On 09/18/2018 06:17 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 15 September 2018 20:51:02 UTC+1, Ken Hart wrote:
On 09/14/2018 10:07 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ron C
wrote:

And then we had the macaque selfie copyright phenomenon. :-(
Whe photographer owns copy rights .. and .. who/what-ever
pushed the button/triggered the image capture event is deemed
'the photographer' .

so who owns the copyright for photos where nobody pushed the
button/triggered the image capture event, as would be the case with a
self-timer or an intervalometer?


The person who started the self-timer's "count-down" is the person who
pushed the button. The image capture was simply delayed.
Just as when I press the shutter button on my mechanical SLR, the image
is not captured instantaneously; there is a very slight delay as each
gear, cog, and lever in the mechanism does it's thing.
Nonetheless, I am the person who initiated the image capture, so once
the image is fixed in a permanent and tangible form, I am the copyright
owner.

I don;t think that is true or at least it can be argued. A friend of mine was taking professional pictures of jewlery for a company using a high end flash unit, where you weren't allowed to be in the same roonm when the flash went off.
The photographer set up all the equipment ready to take the pictures and then got the photographers assistant to place the jewelry on the spot then fire the shutter for a few dozen items the assistant didn't change any setting other that what was said by the photgrapher who wasn't even in the same building at the time.

I believ that even as a pro photographer that any picture yuo atke while working for the company then the copyright belongs to them the company.

I think you are getting into the "Work For Hire" issue. It's a murky
issue, and can keep lawyers billing many hours!

As one example, go back to the Murrah Federal Bldg, 4/19/1995: An
Oklahoma City fireman, Chris Fields carries a critically injured
one-year-old from the wreakage. Lester Larue, a safety coordinator for
the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, also happened to be on the scene that
day, with a company camera because he initially thought the blast was a
gas explosion. He got $14,000 from Newsweek initially; other sales
followed. The Gas company had a problem with that- they said basically:
Our camera, our copyright, our money... turn over the cash, or hit the
bricks. And they were legally right: the photographer was on the clock,
the camera was provided by his employer for documenting gas safety
issues; so any photos belonged to the gas company.

Work-for-Hire is not a universal concept. If a photographer thinks his
work might come under it, he can negotiate with his employer for an
exclusion.


Here at university any work a student does while here at university while on their course is owned by the university NOT the student, even if they buy and pay for the hardware themselves it is the colleges property.

That 'sounds' a bit flakey and unfair, but if the university makes it
clear up front, well then, it's a learning experience for the student.




In the case of the monkey pictures, the photographer created a situation
where an image capture (or several images) was likely to occur. He set
up the camera so that the lighting and focus would be conducive to that
image capture (most likely by setting the camera to an auto function).
And he likely owns (or is responsible for) the camera gear. So the human
is the photographer and the copyright owner. Whether or not an animal
can hold a copyright is not material.

yes this makes sense because it's not belived that monkeys are self aware enough to take photos.

They may or may not be self aware of making a photograph, but do they
have a concept of property? Many animals "mark" their territory
(property), so they do seem to understand property. And a copyright is
property.
I don't think the monkey gets the copyright in this case, but not simply
because an animal can't own property.






--
Ken Hart