Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
photographer loses lawsuit ...to a monkey
#1
hilarious 

 

https://petapixel.com/2017/07/14/photogr...it-monkey/

#2
Well, technically said, the Photographer has not lost a lawsuit to a monkey

... so the caption is a bit misleading ...

 

But the lesson learned from this is ...

as a photographer, you cannot and must not sell (or try to sell, or claim ownership of)

photographs you did not personally take yourself.

 

The case is ridiculous ... but it started with a fault of the photographer ...

he should have let that photo go when it was already on the internet (rather

than claiming his copyright (that never existed)) ... or ... he should have

never published the photographs.

 

So ... acutally this case is not so hilarious at all.

 

Rainer
#3
   It certainly shows that you shouldn't throw all your money into a long term court case.......
Dave's clichés
#4
This opens a Pandora's box. What about automatic systems? E.g., photo traps? E.g., the wild life photographer who won a price for his snow leopard (?) shots in the Himalayas. The leopard triggered it itself.

#5
Naaah. If the photog would have set a movie camera and then just used the right picture, there's still entirely his effort. The monkey was pointing the photog's camera at his face - so the court only stated, the photog's rights are not bound at his camera but on the photog. At the end a good thing.

 

If I ever used Annie Leibovitz' camera and take a picture of her, it remains my work and not Leibovitz' camera's.

#6
I think this case only serves to show the flaws in the US copyright and legal system. There should be a point of authority for a shoot. If the monkey could not be assigned copyright, it should fall to the nearest appropriate involved person who can. It shouldn't go straight into public domain.

 

I wonder how this might have ended if it was challenged in a country other than the US?

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#7
First world problems ...
#8
I second photonius' and popo's remarks.

 

In any case, the next photographer in a similar case - without other human witnesses - will just tell a different story, such as "the monkey tried to grab the camera from my hands, but I still managed to take a few shots".

stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#9
Comments here are a bit confusing. The guy was sued by PETA, and he won several times, but they would keep suing him. So it's neither a problem of him looking for trouble, nor is it a problem with US law, but it's a problem with a stubborn organization that will make this go to the supreme court. No?
#10
Quote:No?
No! Sorry, you do not seem to get the facts straight!
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)