Monkey takes picture

And yet there are still folks, even on this thread, who are rooting for the human to make the money from the copyright of this data.

More than one monkey is featured on this thread.
 


galacon said:
WEPREZ_zps736541e2.jpg
Click to expand...

LOL galacon

1373259113_mah-nigga-gif.gif
 
Technically nobody owns the photo, but I think this is something that could theoretically be fought in court on the grounds that he facilitated the conditions for the photo to happen. He took the trip, he owns the camera, he wanted monkey pictures.
 
lukep said:
And yet there are still folks, even on this thread, who are rooting for the human to make the money from the copyright of this data.

More than one monkey is featured on this thread.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't we? We're in the data business. It's his creative and technical knowledge and efforts that facilitated the creation of this image. Should people's creative work not be protected? Photos, paintings, graphic design, video, audio, the written word... if you created it then it's yours and yours alone to make a living from unless you license it to others or someone steals it from you.

To claim otherwise is lunacy.
 
Fatbat said:
Why wouldn't we? We're in the data business. It's his creative and technical knowledge and efforts that facilitated the creation of this image. Should people's creative work not be protected? Photos, paintings, graphic design, video, audio, the written word... if you created it then it's yours and yours alone to make a living from unless you license it to others or someone steals it from you.

To claim otherwise is lunacy.
Click to expand...
Data isn't what 99% of everyone thinks it is; it's closer to poetry than an asset... And there's nothing you can do to truly keep it out of the hands of people who haven't paid for it other than to store it on the blockchain.

To be in the data business one should consistently find/create/curate gobs of data on a regular basis and hope that other people appreciate you for your consistency as a source of data release... But "ownership" over one single chunk of data is foolhardy at best, and can be downright harmful at worst.

To claim otherwise is simply uneducated.
 
literally, monkey business.! as reported by telegraph, monkey snatched camera from photographer and took his own selfie and now there is a copyright lawsuit..
 
librasagi said:
literally, monkey business.! as reported by telegraph, monkey snatched camera from photographer and took his own selfie and now there is a copyright lawsuit..
Click to expand...

Get the fuck out, you scum-sucking, pus-dripping, chancre-encrusted, nasty little shitbag- GTFO GTFO GTFO

GTFO. BAN.
 
lukep said:
Don't hate the messenger; truth is truth whether or not I speak it.
Click to expand...

Truth is, at least half of the technology we enjoy today would be non-existent if it wasn't for IP law.

So let me get this right... we should leave in a free-market, capitalist society free of govt intervention, that also hands out trade secrets like candy, and makes all IP accessible to the public?
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
Truth is, at least half of the technology we enjoy today would be non-existent if it wasn't for IP law.
Click to expand...
False.

Just because you remove one incentive doesn't mean all possible incentives can't exist. A different funding structure would replace what we have now.


Kiopa_Matt said:
So let me get this right... we should leave in a free-market, capitalist society free of govt intervention, that also hands out trade secrets like candy, and makes all IP accessible to the public?
Click to expand...
If we lived in a free-market, capitalist society free of govt intervention, then there would be an understanding that trade secrets must really be kept secret, and contracts with stiffer penalties than we have today would be the things enforcing them. It drives me crazy when people assume that just because you don't like how something is done now means you can't do that thing at all... There are many ways to skin EVERY cat.

I think you'd learn a lot from these recent IP-in-anarchy videos... Tucker is one of the biggest names in the modern liberty movement today, literally owning the publishing house for the largest number of free-market capitalism books in print... And the Liberty.me social network too. Kinsella is an IP lawyer trying to tear it all down from the inside.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSIpJLnhRCI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSIpJLnhRCI[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3AuTrCq5ws"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3AuTrCq5ws[/ame]
 
Despite the fact that the monkey took the picture, the photographer still owns the copyright for the photograph, because he (presumably) applied artistic/creative skills in the editing of the digital image before publishing the photograph.

In similar situations such as this, there would be two interests created in the photograph: 1) by the person who took the picture; and 2) by the person who edited the picture. In this case, since the monkey cannot own the copyright, I would expect the photographer would own it.

Plenty of relevant case law that backs this up...
 
bambu said:
Despite the fact that the monkey took the picture, the photographer still owns the copyright for the photograph, because he (presumably) applied artistic/creative skills in the editing of the digital image before publishing the photograph.
Click to expand...

No...

MONKEY -> Created original work that can't be copyrighted since he took the photograph.

HUMAN -> Published monkey's original work with potentially subtle changes such as contrast, color, cropping. Far below what courts would allow for the threshold of embodying a derivative work, which the photographer demonstratively didn't do.

bambu said:
In similar situations such as this, there would be two interests created in the photograph: 1) by the person who took the picture; and 2) by the person who edited the picture. In this case, since the monkey cannot own the copyright, I would expect the photographer would own it.

Plenty of relevant case law that backs this up...
Click to expand...

"In similar situations...."

"Plenty of case law...."

Your examples only make sense in a human & human world of additional claimants, contractual obligations and work for hire. All of which don't apply to this topic.

No one owns or can own the original work, if monkeys could own copyright then he would, since he can't - no one can.

I've read the photographers complaints and he doesn't even push this angle, because he knows he doesn't have it. He talks about the hard work of getting the camera in the monkeys hands, which is completely irrelevant to copyright law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom