Monkey selfie copyright dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.97.167.58 (talk) at 18:49, 9 March 2015 (→‎Background). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

One of the disputed "selfie" photographs taken by a macaque

The monkey selfies are a series of images taken by a female Celebes crested macaque using equipment belonging to the nature photographer David Slater. The posting of the images on Wikimedia Commons was at the center of a dispute in mid-2014 over whether copyright could be held on artworks made by non-human animals. Slater's claim of copyright on the images was disputed by several scholars and organizations, based on an understanding that copyright was held by the creator, and that a non-human creator (not being a legal person) could not hold copyright. In December 2014, the United States Copyright Office stated that works created by a non-human are not subject to U.S. copyright.

Background

In 2011, British nature photographer David Slater traveled to Indonesia to take photographs of the Celebes crested macaques. During his preparations, a female macaque absconded with his camera and took several photographs. Most of these photographs were unusable, but some were clear photographs of the macaque, which Slater later distributed as a "monkey's selfie".[1] Slater licensed the image to the Caters News Agency, under the presumption that he held copyright to the photo; Slater argued that he had "engineered" the shot, and that "it was artistry and idea to leave them to play with the camera and it was all in my eyesight. I knew the monkeys were very likely to do this and I predicted it. I knew there was a chance of a photo being taken."[2]

Copyright issues

The other disputed image, a full-body selfie

Slater's copyright claim was questioned by the blog Techdirt, which argued that the photograph was in the public domain because the monkey was not a legal person capable of holding a copyright, and Slater could not hold copyright to the photo because he was not involved in its creation.[2][3][4]

Afterward, Caters issued a request for the photo to be removed, citing a lack of permission; however, in response to a reply by the blog's author, Mike Masnick, the representative stated that Masnick had "blatantly 'lifted' these photographs from somewhere—I presume the Daily Mail online", and continued to request its removal (despite Masnick's claim that, if it were even capable of being copyrighted, the photo's use on Techdirt would be considered fair use under United States copyright law), believing that "regardless of the issue of who does and doesn't own the copyright—it is 100% clear that the copyright owner is not yourself."[2][4]

Slater's photographs were also uploaded to the multimedia repository Wikimedia Commons; the site only accepts media that are licensed under a free content license, in the public domain, or otherwise ineligible for copyright. The website had similarly listed Slater's photographs as being in the public domain on the grounds that it was the creation of an animal, and not a person. Slater requested that the Wikimedia Foundation, the owners of Wikimedia Commons, either pay for the photographs or remove them from Wikimedia Commons, claiming that he owned copyright on them. His claim was rejected by the organization, which supported the position that the monkey was the author of the photograph, but cannot hold copyright because it is an animal. The request was revealed as part of a transparency report released by the foundation in August 2014.[1][5]

Slater told BBC News that he had suffered financial loss as a result of the pictures being available on Wikimedia Commons, "I made £2,000 [for that picture] in the first year after it was taken. After it went on Wikipedia all interest in buying it went. It's hard to put a figure on it but I reckon I've lost £10,000 or more in income. It's killing my business."[1] Slater was quoted by The Daily Telegraph as saying, "What they don't realise is that it needs a court to decide [the copyright]."[6]

American and British intellectual property lawyers Mary M. Luria and Charles Swan said that because the creator of the photograph is an animal and not a person, there is no copyright on the photograph, regardless of who owns the equipment with which the photograph was created.[7] However, British media lawyer Christina Michalos said that on the basis of British law on computer-generated art, it is arguable that the photographer may own copyrights on the photograph, because he owned and presumably had set up the camera.[8]

On December 22, 2014, the United States Copyright Office clarified its practices, explicitly stating that works created by a non-human are not subject to copyright, and lists in their examples a "photograph taken by a monkey", which would appear to reference this case.[9][10]

References

  1. ^ a b c "Photographer 'lost £10,000' in Wikipedia monkey 'selfie' row". BBC News. August 7, 2013. Retrieved August 7, 2014.
  2. ^ a b c Masnick, Mike (July 3, 2011). "Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos". Techdirt. Retrieved 24 June 2014.
  3. ^ "Can monkey who took grinning self-portrait claim copyright?". Metro. Retrieved 24 June 2014.
  4. ^ a b Masnick, Mike. "Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain". Techdirt. Retrieved 24 June 2014.
  5. ^ "Wikipedia reveals Google 'forgotten' search links". BBC News. August 6, 2014. Retrieved August 8, 2014.
  6. ^ Sparkes, Matthew (2014-08-06). "Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'". The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved 2014-08-06.
  7. ^ Laurent, Olivier (6 August 2014). "Monkey Selfie Lands Photographer in Legal Quagmire". Time. Time Inc. Archived from the original on 14 August 2014. Retrieved 14 August 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ "Monkey 'selfie' picture sparks Wikipedia copyright row". ITV News. ITV plc. 6 August 2014. Archived from the original on 13 August 2014. Retrieved 14 August 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ Axelrad, Jacob (22 August 2014). "US government: Monkey selfies ineligible for copyright". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 23 August 2014.
  10. ^ "Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, § 313.2" (PDF). United States Copyright Office. December 22, 2014. p. 22. Retrieved December 22, 2014. To qualify as a work of 'authorship' a work must be created by a human being.... Works that do not satisfy this requirement are not copyrightable. The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. The Compendium lists several examples of such ineligible works, including "a photograph taken by a monkey" and "a mural painted by an elephant".

External links