Will PETA Now Sue To Control The Copyright In These Cat Selfies?
from the questions-questions-questions dept
As noted recently, PETA isn’t giving up in its quixotic quest to argue that it can represent the interests of an Indonesian selfie-taking monkey, and further that the photos in question have a copyright and that copyright belongs to the monkey (and, by extension, PETA). UK IP professor Andrés Guadamuz recently wrote an interesting paper arguing that there is a copyright in the photograph and it belongs to the guy who owned the camera, David Slater, based on UK copyright law. It’s an interesting read, though others have convincingly argued the opposite, noting that UK law requires a “person” to have created the work.
Either way, it seems this question may not be going away any time soon. Guadamuz has now also posted an amusing blog post highlighting the next potential battleground: a cat who loves to take selfies. I mean, just look at them. While there are some clearer shots, I think this one is clearly the best, based entirely on the cat’s “I’m concentrating here” tongue:
Filed Under: animals, cats, copyright, peta, selfie cat, selfies
Companies: peta
Comments on “Will PETA Now Sue To Control The Copyright In These Cat Selfies?”
Dog1: What is cat doing?
Dog2: Checking the f-stop.
Depends on how popular the image gets
Re: Re:
Well now that the cat is out of the bag …
Now I’m wondering when PETA will discover publicity rights…
Ok next question...
What about game cameras that are set up with motion detectors to trigger the shutter? Are all of those automatically public domain?
Re: Ok next question...
That is a situation we at PETT (People for the Ethical Treatment of Technology) hope to solve.
Re: Re: Ok next question...
How exactly?
Re: Re: Ok next question...
Mind you these sorts of cameras are used for all kinds of other purposes besides hunting. Which also brings me to a separate related issue. Consider the use of one of these cameras set up for security purposes not directly related to the stupid argument over whether a non-human animal can hold a copyright:
If the shutter is triggered by a motion detector on one of these cameras used for security purposes that captures the image of a thief committing a burglary, does the perpetrator then own the copyright to the image?
Re: Ok next question...
As far as I know in those cases there is a valid copyright, and it’s owned by the one who set the cameras up. The owner of a game camera is specifically setting up the camera(s) in such a way to intentionally take shots when certain conditions are met, such as motion being detected within a certain area. They may not be pressing the button to take an individual photo, but they still intentionally set up the situation such that they would be taken.
What made the ‘monkey selfie’ different was that the photo was purely accidental on the part of the only individual capable of owning the copyright(the human owner of the camera), with no intent at all on their part. They didn’t set up the situation(beyond negligence), they didn’t choose when to take the photo or of what, the only link they had to the event was that it involved their camera, which isn’t enough to grant copyright over the resulting photo.
Now had they deliberately left one or more cameras out with the specific intent of hoping that the monkeys would use them, then they might have had a valid copyright claim, but as it stands there was no intent on the part of the only individual involved who was legally capable of owning the copyright to the picture, which means there was no resulting copyright.
Re: Re: Ok next question...
So you are arguing that intent is what sets it apart. Intent (or the lack thereof) can be a pretty high bar to prove one way or another. Also if intent is an important element, it has degrees. Are so called “happy accidents” not covered by copyright simply because the image that was created wasn’t the original image intended by the photographer? The question then becomes where is the line drawn?
Re: Re: Re: Ok next question...
Intent to create something plus actively doing something to create I’d say, and I don’t think it’s that high of a bar to meet.
If someone manages to accidentally take a photo the split second that a lightning bolt strikes, then while they may not have intended to take that photo, they still had the intent of taking a photo, so they’d still get the copyright over the resulting picture.
On the other hand, say they forgot their camera outside, a curious squirrel is checking it out, and startled by the noise of the strike they press the button at just the right moment, taking the exact same photo. Would you still say that the owner of the camera deserved the rights to the picture, even though the only input they had in it’s creation was their carelessness?
If someone splashes paint on a canvas for a piece then they intended to create, and get the rights to it. If someone walking past stumbles, trips, and accidentally sends paint flying on a canvas, do they deserve the ‘rights’ to the resulting picture, for what was for all intents and purposes a completely accidental action?
Re: Re: Re:2 Ok next question...
So taking this “intent implies copyright” logic to the extreme, we will be living in a world where any photo that is released will be accompanied by some boilerplate language along the lines of “I completely and totally intended to take this photo, and therefore I and I alone own the copyright on it”. Even for a frame or clip of a surveillance video. “Yes, I knew that this particular location was very likely to have police brutality happen, and I angled it in just such a way to get this particular shot, so you may not use it to report on the story unless you pay me royalties”.
Re: Re: Re:2 Ok next question...
As I said below in a different thread. This line of thinking is all relatively new and brought about by the digital age. Prior to that ownership of the copyright went with ownership of the original image since there was only one original image and possession of it was sufficient to prove that you owned the copyright and to dispute it you had to prove that the original was somehow unjustly taken from you and if you were successful, the person who was in possession of it was ordered by the court to return it to you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Ok next question...
But still intent often easy to claim in hindsight and often very hard to prove or disprove. I also don’t remember seeing anything in the discussion over the monkey selfie where anyone argued that intent had anything to do with it.
Ah, meme mayhem. And popcorn. I anxiously await for PETA.
Wouldn’t PETA first have to sue to get ownership of the cat?
Re: Re:
Look at that cat. That cat owns all.
He even has a couple of henchdogs to back him up.
What about trailcams / camera traps? Or surveillance video.
At some point the courts are going to have to decide also on cases where a camera is set up in a location and either captures images automatically (e.g. surveillance) or via a trigger that is tripped by a subject entering the scene (trailcams / camera traps).
Wildlife researchers and photographers have been using the latter technique for a while. Granted Steve Winter did a lot in selecting the equipment, settings, angle, etc. But ultimately it was the mountain lion that triggered the shutter at that particular instant:
http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/14/a-cougar-ready-for-his-closeup/
Re: What about trailcams / camera traps? Or surveillance video.
I just asked that.
Re: Re: What about trailcams / camera traps? Or surveillance video.
I must have been typing when you submitted.
Re: What about trailcams / camera traps? Or surveillance video.
I would argue that in the case of a camera trap which is set up in such a way that the equipment cannot easily be moved by the animals you are there to photograph, then the human has the copyright. In David Slater’s case, however, the triggering of the shutter was unintentional, and he therefore has no copyright under UK law.
Vexatious Litigation
Can we classify PETA as a vexatious litigant yet?
Re: Vexatious Litigation
Well, they are litigants and I often find them vexatious…
PETA needs to go
fight a real animal rights battle. At best, they’re a complete joke of an organization.
Re: PETA needs to go
They care more about publicity than about animal rights.
They’re the Susan Komen of Animal Rights groups.
Re: PETA needs to go
Copyright needs to go.
I stopped reading after PETA trying to insist the copyright to the monkey selfie belongs to the monkey.
There is so much concentrated stupid there it should classified as a drug.
Seriously, if you can’t see how stupid it is how a monkey can hold copyright over anything then I’ve lost whatever faith in humanity I still have.
I stopped reading after PETA trying to insist the copyright to the monkey selfie belongs to the monkey.
There is so much concentrated stupid there it should classified as a drug.
Seriously, if you can’t see how stupid it is how a monkey can hold copyright over anything then I’ve lost whatever faith in humanity I still have.
Solution / + SnapCat App
The easy solution is not to tell anyone the animal took the pic (which of course tends to remove any critter-related value enhancement).
SnapCat is an Android app that has a red dot moving around on the screen, and when your cat tries to touch the dot, it takes a shot. I have bunches of terrible shots taken by my cat archived somewhere. Given the right motivations, it’s not terribly hard to get cat to take pictures.
Re: Another solution: keep original private; only release your transformative edit
If you are the sole possessor of the original, then you can make edits (crop, color, contrast, brightness, levels, retouching, etc) so as to render that version copyrightable. I don’t believe there is anything that would compel you to release the original.
Re: Re: Another solution: keep original private; only release your transformative edit
When I shoot, I keep RAW unedited files that I never give to clients or anyone (not that they want unprocessed images anyway) for that reason. With film, perfect duplication is not possible so there is only one original and possession of it so that made a practical standard to base decisions of ownership on that ceases to exist in many cases with digital media.
Re: Re: Another solution: keep original private; only release your transformative edit
I believe the changes have to be sufficient to be what is called “transformative”.
Re: Solution / + SnapCat App
The easy solution is not to tell anyone the animal took the pic…
Perjury, it’s not just for cops anymore.
Elephant [dogs] In The Room
“I think this one is clearly the best, based entirely on the cat’s “I’m concentrating here” tongue”
You thought the most salient thing was the tongue? Not the fact that the cat was lackadaisically snapping selfies while two ferocious, predatory, sworn enemies lurked in the background?
That’s like me taking a picture of you hugging RIAA Cary Sherman, and saying the most notable element was the color of shirt you were wearing.
Re: Elephant [dogs] In The Room
Those dogs are standing ready to do Manny Cat’s bidding. They work for him.
Tie Goes To The Runner
I think it’s clear that there will be copyright cases where the argument for “ownership” isn’t clear. Is there no legal rule-of-thumb that in such cases, NO ownership can be enforced?
I mean, baseball has it figured out. Tie goes to the runner. I suggest the new legal precedent have a rhyme and model itself after the OJ Simpson “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.”
Something like: “If a monkey clicked it, then you can’t have knicked it.”
Re: Tie Goes To The Runner
An interesting point to be made here is that this sort of argument really only came about as a result of the digital imaging technology. Prior to digital cameras, copyright ownership was determined by possession of the original image (ie. the film) which is why professional photographers virtually never gave away original negatives or slides even if they never intended to ever print or publish the image again as a general rule. But with digital imaging, copies can be perfect reproductions of the original making possession of the original image a difficult thing to prove.
Re: Re: Tie Goes To The Runner
Prior to digital cameras, copyright ownership was determined by possession of the original image (ie. the film)
Umm, no, it was not. Copyright belonged to the creator unless it was work for hire or assigned otherwise. You won’t find “whoever has possession of the negative owns the copyright” in copyright law.
The only way this would work is if the judge was a PETAphile.
I always thought
P.E.T.A.
Pinups Enabling Terrible Activities (Y)
"youremahm"
You know who else likes to take selfies?
I’m starting to see why antidirt likes making chicken noises.
Because he’s a rooster, and he’s been trying demand copyright on the noise he calls an argument.
Just when I thought we had enough monkey business to warrant a cat nap for a while look what the cat dragged in. All these legal arguments going around in circles look like a game of cat and mouse.
thirteen@neetriht.com
Just looking forwards to the time when PETA claims copyright to all every single literary work. The exploitation of 100’s of monkey’s on typewriters can’t stop soon enough.
Cat's last selfie
Felix the feline yelled out to his buddies, hey guys, watch this! He then proceeded to jump the fence where Zeus and Thor reside and snap a selfie. Felix was never seen again.
be awful funny if....
be awful funny if , as peta gets to court spends all kinds a cash we have the person thats behind that pic show another person photoing him do this to set them up…..and then counter sue for all the abuses one can in illegally trying to represent his photo.
The persons creative work involved handing the camera to the monkey/animal. Issue solved. it’s the owner of the camera that gets copyright. ( and should be required to split the proceeds with whoever/whatever is in the camera.) Meaning if it’s a tree, then the money should get donated to the “trees of the world”. If it’s a monkey then the funds should be directed to the account that is paying for that monkey to survive.
Problems solved.
First we had a monkey and now it looks like we have a copycat.
Abolish Copyright
Stop the monkey business.