created by someone under contract to the organisation involved. In the latter case the author may retain some rights. Additionally, the original copyright owner can sell or licence their ownership including to a commercial organisation as in (I think?) the Beatles selling copyright in their music to the Sony Corporation. But the central point is sound.

[Inkanyezi]

A lot of books on my bookshelf are copyrighted by companies, both profit and nonprofit, who did not author the book.

Rightly so, but you did not quote me correctly.

[Mike Buckley]

Rightly so, but you did not quote me correctly.

Is a copyright not an intellectual right? If not, I quoted you incorrectly. If so, I quoted you correctly. Please explain.

[Inkanyezi]

All intellectual rights are not "copyright", and copyright applies only in those countries where that term is valid.

There are simply different rules in different countries, even though all countries that have agreed to the Berne convention respect the intellectual property laws of other countries.

Infringements however, are treated according to law in the country where they originate.

[Mike Buckley]

You didn't answer my question about whether a copyright is an intellectual right.