Can a Monkey Get a Copyright & Issue a Takedown?

An anonymous reader writes "Last week, the Daily Mail published a story about some monkeys in Indonesia who happened upon a camera and took some photos of themselves. The photos are quite cute. However, Techdirt noticed that the photos had copyright notices on them, and started a discussion over who actually held the copyright in question, noting that, if anyone did, the monkeys had the best claim, and certainly not the photographer. Yet, the news agency who claimed copyright issued a takedown to Techdirt! When presented with the point that it's unlikely the news agency could hold a legitimate copyright, the agency told Techdirt it didn't matter. Techdirt claims that using the photos for such a discussion is a clear case of fair use, an argument which has so far been ignored."

Re:Seems fair

[bipbop]

I know that if you are the sole possessor of, e.g., a discontinued book, you become the copyright holder of that work.

[citation needed]

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[AK Marc]

Does copyright apply to random generation?

Copyright applies only to creative generation. Random would not count. Logical (i.e. alphabetical listing of people and numbers in phone books) is explicitly not covered by copyright. It does not apply to discoveries (pretty rocks, math, photos taken by monkeys). Many photos are uncopyrightable. A photo of a painting taken to replicate the painting as closely as possible, even if it requires great technical skill for lighting and such, is not a creative work, but an uncopyrightable derivative of the painting. However, in almost all other cases of taking a picture of art, the photo is copyrightable. The assumption is that there was some creativity in picking the location or lighting or such when taking the photo, even if it is just a picture of a random building taken from across the street without actual care or creativity expended in taking the picture.

So, unless there is some creativity required for the creation of the item in question, one may not copyright it. If they argue that the monkeys were creative, then the monkeys would hold the copyright, as the human discovering the monkey picture did not create anything and thus can't hold the copyright to it.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[phantomfive]

Claiming copyright on the output of an algorithm (ie, randomly generated numbers) has been tried before [slashdot.org]. The consensus at the time (not that I looked deeply) seemed to be that the law is vague on the issue, and it might manage to stand up in court.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[gnasher719]

Seems to me that if the photographer properly and adequately reimbursed the monkeys then the paper would have purchased said portraits by contract from the monkeys.

You can't form a contract with a monkey. Therefore you cannot get the copyrights for a work created by a monkey. And lastly, a DMCA takedown notice by a person who doesn't have the copyright is a criminal matter.

Re:Maybe a million monkeys

[jimshatt]

The photographer, David Slate, was there with his camera to photograph the monkeys. That's your intentionality right there. It doesn't matter if he shot the photos themselves, used a tripod and a random interval for taking pictures, or used monkeys. I know I'm stretching the glorified tripod analogy, but still...

When I ask a passer-by to take a picture of me (and my family), who owns the copyright? I really don't know.