As I am learning to integrate my diaries into this community, the question of copyright occurs each time I use any photo, art, or quote. Photos lend a much needed layer of interest to the writing, but I question the legality of every photo I choose to use.
My brother is an amature photographer, and he is touchy about how and where his photographs are used. He insists on retaining full rights to every picture he takes. I would imagine that every photographer has similar feelings about their work. I certainly would be upset if my work was used without my knowledge or consent.
But I always have difficulty knowing what is copyrighted, and it seems to me, only a lawyer with years of experience in copyright law really understands the technicalities of those laws. Unfortunately, ignorance of the law is no defence.
Then something truly bizarre comes along. I don't think anyone ever expected a dilemma like this one!
Join me below the break for this amazing and hilarious story!
According to Rachel Nuwer as published in smithsonian.com on August 7, 2011:
In 2011, professional photographer
David Slater visited Indonesia on a self-funded trip to take images of wildlife. On the trip, the Telegraph writes, a black-crested macaque stole his camera and took dozens of photographs, including some of herself. Slater edited the best of them, including a monkey selfie that garnered considerable attention.
Soon, the image found its way to Wikipedia Commons, which is when the trouble began. Slater insists that he owns the copyright to the image, even though he didn't take it himself. Wikimedia's view, though, is that the monkey took the picture, and since non-humans cannot hold copyrights, the image doesn't have copyright protections at all. (As Sarah Jeong writes, tongue-in-cheek, at the Guardian: "How is an aspiring monkey photographer supposed to make it if she can’t stop the rampant internet piracy of monkey works?")
As
Sherwin Syi of Public Knoweldge informs us, a strong argument exists that no one owns the copyright. Public Knowledge explains:
This is the definition of the public domain—things that are not protected by copyright. We’re used to thinking of the public domain as consisting of things that were in copyright and then aged out of it after a length of time, but that’s just a part of it. There’s also works created by the federal government, and things that simply can’t be protected—like ideas, methods of operation, or discoveries.
The fact that this photo was created recently does play with our instincts a bit—it seems strange for a newly-created image—particularly such a compelling one—might not have a legal author. But our instincts are an unreliable guide in unusual situations like this one.
Should I have obtained the Monkey's signature before using his picture here?
The Monkey is as much a person as a corporation! But, that is a topic for another diary.