Naruto the monkey lacks statutory standing

[PayrollHRGuy]

So where did the court in any case say there had to be physical contact with the camera? Many photographers use remote devices including motion activation to trigger the actual photo.

There would also be the issue of intent. To say the monkey took the photo one would think you would have to show the monkey intended to take the photo.

 

[quincy]

So where did the court in any case say there had to be physical contact with the camera? Many photographers use remote devices including motion activation to trigger the actual photo.

There would also be the issue of intent. To say the monkey took the photo one would think you would have to show the monkey intended to take the photo.

Right. The photographer can use a remote device and still hold copyrights in the resulting photos. The subject of the photo is not the copyright holder unless the subject of the photo is also the photographer (as would be the case with selfies; as would be the case with Naruto).

There is no element of intent with copyright ownership. Even photos taken accidentally are subject to copyright, with the one who accidentally takes the photo the holder of the copyright.

My wife, for an example that will undoubtedly get me in trouble, is the copyright owner of numerous floor, ceiling and back-pocket photos.

 

[FlyingRon]

It's all a issue of how much creative control the "photographer" gives versus the camera operator.

 

[quincy]

It's all a issue of how much creative control the "photographer" gives versus the camera operator.

Perhaps slightly more complicated than that - - but creative control is certainly a major part of it.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I realize that this is a silly subject but if the 9th decided... At least it is a good thought exercise.

The photog obviously conveyed the camera to the monkey in some way with the the hope (maybe) that he would end up with "selfie like" photos of the monkey. We don't know how the camera triggered the photos and I didn't see in the link you provided that it was even brought up.

My issue is what constitutes what constitutes taking a photo?

In the monkey example would you consider the monkey taking the photo if the photog was remotely triggering the camera while while the monkey held it? I could argue it either way.

 

[Zigner]

I realize that this is a silly subject but if the 9th decided... At least it is a good thought exercise.

The photog obviously conveyed the camera to the monkey in some way with the the hope (maybe) that he would end up with "selfie like" photos of the monkey. We don't know how the camera triggered the photos and I didn't see in the link you provided that it was even brought up.

My issue is what constitutes what constitutes taking a photo?

In the monkey example would you consider the monkey taking the photo if the photog was remotely triggering the camera while while the monkey held it? I could argue it either way.

In a way, I could see it being argued that the photog was using the monkey as the "remote triggering device".

 

[quincy]

I realize that this is a silly subject but if the 9th decided... At least it is a good thought exercise.

The photog obviously conveyed the camera to the monkey in some way with the the hope (maybe) that he would end up with "selfie like" photos of the monkey. We don't know how the camera triggered the photos and I didn't see in the link you provided that it was even brought up.

My issue is what constitutes what constitutes taking a photo?

In the monkey example would you consider the monkey taking the photo if the photog was remotely triggering the camera while while the monkey held it? I could argue it either way.

Slater left his camera behind by mistake. The photos taken by Naruto were a pleasant surprise.

Photograph ownership is often determined by camera control. If you find my camera and take pictures, the camera is still mine but the copyrights in the photos belong to you. If I am your employer, on the other hand, and your employment duties include taking photos, the copyrights (generally) would belong to me even if you are the photographer.

The issue with Naruto, however, was not one of photographer. It was agreed that Naruto was the photographer. He took the pictures. The issue was standing - PETA's standing to sue on behalf of Naruto and Naruto's standing to sue for copyright infringement.

From the case: "The panel held that the complaint included facts sufficient to establish Article III standing because it alleged that the monkey was the author and owner of the photographs and had suffered concrete and particularized economic harms. The panel concluded that the monkey's Article III standing was not dependent on the sufficiency of PETAs, Inc., as a guardian or 'next friend.' The panel held that the monkey lacked statutory standing because the Copyright Act does not expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement suits."

I liked the partial dissent which said: "We have no idea whether animals or objects wish to own copyrights or open bank accounts to hold their royalties from sales of pictures."

That sort of says it all. I am pretty sure Naruto is thinking of things far removed from the photos he took of himself.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Slater left his camera behind by mistake. The photos taken by Naruto were a pleasant surprise.

Photograph ownership is often determined by camera control. If you find my camera and take pictures, the camera is still mine but the copyrights in the photos belong to you. If I am your employer, on the other hand, and your employment duties include taking photos, the copyrights (generally) would belong to me even if you are the photographer.

The issue with Naruto, however, was not one of photographer. It was agreed that Naruto was the photographer. He took the pictures. The issue was standing - PETA's standing to sue on behalf of Naruto and Naruto's standing to sue for copyright infringement.

From the case: "The panel held that the complaint included facts sufficient to establish Article III standing because it alleged that the monkey was the author and owner of the photographs and had suffered concrete and particularized economic harms. The panel concluded that the monkey's Article III standing was not dependent on the sufficiency of PETAs, Inc., as a guardian or 'next friend.' The panel held that the monkey lacked statutory standing because the Copyright Act does not expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement suits."

I liked the partial dissent which said: "We have no idea whether animals or objects wish to own copyrights or open bank accounts to hold their royalties from sales of pictures."

That sort of says it all. I am pretty sure Naruto is thinking of things far removed from the photos he took of himself.

I'd be willing to bet there are Federal Appeal Courts that wouldn't agree that animals couldn't be the author or owner. And I don't understand why Slater's counsel would ever concede that point.

 

[quincy]

I'd be willing to bet there are Federal Appeal Courts that wouldn't agree that animals couldn't be the author or owner. And I don't understand why Slater's counsel would ever concede that point.

Slater and his attorneys rightfully sought a motion to dismiss, as did PETA after the settlement with Slater was reached last fall. There was never an argument over the fact that an animal can be the author of a creative work.

Other courts have held that animals cannot sue, however, unless a statute expressly gives them a right to sue, which the Copyright Act doesn't.

Essentially the Ninth Circuit took the case to (what many saw as) its foregone conclusion. TheGeekess cited one reason why they did. The Ninth Circuit is a bit crazy.