fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

 

Submit A Story

US Copyright Office: Photos Taken by Animals Have No Copyright. Nor Do Photos Taken by God.

by 21 Comments

Two weeks ago, the story of the selfie-taking monkey gave me what I had thought was the best article title I was ever going to get to right. I was wrong. This is the best article title that I’ve ever gotten to write.

For those who missed it, around the beginning of this month Wikipedia was caught in a bit of controversy for its ruling on photographs taken by a monkey with photographer David Slater’s camera, saying that Slater had no copyright to them since he wasn’t their photographer. In a update to the story equally as bizarre as the story itself, the US Copyright Office released a 1,222-page document establishing new policies and reaffirming existent stances set on copyright law; touching on the subject at hand, the Office basically said that a picture taken by a monkey is unclaimed intellectual property.

“The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. Likewise, the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit,”

– Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition

If you’re thinking about rereading that, don’t. You saw right; the Office released a statement saying they can’t register work created by supernatural beings. Just in case someone out there thought otherwise, the US Copyright Office made sure to go out of its way and let us know that we can’t copyright anything made by Ra’s Al Ghul.

As weird as law in the US can be at times, it seems like this case may be a lost cause for the photographer behind the picture. Either way, whatever royalties he may have lost, he’s definitely gained some attention with this story, and hopefully that’s enough to give him some peace. Hey. When the monkey wins, it’s life telling you to move on.

Told you it was happening.

Told you it was happening.

[Via Ars Technica]

Related posts:

Wikimedia: Because the Monkey Pressed the Shutter, It Owns the Picture Can I Use That Picture? This Flowchart Helps You Demystify Copyright Law PETA lawsuit claims famous monkey owns the selfie copyright The Copyright Battle Between PETA and Viral Monkey Photographer Just Got Weirder

  • But aren’t we all animals

    • Ali Koke

      by the way we act and the way we think certainly yes

  • So all those photos from remote/game trigger cameras are up for grabs too?

    • Don’t give them ideas ! They could really do it…

    • JC Sullivan

      As I read it – that’s what came to mind first.

  • They just opened up a bag of worms. This isn’t over. And why would the copyright office have any say over photography copyright?, Shouldn’t a panel of photographers decide that? They shouldn’t poke their noses into something they know nothing about.

  • rmcmahan

    So, does this mean that a photograph of lightening activated from an optical trigger? The lightening actually took the photo, or did the optical trigger actually take the photo? Either way, it technically/literally wasn’t a human that pushed the button.

  • Andy Thien

    What about camera traps (motion sensor)? Lightning triggers?

  • John C

    For now if you do a picture by trigger, you should probably not tell anyone that 😉

  • Interesting. So if I set up my cameras with a laser trigger actuated by the presence of an animal, even though I set it all up, technically the animal is triggering the photograph. No copyright for me?

  • J. Philip vanHeijkoop

    awesome, that means I can finally post those duck face selfies Satan took with my phone.

  • I think the copyright should default to the person who’s camera it is if it’s a picture taken by an animal.

    • cnnspy

      Or we could simply elevate it to status of a human and give it legal rights of a human. Then, it could have its own right to copyright. Yeah, sounds silly. Like giving rights of a human to a ‘smartphone’ simply because it can make human sounds.

  • David

    Does that mean all of Jeff Koons work is no longer owned by him but by the primates who actually make it?

  • I feel like this monkey was doing work for hire, so the copyright should be owned by the person who commissioned the work (the photographer).

    • 3rdStoneMan

      Did the camera owner pay in bananas or something… He (the monkey) needs to be compensated for his work for hire contract! And did the monkey sign said contract…Hmmm

  • That is not what my law book on copyrights said… I guess I need a new law book after I just bought this recent one in January. So is time laps an act of God?

  • TB Photo

    Well that quote says the creator must by human. It says nothing about who or what pulls the trigger. So as I understand it, if you plant your tripod, compose your image and start a timelapse, you created it so it’s yours. If you pick a tree, decide which way to point it and mount your game triggered camera, it’s yours. If you setup your lightning trigger, point your camera at an incoming storm, and Koko swings in, grabs the camera and starts taking pictures of his armpit, you can’t copyright it.

  • Sam Jost

    Actually there are cases of work purportably created by divine beings, just look up the story of “a course in miracles”.

  • Ahmet

    Seriously, 1222 pages? What?!
    On the other hand the sentence said “created”. Whoops, what is creating? Definitely not pressing the button or triggering a laser trap.

  • nite

    “I had thought was the best article title I was ever going to get to /right/. I was wrong”

    Was that intentional? If so, well done?

Recent Posts