
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.



















kanthan
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 4:51 PMi 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 PMThe photographer didn’t share this story with us, the camera owner did.
villainsoft
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 5:08 PMthis 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 PMHow long to the monkey seeks legal representation?
richard
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 6:24 PMsorry, but these pics are TOO good to be true… i call human photographer
Cheshire Cat
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 6:59 PMI 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 PMHasn’t*
Cheshire Cat
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 7:01 PMMisunderstood*
Cheshire Cat
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 7:04 PMGod 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 PMYou’re kidding right? The camera owner is the owner of those pictures.
Osiris Fox
Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 11:02 AMSeconded!
Bob
Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 2:14 PMNegative. The rights ALWAYS belong to the photographer.
Neil
Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 5:29 PMNot true, “personality rights” trump camera ownership…
Bob
Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 2:16 PMTo put it into perspective, if someone painted a masterpiece with your paintbrush…. enough said.