If the monkey takes a picture of itself,So the copyright of this photo belongs to the monkey, or to the camera owner?I believe many people have seen the monkey in the opening photo. This is a very famous wildlife photo. It shows a selfie of a crested black macaque. Facing the camera, it grins and shows its yellow teeth.
This photo comes from the camera of British wildlife photographer David Slater. Although he did not press the shutter himself, he planned the entire process. When the monkey was taking pictures, he was controlling the tripod with his hands under the camera!
In 2011, Slater licensed the photos to other organizations and posted them online, instantly becoming an internet hit.
It was precisely because the photo became popular that a battle of the century began over "whether monkeys can own the copyright of the photo." The dispute lasted on and off for seven years and also involved many organizations such as Wikipedia and PETA.
The worst thing is that the photographer Slater thought he could make a lot of money from this photo, but the reality is that not only did he not make any money, he also got a lawsuit.In the end, the photographer's dream was completely shattered, and he was heavily in debt to cope with the lawsuit.
A photo described as "monkey steals camera to take photo of himself"
Slater has been traveling to Indonesia to photograph crested macaques since 2008. His main purpose is to hope that humans can recognize and protect this critically endangered animal.
In 2010, according to his description, he and a guide stayed with this group of monkeys for three full days. There were trees everywhere, there were no roads at all, and the ground was difficult to walk on. It can be said that this shooting was not easy.
On the first day of contact, these monkeys were very unfriendly and difficult to control. They would always touch his equipment intentionally or unintentionally, and sometimes they would attack him.
The next day, the monkeys began to accept him. When he sat with the monkey, the monkey would jump on him and play with him.
The filming started at this time. At first, the monkey was very interested in the flashing camera, always touching it, and sometimes trying to steal the camera.
In order to take a close-up of the face, he set up a tripod, placed the adjusted camera on it, and set the remote shutter, hoping that the monkey could take photos while playing with the camera. He himself was lying on the ground, holding the tripod in place with his hands.
The entire shooting process took half an hour. After hearing the shutter sound multiple times, he stopped shooting and then checked the photos.There is this picture in the camera.
In 2011, Slater authorized several media outlets to publish the photo, along with a story about how he took the photo. The Daily Mail and The Guardian both published the photos at the time.
Almost all media used the gimmick of "monkey steals a camera to take pictures of himself" to promote the event, and soon this "smiling monkey" became known to people all over the world.
As soon as the photo became popular, conflicts arose. It was Wikipedia that took the lead in provoking the conflict over the copyright ownership of animal photos.
First Dispute: Wikimedia Commons
On July 9, 2011, the selfie was cited by Wikimedia Commons, a non-profit organization.
Slater learned about it and asked for it to be removed, but the company refused.
Not only that, the company also specially created a "noun" to describe the entire incident, attached a picture of the monkey, and marked the picture as "public domain material". The reason is: the photo was taken by the monkey himself, and the monkey cannot have copyright, so the copyright should belong to the public domain.
This means that the photo is not protected by copyright and can be used by anyone in the public domain without paying a fee.
Slater wanted to put things to rest and endure it. It was not until 2014 that the conflict was completely aroused.
In 2014, three years later, at Wikipedia's annual meeting, company founder Jimmy Wales took a photo with a monkey selfie printout and posted it on social media. This slightly provocative behavior completely annoyed Slater, so he filed a lawsuit against the company.
In the end, the dispute was brought to the U.S. Copyright Office. In fact, the focus of the dispute was:How much role did Slater play in taking this photo?
Some people think that this photo was taken after a monkey stole the camera, but Slater believes that it was taken when he adjusted the camera, set up the tripod, and fixed the tripod with his hands. The photo was completed under his design.
On August 21, 2014, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a ruling that the monkey selfie was not a human creation and therefore not subject to copyright protection. Wikipedia won.
Later, on December 22, the U.S. Copyright Office added:This selfie, like the mural painted by the elephant, is not protected by copyright.
(However, there are still many lawyers who support Slater and believe that he should own the copyright of the photo.)
Second lawsuit: Animal Welfare Organization of the United States (PETA)
Following the U.S. Copyright Office's ruling, many media outlets that published the photo refused to pay any fees to Slater. His photography business also plummeted. In order to litigate with Wikipedia, he even spent a lot of money to hire a lawyer, and finally lost.
Slater is really miserable, losing both fame and fortune!
At this time, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) took action and sued Slater, hoping to seek justice for the monkey in the photo. They believed:Monkeys should enjoy the same rights as humans.In other words, they believed that the copyright of the photo should belong to the monkey.
On September 22, 2015, PETA filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of California, arguing that Slater had infringed on animal copyright and requesting that the copyright be returned to the monkey named Naruto.
The most important thing is that PETA believes that in order to better manage the profits from these photos in the future, the management and administrative rights should be handed over to PETA. It also promised to donate all the profits to these monkeys.
Since the monkey cannot appear alone, the organization also found a primatologist to serve as the monkey's "guardian" and claimed that she and it had known each other since childhood.
Slater, who couldn't laugh or cry, had to hire a lawyer again to respond.
In 2016, the court dismissed PETA's lawsuit on the basis that "monkeys cannot be regarded as authors within the meaning of U.S. copyright law";
PETA is not satisfied and appeals again;
In August 2017, before another trial, the two sides reached a settlement, with Slater promising to donate 25% of the proceeds from the photos to animal organizations working on the project.
But I checked and found that this photo only brought Slater 2,000 pounds in income (earned in the first year of publication). After Wikipedia reprinted it, he almost never received any royalties.
at last
The whole incident ended with Slater's compromise.
Originally, he could win the second lawsuit and there was no need to settle.
Many people think that PETA is just litigating for profit and not really for these monkeys, because PETA claims that Naruto is a young male monkey, but Slater insists that Naruto is a female monkey and believes that PETA has found the wrong monkey.
During the prosecution stage, the court also doubted PETA's motives for filing the lawsuit. Later, PETA also considered withdrawing the lawsuit.
However, Slater still did not wait for the result. He was the first to surrender and accept the settlement because he really couldn't afford it.
According to the media,When he later filed a lawsuit with PETA, he could no longer afford the air ticket to San Francisco for the hearing, nor did he have the money to replace the camera, nor did he have the money to pay for the lawyers who had been helping him in the lawsuit.He also didn't have time to appear in court because he was looking for other jobs to earn money, maybe as a dog walker, maybe as a tennis sparring partner.
Because of this photo, his photography career was completely cut off, and he faced seven years of litigation and controversy, and he went bankrupt.
In his words: "If everyone gave me a pound every time they used this photo, I might have £40 million in my pocket, but I'd have nothing."
The most important thing is that he said that he never had the desire to pick up a camera and take pictures. He felt that he had failed and was ashamed of his daughter.