Discussion in 'other software & services' started by SweX, Aug 7, 2014.
Yes, I own the copyright. Give me the money.
Haha I actually thought I would include @vojta as a joke in the post but then I changed my mind and decided not to do that
If you don't have money I would consider maní.
I assume he accepts bitcoins
So I guess the technicians should get all the copyright in music and movie industries.
So I suppose Wikimedia got the monkey's permission?
Wikimedia is such a trustworthy organization run by such honest people.
But then, wouldn't the monkey had to have gotten permission to use the camera to be able claim possession of the photos?
It really doesn't matter; Wikipedia cares little about facts.
Yes! Arrest the monkey!
If the item had been a gun instead of a camera, and the monkey had shot a bunch of people, this guy wouldn't want to claim ownership of that. It's all a matter of perspective...
Guess what; it wasn't a gun! And what the guy would want to claim doesn't matter!
There are more to facts than perspective and senseless arguments.
BTW: who said anything about arresting the monkey? You're full of red herring aren't you? Try to stick to the subject.
Oh wow even monkeys do selfies these days. My socialization skill just has been exceeded by a mere monkey aaaaaaaaaaaa
Wait a minute, wait a minute the pictures were taken in the territory of my country! We should get royalty for that too!
You guys are no fun. Not like this is a serious topic anyway...
Considered using this as desktop. Very cool photo. Looks totally natural & like he's having a good time.
While this may yet wind up in court, Wikipedia simply pointed out to the (human) photographer that under U.S. law, for all the setting-up and other preliminaries he did, he didn't actually take the pic himself so he has no legal copyright status as its "creator". Neither does the monkey, since copyright ownership must belong to a human, so WP's opinion (and courts will almost certainly agree) is that the photo(s) is/are in the public domain.
Do you actually know the law, or are you just giving your opinion based on what Wikipedia has said and as to what the courts would "almost certainly agree" to?
I don't know the law either, but the photographer was the one who originally had complete control over the photos and when and how they would be released. As pointed out before, it was produced at his expense, on his equipment, and he did not give anyone else permission to use his equipment to take the photos.
So, while this is a fun topic, and it's "cool" to side with Wikipedia in denying the photographer any compensation, I don't believe anyone can truthfully say that Wikipedia is above board and acting with good intentions. If they're legally right in appropriating the images, it's a loophole in the law they're trying to take advantage of.
As someone pointed out in the article:
"Wikimedia's editors are split on the legal issues. One user, Saffron Blaze, said in a comment section associated with the photo: "I am not sure I am convinced by the no copyright argument. In this case the outcome was very disrespectful of the photographer who created the conditions that allowed these photos to be created. There are some jurisdictions where even the monkey could be imbued with the copyright as its creator.""
But then, Wikipedia isn't known for their integrity, IMO.
Hmmm ... a story found in the Telegraph.
You know what they say about monkeys and typewriters.......
Just in case someone doesn't know it goes something like this: Given enough time and enough monkeys typing on typewriters, they will produce a novel, but you'll never recoup the money you spent in monkey feed, because Wikimedia will steal it. Given much less time, fewer and less intelligent monkeys, they will produce a newspaper editorial. Give one demented deaf, dumb, and blind monkey an hour or so and he'll produce a Wikipedia article.
They work for the Telegraph?
Oh, this made me laugh out loud!
Monkey is thing (res) as camera in law,so it can't have anything in own possesion so, owner of copyright on photos is owner of camera IF HE DIDN'T LEFT CAMERA ON OWN WISH AND WIKIPEDIA FOUND IT IN JUNGLE AND GOT IT.In that case copyright can be in public domain,or Wikipedia's.
Well, does the photographer have the models written consent to publish the portrait ?
Then he owes the monkey a whole lot of bananas.
I think that greedy weasel should just stick 'his' copyright where the sun don't shine and if he needs to make money :
GET A REAL JOB .
Admittedly my knowledge of the current appropriate law is antique by several decades now, but I did spend a number of years as a law clerk for a law firm specializing in patent, trademark, and copyright matters. Also, I never did look at Wikipedia, and I apologize for the misleading "Wikipedia ... pointed out ..." wording which implied that I did ... the wording was more or less a verbatim quote from the Reuters news item where I first saw this story.
(Edit, afterthought) While I agree that the whole legal system relating to intellectual property rights desperately needs revised and updated (look at just the computer hardware/software/firmware field, for instance), under the US laws as they stood way back then, neither the photographer nor the ape would have had any proprietary rights under the circumstances, and the finished product would have public-domain status.
the guys should own the picture, it doesn't matter if the monkey clicked on the trigger or not.
the guy went over there to great expense and set up the equipment in the forest.
there would have been no picture without his presence.
sometimes, art is made with the providence of some good luck.
Separate names with a comma.