Cases study 8 : The monkey selfie ( 2011 )

-
Image result for The monkey selfie


Case 
Back in 2011, a nature photographer David Slater left his camera in the Indonesian rainforest. Meanwhile ,Two Old World monkeys took David Slater's camera and reportedly snapped some pictures of themselves. 

Slater found out that the photos are unique. “Every photographer dreams of a photograph like this.” said by Slater. 

The photo went viral and was eventually uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons as a public domain image. Mr. Slater has objected to publication of the selfie on Wikipedia.He claims that the publication is infringement of his copyright but Wikipedia claims that monkey created images are not protectable under copyright because only humans can create copyrighted works. 

Held 
Copyright law stated that the work must have an "author." In U.S. , the term "authorship" implies that the work must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable. Similarly, in the UK, an author must be a "person." 

Copyright Act 1987 Section 13(2)
Certain conduct will not be considered as infringement of copyright. This provision provide defences to any allegation of infringement. 

FAIR USE
Where a copyrighted material is used for for purposes of non-profit research, private study, criticism, review or the reporting of current events. If such use is public, then it must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of the title of the work and its authorship.

Point of view 
Based on the case, I have learnt something new and that is, copyright can only be used on humans but not animals. With no author to claim copyright, the selfie taken by Naruto, a macaque, is simply part of the public domain and can be used without permission by anyone. Besides, animals cannot own real property. For now, whether you consider monkeys to be properties or peers, their pictures cannot qualify for protection in the Copyright Office. It is patently absurd if Naruto were to be claimed as the rightful owner to the photograph when neither it will experience any loss in terms of money nor reputation. In other words, the copyright will never benefit Naruto in any ways. Copyrights are inapplicable for animals. Therefore, in this case of copyright, for which is created by Mother Nature, it should be owned by Mother Nature-- which is to say it is owned, not by one of us, but all of us.


References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/13/17235486/monkey-selfie-lawsuit-ninth-circuit-motion-to-dismiss-denied

http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/01/article_0007.html



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cases study 7 : Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie/Freddie Mercury (1991)

-
Image
Case  In 1981, Queen and David Bowie released the song “Under Pressure”. The song reached number one on UK music charts.  In 1990, Vanilla Ice released his hit single “Ice Ice Baby” the beat the song was the same as “Under Pressure”. But Ice famously insisted that the two melodies are distinct because he added a beat between notes. A live version appears on the album Extremely Live, while a rap rock version appears on the album Hard to Swallow, under the title "Too Cold"  Queen and David Bowie sued the signer for sampling the beat to the song without permission or a license. Ice later claimed that this rationale was merely a joke. Representatives for Queen and Bowie weren't laughing and threatened a copyright infringement suit.  Interesting Facts ：Both songs, "Ice, Ice, Baby" and "Under Pressure" were number one hits. The song boosted the sales of the album which went to sell over 7 million copies. These songs were also...
Read more

Case Study 1 : Rogers v. Koons

-
Image
Photograph: Art Rogers – 1985; Polychrome: Jeff Koons – 1988 (both via The Design Observer Group ) About the Case  This case is about Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple (Jim Scanlon and his wife ) holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally, the famous artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rodgers’ photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image. Jeff Koons asked his assistants to copy as much detail as possible from the photographs. The only changes made during the transition were larger noses on the puppies, blue fur, and the man and woman had flowers in their hair. The sculpture was named "String of Puppies" and became a success. Reportedly, Koons sold three of the sculptures for $367,000.  Jeff Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon discovering the copy...
Read more

Cases study 2 : Jeff Koons vs. Andrea Blanch ( 2006 )

-
Image
Case  A famous visual artist, Jeff Koons, made a collage using various photographs for an exhibit commissioned by the Guggenheim.  Koons is being accused for copying part of a photograph taken by Andrea Blanch, a fashion photographer.Blanch's photograph appeared in the fashion magazine Allure, and depicts a woman's legs reclining on a man's lap in an airplane cabin. Koons cropped and re-oriented the photo, before including it in a painted collage among other pairs of women's legs. Blanch bring the case to the court.  Held  The judge found Blanch did not have the copyright over the Gucci sandal therefore the only thing that could be copied was the females leg which could not be deemed original in order to be protected by copyright. The district court granted Koons holding that the use of Blanch's photograph in his collage constituted fair use, and not copyright infringement. Copyright Act 1987 Section 36(1) The Copyright Act 1987 states that ...
Read more