Hacker News Reader

Comment by sosuke | Hacker News Reader

In the event he doesn't own the copyrights to the photos, I wonder if David Slater would have released the photos with the same story of the monkey taking a selfie if he had known it would be without financial gain.

Reading the nomination page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests... just makes me feel bad for David Slater in the end. They argue that he had no part in the photos creation. If he had not been there taking the photos, this photo wouldn't have existed.

View on HN

It's clearly nonsense anyway. Even if you accept the argument that he has no claim to the copyright of the original image as it existed in his camera (which I'm not sure I do), the image that he actually released was almost certainly a derivative work that he had made. Assuming that that derivative work included any significant modifications, e.g. framing, color, etc I would expect it to be copyrightable and that copyright would clearly belong to Mr Slater.

The burden of that argument is that you'd never be able to 'own' photos of strangers or anybody who doesn't sign a release, or stranger's pets, or any piece of art or architecture, because the scene or object that gives the photos its essence was actually created largely by other people. You have to tie photo ownership to the physical act of taking them, and this one was not taken by him. He hadn't even intended to give the monkey his camera or tried to arrange for it - it was pure fluke, unless you count the agency of the monkey. Which here almost seems more legitimate.

For clarity

This is public domain footage now, because the bird stole the camera: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/bird-steals-camera-...

This is copyright, because the photographer strapped cameras to the bird: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_photography "A photograph of Schlosshotel Kronberg (then called Schloss Friedrichshof after its owner Kaiserin Friedrich) became famous due to its accidental inclusion of the photographer's wing tips. In a breach of copyright it was shown in German cinemas as part of the weekly newsreel in 1929.[16]"

Nonsense. Whoever owns the camera has a good common-sense claim to copyright.

By your logic, supposedly Slater could sue the monkey for illicit use of his camera.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com