Pages: 1 [2] 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Monkey Copyrights (Read 13823 times)
|
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 23657
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evildrider
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5521
|
Monkeys get no respect.
|
|
|
|
|
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075
Error 404: Title not found.
|
Agreed.
|
CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
|
|
|
Yegolev
Moderator
Posts: 24440
2/10 WOULD NOT INGEST
|
Respect must be earned.
|
Why am I homeless? Why do all you motherfuckers need homes is the real question.
They called it The Prayer, its answer was law
Mommy come back 'cause the water's all gone
|
|
|
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15189
|
Actually if you follow the link from the Ars Technica story, I think Ars Technica interpreted it wrongly. The long draft of the code revisions doesn't actually reference this case specifically. It just says: Monkeys (or other non-humans) cannot hold a copyright. But it doesn't say, "If a monkey grabs a camera and presses the button, is the monkey the author of the work (an author who then cannot hold copyright)?" Which is what the photographer is disputing: he says, "I'm the author of the work, because it's my camera and I was taking pictures of monkeys". Humans can still hold copyright, so if he's right in that respect, the revised US Code would still give him copyright. What Wikimedia is trying to say is, "If the monkey took the picture, the monkey is the author, and thus public domain".
On the other hand, the revised code does say right in that same section, "If an elephant paints a painting, the elephant made it--and it is public domain, because elephants can't hold copyright". So that seems to back up Wikimedia.
On the other other hand, that section of the revised code also says, "If someone attempts to copyright a poem to the Holy Spirit, saying that the Holy Spirit wrote the poem, they can't, because we don't recognize immaterial deities as able to hold copyright". And in that case, it basically says, "Whomever really wrote it is the author and the holder of copyright". I presume if the author disguises their identity, once again, it's public domain rather than the intellectual property of the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
Yegolev
Moderator
Posts: 24440
2/10 WOULD NOT INGEST
|
I do find all this fascinating. I imagine that non-humans have taken photographs in the past, but perhaps the human that owned the camera didn't have anyone questioning ownership like this, or perhaps he simply punched the monkey or copyright troll.
|
Why am I homeless? Why do all you motherfuckers need homes is the real question.
They called it The Prayer, its answer was law
Mommy come back 'cause the water's all gone
|
|
|
|
Mosesandstick
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2476
|
Not unrelated tangent - will this have implications for art done by animals? I know you can buy paintings done by elephants.
|
|
|
|
|
Count Nerfedalot
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1041
|
Um, scroll up a couple inches?
|
Yes, I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
|
|
|
|
Mosesandstick
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2476
|
I completely missed that sentence. Whoops. Thanks to Khaldun for doing the hard work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 
|
|
|
 |
