Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-24-2015, 07:59 PM   #16
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,293
What's critical to understand here is that macaques shoot full frame. Yet another market segment that Pentax is doomed.

09-24-2015, 08:00 PM - 1 Like   #17
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,157
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
While PETA's claims are attention-grabbing nonsense (animals are not considered human under US law and therefore have no true property rights in anything) , the dispute between Wikimedia and Slater is much more interesting. Frankly, Wikimedia's claim that the image is uncopyrightable and therefore PD under US law is likely correct, since contrary to what this article might have you think, Slater didn't intentionally remotely trigger or even set it to be triggered by an expected event. Rather, the camera was snatched away by the Macaque, which took the picture itself. It lacks the essential element of authorship that underlies all valid claims of copyright.

Also, claims that this is somehow "victim shaming" are utterly ridiculous.[COLOR=Silver]
In today's world of Digital Photography I doubt that this picture was taken directly out of the camera and without any processing or editing dumped on the world. Authorship in this world should (perhaps it doesn't) include the creative process of post processing and editing the files and making the final image.

To me this is why remote triggering is not an issue - the pressing of the shutter is only one of the parts of the whole. The creativity goes in many times before the final output.
09-24-2015, 08:43 PM - 1 Like   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 940
I honestly thought I was reading "The Onion".
09-24-2015, 08:53 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,261
PETA is an attention hound. They look for headlines and money more than they do reasonable protections of animals (how was the monkey harmed and how will PETA help it???). A few years ago they tried to get a town named "Fishkill" (Dutch for "Fish River") to change their name.

Technically, there's a chance that the photo is uncopyrightable. It wasn't taken nor staged by a human. With the lightning trigger example, the photographer enabled the trigger, hit some control on purpose, etc. and is clearly the photographer. In the monkey case, the human merely owns the camera, and didn't set it up for that photo.

09-24-2015, 09:00 PM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,157
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
Technically, there's a chance that the photo is uncopyrightable. It wasn't taken nor staged by a human. With the lightning trigger example, the photographer enabled the trigger, hit some control on purpose, etc. and is clearly the photographer. In the monkey case, the human merely owns the camera, and didn't set it up for that photo.
Was it using the lens he put on the body, was it set to the ISO he set on the body, was it using his property? Did he later post process the file? Pushing the button even metaphorically isn't the only entrance into the creative pipeline. If he did not post process the file in any way then the original unaltered then it still was taken on his equipment which means he had to discover it was worth publishing or no one would have ever seen it. He was free to delete it. It was his idea to market it and make it into something.
09-25-2015, 06:08 AM   #21
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,640
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
What's critical to understand here is that macaques shoot full frame. Yet another market segment that Pentax is doomed.
But have they ever tried a 645z?
09-25-2015, 06:18 AM - 1 Like   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
THoog's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,603
Just don't refer to reviewing your shot on the LCD as 'chimping'. Macaques really hate that.
09-25-2015, 06:35 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,640
QuoteOriginally posted by THoog Quote
Just don't refer to reviewing your shot on the LCD as 'chimping'. Macaques really hate that.
Yes, they even find "monkey peeking" offensive.

09-25-2015, 08:14 AM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,157
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
The problem is that the current legal thinking is that none of those would likely be considered "authorship." Think about it this way: You set up your camera with all the perfect settings, then hand it to your friend who takes a picture. Your friend owns the copyright, since he is the "author" in that case.

So here, we have an image produced with no human "author," so the initial image passes into the public domain automatically.

Everything post facto (postprocessing, etc.) might arguably be considered a derivative work. For works where the original is copyrighted, the copyright holder has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works. However, derivative works of PD originals are copyrightable on their own. The key, then, is that the difference between the original and the derivative work must be "substantially" new and not trivially different from the original, in which case it would fall into the public domain as well. The question then is whether a postprocessed photo of a RAW original is transformative enough in the eyes of the law to constitute a substantially new work.
That seems overly complicated legally but that's the way the law often is. Lawyers begat laws which drives business...

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me.
09-25-2015, 08:20 AM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
THoog's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,603
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
The problem is that the current legal thinking is that none of those would likely be considered "authorship." Think about it this way: You set up your camera with all the perfect settings, then hand it to your friend who takes a picture. Your friend owns the copyright, since he is the "author" in that case.

So here, we have an image produced with no human "author," so the initial image passes into the public domain automatically.

Everything post facto (postprocessing, etc.) might arguably be considered a derivative work. For works where the original is copyrighted, the copyright holder has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works. However, derivative works of PD originals are copyrightable on their own. The key, then, is that the difference between the original and the derivative work must be "substantially" new and not trivially different from the original, in which case it would fall into the public domain as well. The question then is whether a postprocessed photo of a RAW original is transformative enough in the eyes of the law to constitute a substantially new work.
From what I can tell, the current PETA lawsuit is claiming that the images aren't PD, but that the macaque is the copyright owner, and Slater owes the macaque royalties for using the images. That they are only going after the guy who owns the equipment used to create the images and previously unsuccessfully claimed ownership, rather than everyone using the images for free (like Wikipedia), is more than just ironic, and further weakens their case IMO.
09-25-2015, 08:22 AM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,157
QuoteOriginally posted by THoog Quote
From what I can tell, the current PETA lawsuit is claiming that the images aren't PD, but that the macaque is the copyright owner, and Slater owes the macaque royalties for using the images. That they are only going after the guy who owns the equipment used to create the images and previously unsuccessfully claimed ownership, rather than everyone using the images for free (like Wikipedia), is more than just ironic, and further weakens their case IMO.
This I agree with - they do look like idiots and they are weakening the case.
09-25-2015, 12:47 PM   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 83
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
While PETA's claims are attention-grabbing nonsense (animals are not considered human under US law and therefore have no true property rights in anything) , the dispute between Wikimedia and Slater is much more interesting. Frankly, Wikimedia's claim that the image is uncopyrightable and therefore PD under US law is likely correct, since contrary to what this article might have you think, Slater didn't intentionally remotely trigger or even set it to be triggered by an expected event. Rather, the camera was snatched away by the Macaque, which took the picture itself. It lacks the essential element of authorship that underlies all valid claims of copyright.

Also, claims that this is somehow "victim shaming" are utterly ridiculous.
Indeed. This article seems to be Andrew Orlowski using PETA's disgusting attempt at a money-grab to demonize groups like Wikipedia and put forth his bizarre notions about copyright. If anyone's a victim in all of this, it's the public for being subjected to this farrago of BS disguised as valid legal theories.
09-25-2015, 03:43 PM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,261
The camera owner screwed up as soon as he said the monkey did the most important work, composition. PETA has no case IMO but the camera owner is still not the photographer for the scene in dispute. No one owns the copyright for the USA; other countries might be different.
09-25-2015, 04:13 PM   #29
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,302
The photographer is British and the photograph was taken in Indonesia. US law only enters into this because PETA chose a Californian court in which to file the suit. The Koch brothers could do a bit of good for a change and finance Slater's case, presumably on the grounds that if PETA was to win (which is unlikely) it could prove a link between humans and other primates that might destroy future Creationist claims in US courts.

(I jest, just in case anyone thinks I'm serious in that last sentence)
09-25-2015, 06:24 PM   #30
Senior Member
CypherOz's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 245
QuoteOriginally posted by arnold;3381503If:
animals have property rights, then they have a right to life, in which case those of us who eat chicken and fish should be arrested for murder.
Which is what PETA want. I.e. to force everyone to be vegan.

PETA are complete idiots! (no idiot parts missing)
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
animals, behalf, claims, court, equipment, guy, images, imo, internet victim-shaming, law, lawsuit, life, lightning, monkey, ownership, pd, peta, photo, photographer, photography, post, property, royalties, u.s, wikipedia
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cityscape A few from the British Museum sealonsf Post Your Photos! 5 04-09-2015 10:56 AM
Good Grief! This MUST be a Hurricane Katrina victim! Dewman Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 03-16-2015 07:16 PM
Macro Corpse ( Presenting the victim of a ) old4570 Post Your Photos! 4 11-05-2014 12:09 AM
Now THIS is a Wedding Photographer MRRiley Photographic Industry and Professionals 21 06-18-2014 05:16 AM
Is 1.30 the latest firmware for the K10D? crispy0009 Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 01-08-2009 03:38 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:46 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top