• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Copyright, Daily Blog, Featured

Black Macaques and a Camera Cause a Copyright Uproar

Submitted by Mark Tratos on July 21, 2011 – 7:55 AM37466 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2011%2F07%2F21%2Fblack-macaques-and-a-camera-cause-a-copyright-uproar%2FBlack+Macaques+and+a+Camera+Cause+a+Copyright+Uproar2011-07-21+11%3A55%3A13Mark+Tratoshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D3746

It has always been suggested that if you put 100 chimpanzees in room with 100 typewriters, they will eventually write all the sonnets of Shakespeare.  According to photographer David Slater though, if you put a pack of macaques in the jungle with a camera, you will own the copyright to any pictures that they take.

Photographer David Slater traveled in Indonesia and took an excursion to photograph the elusive and endangered black macaques.  While in the jungle, some macaques ventured upon Mr. Slater’s camera and managed to take some pictures of themselves.  These photos (as seen in the links) have made their way around the Internet, bringing joy and striking up controversy.  If you look at the photos, you will discover that two of the three images circulating around the Internet have copyright notices.  The third does not.  The website Techdirt made this observation and then posed the question, who actually owns the copyright to the images?

The copyright notice indicates that Caters News Agency Ltd. owns the images, which means a copyright transfer occurred.  Common sense would lead one to believe that Mr. Slater transferred the copyright to Caters, but Techdirt challenged that Mr. Slater never owned the copyright in the first place.  This prompted Caters to ask that Techdirt remove the photos from their website (which raises a fair use debate that can best be saved for another blog post). Eventually Mr. Slater got back into the mix, saying that he purposefully left his camera behind so that the macaques would take the photos.  He said, “[i]t was my artistry and idea to leave them to play with the camera and it was all in my eyesight.”  This does seem to slightly contradict statements previously made by Mr. Slater, though, where he spoke about how the primates “accidentally knocked the camera and set it off.”  The article from the Daily Mail also stated that Slater left the camera unattended for a while, contradicting the statement that Mr. Slater purposefully arranged the incident by keeping everything “in his eyesight.” Now contradictions can happen and words can be misinterpreted, so I do not want to allege that Mr. Slater is lying.  I take him at his word because all I want do to is look at copyright law.

Copyright vests initially in the author or authors of the work.  So who was the author? The macaques took the picture, but Mr. Slater orchestrated the chance for a photo to be taken.  If the macaques were human, they would clearly own the copyright to the photos they took.  Since they are not “natural persons,” though, they get no claim to the copyrights.

The photos do not appear to be a work made-for-hire either, since Slater did not hire the macaques to take the photos, nor did macaques prepare the work for Slater.  The macaques are not “natural persons,” so hiring and preparation seem out of the question anyways.  We would run into the same problem with an ownership analysis of collaborative works.

The general question of ownership fails to provide a clear answer, but maybe the specifics of copyrights in photographs would yield some insight.  The Sarony case said that the individual who takes a photograph could embody an idea in a photograph by making decisions about expression, attire, background, lighting, and other elements captured in the photograph.  It the present case, the macaques chose the background, lighting and the angles of each individual photograph.  Mr. Slater chose the macaques, though.  He also chose the part of the jungle to leave his camera, the time of day to do so, and the time to take the camera away from the creatures.  Is that too far removed from the act to claim ownership?  Or did Slater purposefully incorporate more elements of nature into his photographs?  Just as a photographer chooses what elements of nature to incorporate into his photo, Mr. Slater did the same, except he did not choose exactly when the photo was taken.  That might not be enough, though.  Mr. Slater did not make the specific decisions about the original elements of each photo, as deemed necessary by the Sarony case, and that may prove to hurt him.

One thing I would like to at least mention is that nature and the elements can affect works that are eventually copyrighted.  From hearing a muffled thunderclap on a music track recorded in a cheap garage, to having dirt blow on, around, and in the toilet blow you just made into “found art,” nature can have a hand in the creation of copyrighted works.  Maybe that is exactly what happened here.  Maybe nature just added its hand into the creation of a copyrighted work.

This issue could of course be battled forever, but if Mr. Slater did orchestrate the photo session as he claims, there might be a modicum of originality in the elements he could control to allow him to obtain a copyright in the photographs.  That being said, keep up the good fight Techdirt because this is the only way we can truly keep copyright law progressing.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Mark Tratos

Mark Tratos is a fourth year evening division student at the Washington College of Law. He is the current Senior Articles Editor for the American University Intellectual Property Brief. He also works for the United States Senate. He graduated from Washington University in St. Louis in 2006. Mark has recently focused his attention to the current orphan works problem in copyright law and the impact of proposed government legislation on current intellectual property and social norms.

Mark Tratos has written 32 posts for the IPB.

37466 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2011%2F07%2F21%2Fblack-macaques-and-a-camera-cause-a-copyright-uproar%2FBlack+Macaques+and+a+Camera+Cause+a+Copyright+Uproar2011-07-21+11%3A55%3A13Mark+Tratoshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D3746 »

  • Fernando Torres MSc (@FTorresMSc) (@FTorresMSc) says:
    July 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM

    Black Macaques and a Camera Cause a Copyright Uproar: The website Techdirt and the photographer David … http://tinyurl.com/3pdnq7o #IP

    Reply to this comment »
  • Eden Topete (@EdenTopetewant) says:
    July 21, 2011 at 4:37 PM

    Black Macaques and a Camera Cause a Copyright Uproar – American University Intellectual Property Brief http://t.co/4vnbgXq

    Reply to this comment »
  • @catpatwon says:
    July 21, 2011 at 7:00 PM

    http://t.co/8FLBEBf Black Macaques and a Camera Cause a Copyright Uproar – American University Intellectual Property Brief

    Reply to this comment »
  • AlexWeir (@AlexWeir) says:
    July 22, 2011 at 7:51 AM

    Black Macaques and a Camera Cause a Copyright Uproar http://t.co/uvWVR8o via @AddToAny

    Reply to this comment »
  • Worldshots › Utánlövés #2 says:
    July 24, 2011 at 6:19 AM

    [...] Black Macaques and a Camera Cause a Copyright Uproar [...]

    Reply to this comment »
  • mobile dvr says:
    February 5, 2013 at 5:36 AM

    Informative allocation!! I've found this allocation is totally informative and whatever you have shared here about Black Macaques and a Camera Cause a Copyright Uproar seems to me pretty outstanding. Thanks dude.

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

The Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision, which reasoned that the drug posed public health and safety concerns, creates serious patent implications with regard to generic drugs.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Posner Speaks [Again] on Patent Reform: A Critique Notre Dame Forces Tornado-Ravaged High School to Change Mascot Charges Dropped in Historic Trial of Game Console Modder Can’t Read a Law Review Article?  Read a Comic Book Privacy in the Time of Google Google v. oogle: Search Engine Loses UDRP Proceeding The Unimaginable Happened: Google Sued for Copyright Infringement Brazil's Attempts to Regulate ISP Liability Tupac Hologram Rocks Coachella and IP Laws Cupcake Wars Judge in Lawsuit Over Store Name The F-150: Apparently Only Built Ford Tough iFone v. IPhone - Apple Loses Trademark Dispute in Mexico
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay
  • Oh, That’s Different … Never mind: USPTO Withdraws Ruling that IPAD MINI is “Merely Descriptive”

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License