Content deleted Content added
Tags: Reverted blanking |
Relativity (talk | contribs) Reverting edit(s) by 139.130.234.26 (talk) to rev. 1227383262 by Masem: Unexplained content removal (UV 0.1.5) |
||
Line 25:
===Expert opinions===
Expert opinion on whether Slater owns the copyright on the photographs is mixed. On 21 August 2014 the United States Copyright Office published an opinion, later included in the third edition of the office's ''[[Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices]]'', released on 22 December 2014, to clarify that "only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes
The 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.<ref name="Laurent2014">{{cite news|url=http://lightbox.time.com/2014/08/06/monkey-selfie/?iid=lfaround#1|title=Monkey Selfie Lands Photographer in Legal Quagmire|newspaper=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]|first=Olivier|last=Laurent|date=6 August 2014|access-date=14 August 2014|url-status=dead|archive-date=14 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140814172455/http://lightbox.time.com/2014/08/06/monkey-selfie/#1|publisher=[[Time Inc.]]}}</ref> According to the American legal scholar [[Jessica Litman]], "No human author has rights to a photograph taken by a monkey ... The original monkey selfie is in the public domain". She said that the US Copyright Office was clarifying existing practice, and not creating a new policy.<ref name = Axelrad/> However, the American art lawyer Nicholas O'Donnell of Sullivan & Worcester LLP commented that "even if 'a photograph taken by a monkey' cannot be copyrighted by the monkey, it is not clear why that would categorically rule out any copyright for a human author in a work in which cameras are intentionally left in a place where some natural force or animal will cause them to snap a photo".<ref name="Apollo">{{cite news|url=https://www.apollo-magazine.com/is-the-monkey-selfie-case-making-a-monkey-out-of-the-law/ | title=Is the 'monkey selfie' case making a monkey out of the law? |author=Nicholas O'Donnell | work = [[Apollo (magazine)|Apollo Magazine]] | date=28 July 2017 | access-date=29 July 2017 }}</ref>
On 22 August 2014, the day after the US Copyright Office published their opinion, a spokesperson for the UK [[Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom)|Intellectual Property Office]] was quoted as saying that, while animals cannot own copyright under UK law, "the question as to whether the photographer owns copyright is more complex. It depends on whether the photographer has made a creative contribution to the work and this is a decision which must be made by the courts."<ref name=Guardian2014-08-22>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/22/monkey-business-macaque-selfie-cant-be-copyrighted-say-us-and-uk|title=Monkey business: macaque selfie can't be copyrighted, say US and UK|author=Samuel Gibbs|work=The Guardian|date=22 August 2014|access-date=16 July 2017}}</ref>
The British [[entertainment law|media lawyer]] Christina Michalos said that on the basis of British law on [[computer-generated art]], it is arguable that Slater may own copyrights on the photograph, because he owned and presumably had set up the camera.<ref name="ITV">{{cite news|url=http://www.itv.com/news/2014-08-06/wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it/|title=Monkey 'selfie' picture sparks Wikipedia copyright row|date=6 August 2014|access-date=14 August 2014|url-status=live|archive-date=13 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140813141113/http://www.itv.com/news/2014-08-06/wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it/|publisher=[[ITV plc]]|work=[[ITV News]]}}</ref> Similarly, Serena Tierney, of London lawyers BDB, stated, "If he checked the angle of the shot, set up the equipment to produce a picture with specific light and shade effects, set the exposure or used filters or other special settings, light and that everything required is in the shot, and all the monkey contributed was to press the button, then he would seem to have a passable claim that copyright subsists in the photo in the UK and that he is the author and so first owner."<ref name="El Reg, Cracking" /> Furthermore, Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in IP law at Sussex University, has written that existing European case law, particularly ''[[Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening]]'', makes it clear that the selection of photographs would be enough to warrant originality if the process reflects the personality of the photographer.<ref name=PolicyReview>{{cite journal|last1=Guadamuz|first1=Andres|title=The monkey selfie: copyright lessons for originality in photographs and internet jurisdiction|journal=Internet Policy Review|date=2016|volume=5|issue=1|doi=10.14763/2016.1.398|url=http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/monkey-selfie-copyright-lessons-originality-photographs-and-internet-jurisdiction|doi-access=free|hdl=10419/214004|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Iain Connor, a partner in [[Pinsent Masons]], similarly said that the photographer could claim they had "put the camera in the hands of the monkey so [they had] taken some creative steps and therefore own the copyright," and that "if it's an animal that presses the button, it should be the owner of the camera that owns the copyright to that photo."<ref name=Guardian2014-08-22 />
== Wikimania 2014 ==
| |||