Comments on: July 10 roundup

By: Monkey-snapped photos, cont’d

Monkey-snapped photos, cont’d — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:16:36 +0000

[…] A takedown letter (not, apparently, monkey-typed) is the latest development in the copyright flap that has transfixed the legal blogosphere [David Post, Jim Harper, Lowering the Bar, earlier] […]

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 02:02:46 +0000

As of now, the Wikipedia content guideline on public domain works claims that a work that was produced by an animal (as opposed to a human) does not qualify for copyright, at least in the US. (The example of a painting by a chimpanzee is given.) However, it may be that in the case of the "monkey photographer" that David Slater (or his employer, if any) would be considered the copyright holder (note the responses by @John Burgess (07.10.11 at 11:23 am) and @Mark Biggar (07.11.11 at 11:32 am.) To be sure, there is the question of how a painting chimpanzee (for which a human probably arranged for the act of painting to be carried out) differs from the case of a monkey unexpectedly causing photos to be taken with a camera that a person had set up for their own use.

By: Mark Biggar

Mark Biggar — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:32:27 +0000

How is the monkey different from an automatic shutter timer? As the monkey has no intention to take pictures and obviously didn’t understand even what a camera is for how can he be the author?

By: Bumper

Bumper — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 04:41:24 +0000

Mother Jones who would have guessed such a balanced article.

“says Laurie Levenson, … It doesn’t mean that something didn’t happen.”

The new code for we all know nothing happened, but we sure would like some ju$tice anyway.

By: Prof. Underwood

Prof. Underwood — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:09:04 +0000

Some of us have been looking at the plaintiff’s closing. Is it proper to ask for punitive damages to send a message to other corporations that may be drafting policies? Having been on the defense side of the v. I was not fond of sending a message arguments. But I don’t think the argument was proper. Does anyone have a take on this? Steve Gillers asked the question at Legal Ethics Forum. Of course, is beside the point now, insofar as this plaintiff is concerned. I wonder what the jury made of the argument, and the size of the damages requested. Anyway, I had not followed this case, and the Mother Jones piece was informative.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:23:13 +0000

@Le Mur: The owner of the equipment and/or the one who set it up to take those photographs.

By: Le Mur

Le Mur — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:14:08 +0000

Legal Questions Raised by Success of Monkey Photographer Who own pictures of animals taken with motion-detection equipment ? The animals? The equipment?