In a story we brought you last week, a monkey grabbed photographer David Slater's camera and took several pictures, including this one of himself. This picture doesn't have a copyright notice, but two other pictures at Mail Online have a watermark from Caters News Agency. Techdirt finds that a little strange.
I don't think anyone is worrying about the monkey filing an infringement suit, but it is an interesting question. Link -Thanks, Marilyn!
Update: Caters News Agency contacted Techdirt, and asked them to take down the two pictures. Someone in the comments offered to pay for the monkey pictures with a picture of a spider. Link -Thanks, wernerna!
(Image credit: an unnamed Indonesian Macaque)
So here's the legal question: how did the copyright get assigned to Caters? I can't see how there's been a legal transfer. The monkeys were unlikely to have sold or licensed the work. I'm assuming that it's likely that the photographer, Slater, probably submitted the photos to the agency, and from a common sense view of things, that would make perfect sense. But from a letter-of-the-law view of things, Slater almost certainly does not hold the copyrights on those images, and has no legal right to then sell, license or assign them to Caters.
I don't think anyone is worrying about the monkey filing an infringement suit, but it is an interesting question. Link -Thanks, Marilyn!
Update: Caters News Agency contacted Techdirt, and asked them to take down the two pictures. Someone in the comments offered to pay for the monkey pictures with a picture of a spider. Link -Thanks, wernerna!
(Image credit: an unnamed Indonesian Macaque)
If computer software automatically files copyrights on digital work (easy to do) then could that create a legal precedent?
If pets can inherit money from owners, animals with assets isn't without precedent...
Sounds like the monkeys caretaker would be obligated to keep funds in a trust for the monkeys benefit...
Clouseau: You play that thing and people give you the muhnay.
Beggar: People give the monkey the money.
Clouseau: It is the same.
Beggar: Oh, no. I am a musician and the monkey is a businessman. He doesn't tell me what to play, and I don't tel him what to do with his money.
Some who are against gay marraige appeal to a slippery slope that next- people will be able to marry animals.
But, animals do not have protected rights under the Constituion. People are saying "I want the right to marry the person of my choice, just like everyone else." No one is saying "I want to marry the animal of my choice, just like everyone else", since no one else has such a right.
As for poligamy, no one has the right to marry multiple people. It doesn't matter if they are straight or gay or whatever, everyone is the same under the law.
As an unpaid intern, whatever work you do in the service of that company does not remain your property, but the property of the company you are working for, right?
So the animals snapping the photos with equipment that belongs to someone else, I guess the copyright remains with the company that made it all possible.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/01182015052/monkeys-dont-do-fair-use-news-agency-tells-techdirt-to-remove-photos.shtml