The Monkey Won!
Nov 8, 2017 07:36:15 #
Not one to give up, that macaque and PETA spend untold boat loads of money and finally won a court decision. The monkey will get a 25% royalty on sales of his self-portrait.
The law says that the one pushing the shutter button owns the photo, so be careful who or what activates that shutter. This could change wildlife photography practices forever. You might have to give royalties to the camera's self-timer. How about animals that take their picture as a result of activating a motion-sensitive switch? Would thunder and lightning own the rights to a picture taken by sound or light activation?
The law says that the one pushing the shutter button owns the photo, so be careful who or what activates that shutter. This could change wildlife photography practices forever. You might have to give royalties to the camera's self-timer. How about animals that take their picture as a result of activating a motion-sensitive switch? Would thunder and lightning own the rights to a picture taken by sound or light activation?
Nov 8, 2017 07:56:07 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Not one to give up, that macaque and PETA spend un... (show quote)
It wasn't a court decision, it was a settlement. And the money doesn't go to the monkey, it goes to a conservation organization.
Nov 8, 2017 08:12:03 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Not one to give up, that macaque and PETA spend un... (show quote)
The monkey was deemed not to have any rights under the law from what I recall. The photographer lost, PETA lost, and PETA increased its reputation as a PITA.
Nov 8, 2017 11:01:54 #
The Photographer, David Slater, is broke, and is considering becoming a Tennis Coach to make a living. That or walking dogs.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/asia/monkey-selfie-settlement/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/asia/monkey-selfie-settlement/index.html
Nov 8, 2017 11:51:13 #
Peterff wrote:
The monkey was deemed not to have any rights under the law from what I recall. The photographer lost, PETA lost, and PETA increased its reputation as a PITA.
If neither the photographer, the monkey nor PETA owns the copyright - who does?
Is it in the public domain? That's what the commentator said but the court's ruling is not consistent with that.
Whose permission is needed to post it on UHH? Can we post a hot link to it? Can we download and re-post a copy?
Nov 8, 2017 11:58:29 #
selmslie wrote:
If neither the photographer, the monkey nor PETA owns the copyright - who does? CNN?
Whose permission is needed to post it on UHH?
Whose permission is needed to post it on UHH?
That seems to be in the zone system, 50 shades of grey (or gray)! So far, the monkey doesn't own the copyright, so it would probably default to the human photographer, the settlement may address that, although I haven't seen the details. Either way, the monkey is no better or worse off, the photographer has been screwed, and PETA gets a new version of its acronym: Photographers Eviscerating Troublesome Activists.
Nov 8, 2017 12:51:58 #
Peterff wrote:
PITA.
I thought my husband and I were the only ones to use that abbreviation!
Nov 8, 2017 19:04:05 #
SueScott wrote:
I thought my husband and I were the only ones to use that abbreviation!
I thought it stood for People Eating Tasty Animals.
Nov 8, 2017 20:46:42 #
selmslie wrote:
If neither the photographer, the monkey nor PETA owns the copyright - who does?
Is it in the public domain? That's what the commentator said but the court's ruling is not consistent with that.
Whose permission is needed to post it on UHH? Can we post a hot link to it? Can we download and re-post a copy?
Is it in the public domain? That's what the commentator said but the court's ruling is not consistent with that.
Whose permission is needed to post it on UHH? Can we post a hot link to it? Can we download and re-post a copy?
You CAN'T!!
BUT, if you ask the monkey nicely, the monkey might post it for you!!!
SS
Nov 9, 2017 05:54:35 #
Nov 9, 2017 06:35:33 #
I'm sure Getty has their nose in it. LOL
selmslie wrote:
If neither the photographer, the monkey nor PETA owns the copyright - who does?
Is it in the public domain? That's what the commentator said but the court's ruling is not consistent with that.
Whose permission is needed to post it on UHH? Can we post a hot link to it? Can we download and re-post a copy?
Is it in the public domain? That's what the commentator said but the court's ruling is not consistent with that.
Whose permission is needed to post it on UHH? Can we post a hot link to it? Can we download and re-post a copy?
Nov 9, 2017 06:35:48 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
jerryc41 wrote:
Not one to give up, that macaque and PETA spend un... (show quote)
Absolutely, you are right, all the animals should receive money for their troubles. Camera companies should take note and come out with a new line of animal friendly camera's specifically designed for paws, claws, and tallon's.
Drones are OUT, hawks and birds with camera's rubber banded to them are IN.
Nov 9, 2017 06:56:32 #
Just thinking logically, without having access to the agreement, if the Court approved the settlement then the Court must have ruled the photographer has the rights; otherwise, the photographer's agreement to give 25% of proceeds from the image to conservation groups wouldn't be valid.
Nov 9, 2017 07:46:47 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
It wasn't a court decision, it was a settlement. And the money doesn't go to the monkey, it goes to a conservation organization.
U. S. Court of Appeals. The macaque won 25% of any royalties. Naruto, the macaque, doesn't have a bank account, or even a piggy bank, so all of his money will go to the Sulawesi wildlife preserve.
https://www.lightstalking.com/smiling-monkey-wins-royalty-rights-to-famous-selfie/
Nov 9, 2017 08:09:31 #
Longshadow wrote:
I thought it stood for People Eating Tasty Animals.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.