The folks at the U.S. Copyright Office don’t monkey around when it comes to enforcing copyright laws, but there’s one case that has them all scratching their heads- the case of the monkey selfie.
In 2011 photographer David Slater was visiting an Indonesian national park to shoot some nature pics when a crested black macaque got ahold of his camera and shot some historic selfies.
These selfies have created a bit of a conundrum over who owns the rights to the pics- David understandably claims he does, but Wikimedia Commons claims that the macaque actually owns the copyright to the photos.
(Images Via David Slater/Caters News Agency/Unnamed macaque)
Wikimedia refuses to take down the photo, which they've been distributing for free on their site, because the macaque hit the shutter button and therefore, in their eyes, owns the copyright.
What do you think- can a macaque own the rights to a photo, or does David retain all rights because it was his camera?
-Via Laughing Squid
Animals are not people under the law. They cannot own property. You cannot leave your house to your dog in your will. Therefore the only person with a claim to ownership is David Slater. He is also likely the one responsible for the equipment used to take the images and the initial distribution of these images.
If you're asking me? Neither. He had no deal with the macaque, nor would he be able to enter into one. And he was unaware the photos even existed until later.
503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.
In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable.
The problem with that argument is that the work was not created by mechanical process or random selection. The process was not primarily mechanical and the camera did not randomly appear in the jungle. It was transported there by a human. Its batteries were charged by a human. The memory card was downloaded by a human. The fact that an animal pressed the shutter is irrelevant. It's no different than when an animal triggers a motion sensor attached to a camera belonging to National Geographic, and they most certainly hold the copyright to those photos.
Did he sign a release form?