Brought to you by

Those Smiling Monkey Pictures Are Likely Public Domain

We can all breathe a sigh of relief as those macaque monkey pictures may belong in the public domain. Neither the photographer nor the news agency that published the images can claim a copyright because they did not create them.

According to some research by TechDirt, only works created by a human author are copyrightable. Straight from the US Copyright office:

503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.

In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. Thus, a linoleum floor covering featuring a multicolored pebble design which was produced by a mechanical process in unrepeatable, random patterns, is not registrable. Similarly, a work owing its form to the forces of nature and lacking human authorship is not registrable; thus, for example, a piece of driftwood even if polished and mounted is not registrable

If the photographer David Slater or Caters News Agency wants to press the issue, they can take this matter to court and let a judge decide. But this little snippet from the Copyright rules suggests they may be fighting an uphill battle. [TechDirt Via BoingBoing]

You can keep up with Kelly Hodgkins, the author of this post, on Twitter or Facebook.

Discuss

(14 Comments)
  • [–]

    kanthan

    Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 4:51 PM

    i think in the future, photographers will be hesitant to share stories like this with us. They wouldnt want to risk loosing their photos to the public domain.

    • [–]

      Cameron

      Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 5:11 PM

      The photographer didn’t share this story with us, the camera owner did.

  • [–]

    villainsoft

    Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 5:08 PM

    this is interesting. So theoretically someone could steal my camera and take some photos that I would have no right to use them if i got my camera back?

    Also, if I set up a motion sensing camera that automatically took a photo if it detected a person, would I “own” the photo?

  • [–]

    TedJ

    Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 5:38 PM

    How long to the monkey seeks legal representation?

  • [–]

    richard

    Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 6:24 PM

    sorry, but these pics are TOO good to be true… i call human photographer

  • [–]

    Cheshire Cat

    Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 6:59 PM

    I think techdirt has understood the law. Isn’t it saying you can’t copyright something that’s not copyable?
    (I.e. The natural or unrepeatable processes make it impossible to copyright since there was no human involvement) I can’t see how giving an animal a camera (say your dog) isn’t human involvement.

  • [–]

    Cheshire Cat

    Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 6:59 PM

    Hasn’t*

  • [–]

    Cheshire Cat

    Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 7:01 PM

    Misunderstood*

  • [–]

    Cheshire Cat

    Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM

    God damnit. Why isn’t there an edit function. Then it doesn’t let me post in quick succession and now it just doesn’t make sense at all =p

    I think techdirt has misunderstood the law

  • [–]

    murry

    Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 11:00 PM

    You’re kidding right? The camera owner is the owner of those pictures.

    • [–]

      Osiris Fox

      Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 11:02 AM

      Seconded!

    • [–]

      Bob

      Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 2:14 PM

      Negative. The rights ALWAYS belong to the photographer.

      • [–]

        Neil

        Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM

        Not true, “personality rights” trump camera ownership…

    • [–]

      Bob

      Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 2:16 PM

      To put it into perspective, if someone painted a masterpiece with your paintbrush…. enough said.

Join The Discussion