• Cows in the UK outfitted with "smart collars" can notify farmers when they're sick or in heat. The collars use the same kind of 3D sensor that is found in Wii video game controllers to detect movement. [url]
• A monkey in China with two sensor chips implanted in its brain can control a robot hand with its thoughts. The sensors monitor 200 neurons in the monkey's motor cortex, and its brain signals are translated into real-time robotic finger movements. [url]
• Alex, an African grey parrot, had mathematical abilities that were at least as good as those of chimpanzees. He had been trained to count objects, and could add two numbers up to a total sum of eight, or add two sets of objects up to a total sum of six. [url]
• To discover more interesting biological curiosities, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

• A prototype device for two-way communication with dolphins is going to try to talk with wild dolphins near the Florida coastline. This project is also trying to co-develop a language with dolphins, instead of trying to force a human-made language upon our flippered friends. [url]
• Pet parrots released into the wild are apparently teaching other birds how to say some human expressions. And just like high school kids learning a foreign language, these birds have picked up a lot of swear words. [url]
• Chimps that were taught sign language have been observed teaching sign language to their young. Monkey see. Monkey do! [url]
• To discover more interesting biological curiosities, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

"Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five pages consisting largely of the letter S, they began by attacking the keyboard with a stone, then proceeded to urinate and defecate on it."

• There's mounting evidence that fish might be able to use tools. So someday a fish might need a bicycle, like a woman needs a man... [url]
• Bumblebees tackle the traveling salesman problem all the time and seem to get pretty good solutions -- perhaps using some of the same tricks that humans use to try to find optimal solutions. Hmm. Do educated fleas do this kind of thing, too? [url]
• Lizards from Puerto Rico have passed a cognitive test that was designed for birds. Yoda was right about some advanced cognitive skills: "You must unlearn what you have learned." [url]
• To discover more interesting biological curiosities, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

'One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy, said Slater, 46.

'At first there was a lot of grimacing with their teeth showing because it was probably the first time they had ever seen a reflection. 'They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button.

'The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it

'At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to watch.'

‘Until I hear from the monkey’s lawyers, I will stick to the belief that I own the copyright,’ said Mr Slater yesterday.

He obtained the amazing photo when he left his camera around a group of primates on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi.

But he said, although he had left the equipment ‘unmanned’, the suggestion the incident was an accident was wrong.

He claimed he had engineered the shoot, adding: ‘I was the artist behind it.

‘It was my 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.’

Copyright lawyers confirmed that setting up the pictures gave Mr Slater a lawful claim to the copyright.

And experts added the ‘author’ of any copyrighted work had to be a ‘natural’ person – not, it seems, a monkey.

503.03 Works not capable of supporting a copyright claim.

Claims to copyright in the following works cannot be registered in the Copyright Office:

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

Under Indonesian copyright law an author is “a person or some persons.” Miss Monkey is ruled out right there I’m afraid.

Since it’s a British company claiming copyright, any suit is likely to be brought in the UK.  Indonesia is a member of Berne and TRIPs, so the photos should be treated the same as UK works under UK copyright law.  Unfortunately for the monkey, The UK copyright law also defines author as “the person.”  Sorry monkey, it’s not you.

There is a clause in Article 7 of the Indonesian copyright law that specifies if a work is designed by one person and worked out by another, then the one who designed the work gets the copyright. If the photographer had set up the shot and the monkey had just taken the photo, the photographer would likely have the copyright. But the photographer didn’t design anything here. He just left his camera. The monkey did all the designing in the photos, so this article shouldn’t apply.

Perhaps more useful here is Article 9, “If a legal entity announces that a work has originated from it without mentioning a person as the author, then the legal entity shall be deemed to be the author, unless proven otherwise.” The monkey took the photos in an Indonesian national park. The Indonesian government presumably owns that park and is a legal entity. It would seem that if the Indonesian government claimed it was the copyright owner, then it would be. Except for that “unless proven otherwise bit.” But this leads us to another question, does the park own the monkey?

If not having an author as defined under the copyright law is the same as having an unknown author, then Indonesia owns the copyright under Article 10A of the Indonesian copyright law.

Under Section 153, the work only qualifies for copyright protection if it meets requirements in several different areas including the area of author.  Section 154 outlines the requirements the author must meet in order for the work to receive copyright protection. 

• Option one, a British citizen. Pretty sure the Indonesian monkey is not a British citizen.
• Option two, an individual domiciled or resident in the UK. Monkey lives in Indonesia.
• Option three, an individual domiciled or resident in another country to which the relevant provisions of this Part extend. This seems to include any countries to which the UK must extend national treatment with respect to copyright. Since Indonesia is a member of Berne and TRIPS, Indonesia would be one of these countries. It might seem like we need to know if the monkey is an individual, or if it can be domiciled or resident.  But, that doesn’t matter because the first part of Section 154 says “if the author was at the material time a qualifying person.” (emphasis added)

So it appears under UK law, the photos are in the public domain.

Hello,

I have noticed you have used David Slater's images on your website. However we are representing David Slater and syndicating these images on his behalf.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110706/00200314983/monkey-business-can-monkey-license-its-copyrights-to-news-agency.shtml

These images are being used without David's or our permission, therefore can I ask you remove these images from your site immediately.

Please email me to inform me when this done.

Thanks

In response to your email concerning the posting of images that were taken by some monkeys using David Slater's camera, I was hoping you could elaborate on your request for us to remove the images. Your request never uses the word copyright, but in the absence of a copyright claim it is not clear to me on what basis you might be asking that the photos be removed. If you ARE asserting a copyright claim, what is the basis for your claim that Slater holds the copyright on any of the images (and thus, had the right to license them to you)? In the original article, Slater himself apparently admits that the images were an accident from monkeys who happened upon the camera, so I'm trying to understand the basis for claiming that the copyright on the images are Slater's to license?

Separately, we believe strongly that the use of the images in our post was quintessential fair use under US copyright law. The post itself was not about the photos, so much as the copyright issues raised by the photos. As such, displaying the photos as part of that discussion was necessary to make the point. We believe the very nature of the discussion around the copyright question makes this a transformative use of the photos, Furthermore, Section 107 of the Copyright Act lists out "news reporting" as one of the key purposes for which fair use is designed to cover.

As this very discussion relates to the point of our original post, we also intend to make this discussion public, as it would likely further the commentary around the copyright on these images.

Thank you,
Michael Masnick

Michael, regardless of the issue of who does and doesn't own the copyright - it is 100% clear that the copyright owner is not yourself.

You have blatantly 'lifted' these photographs from somewhere - I presume the Daily Mail online. On the presumption that you do not like to encourage copyright theft (regardless of who owns it) then please remove the photographs.