Techdirt: For many years now, we've been covering the sometimes odd/sometimes dopey case of the monkey selfie and the various disputes over who holds the copyright (the pretty clear answer: no one owns the copyright, because the law only applies to humans). David Slater, the photographer whose camera the monkey used, has always claimed that he holds the copyright (and has, in the past, tried to blame us at Techdirt for pointing out that the law disagrees). A few years back, PETA, the publicity-hungry animal rights group, hired big time lawyers at Irell & Manella to argue (1) the monkey holds the copyright, not Slater, (2) PETA somehow magically can stand in for the monkey in court -- and sued Slater over it. Slater and I disagree over whether he holds the copyright, but on this we actually do agree: the monkey most certainly does not hold the copyright.
3 comments:
While this article and the case it presents may seem silly - wether or not a monkey who took a photo holds copyright or not - the underlying idea of it is actually very important, especially in the world of art. Copyright is a huge issue that can often be overlooked by inexperienced artists, to disastrous ends like stolen ideas, stolen work, and stolen credit. The ownership of an idea or a created work is what gives artists control over their creative process and outputs and enables art to be more than just a hobby. Without it, anyone could take something cool an artist made and sell it without the original creator making any of the money, forcing them to basically create art without being able to live on it or receive credit for their works. It's important that people get informed about copyright law, even if the topic is only brought up because of dumb trials about a monkey and a camera.
Side note: Is there any kind of course or mini, or place online, that I could find to read up on copyrights and the copyright process? I'm curious now, but don't know where to start.
If I read any more articles about how an animal can't hold a copyright, I'm probably going to go crazy. The fact of the matter is that PETA's intentions were never necessarily to prove that a monkey can hold a copyright. The fact of the matter is that PETA's strategy is to do much more than necessary to get their point across, and then actually have an impact that lands a few steps back. PETA's response to losing the case has been a fantastic example of this; their most recent headline reads "What the Monkey Selfie case has done for animal rights", and highlights the positives about making a stink in a case like this. Copyright was more of a vessel for PETA to bring more attention to their main goal: that animals deserve more respect than they are given in a world that has completely desensitized anyone and everyone to the harsh realities that we have created for them.
Personally I think that this case is very important, although it may seem silly on the face of it. This article does a good job of trying to cover all of the potential rulings, and the effects of the rulings, however I would have preferred if it went more in depth with the potential outcomes. For example how would the ruling effect later developments in AI? If Naruto, the monkey, was given the copyright law, would that then set a precedent giving AIs the ability to hold copyrights? If an artist designed an AI specifically to make art or designs who would hold the copyright? The outcome of this case will hold a lot of bearing on future issues such as these, and even other ones that we may be unable to conceive of right now.
Post a Comment