Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SquatchHammer]

I have to say its the guy who set up the equipment first. It was the leading factor in the series of events that led to the photo capture. If he didnt travel there, or made the marque leave before taking the pictures then he wouldn't have those photos. He should get compensation on the fact he DID WORK FOR THOSE SHOTS.

It's like you going to work and the boss saying free domain you dont get shit. Well is that fare? Is that logical to stiff someone out of THEIR TIME AND EFFORT to provide you with something? I'm not against people that want to put out free stuff. It's them saying "I gave my time and effort for your enjoyment and that's all I ask for." I'm really ok with that. Patents and copyrights are not the evil what people put them out as. Free domain leads to the person that is trying to make money off of someone else's work with little or no effort of themselves. Patents and copyrights are there to keep the people that LIVE off of there work the monetary gains they need to continue with their life.
 

[Yoink]

Monkey rights now

[smjjames]

If he didn't want people to see the photos, he shouldn't have uploaded in the first place, lol.

[Aklyon]

Nobody's arguing that the monkey owns the copyright. Merely that the guy doesn't, and the monkey can't own it, so nobody owns it. I'd appreciate if we avoided copy-pasting clickbait titles into the forum.

Also, its not wikipedia thats relevant here anyway. Wikimedia is related but its own thing.

[Loud Whispers]

Monkey rights now

Photographers of the apes when

[Graknorke]

I have to say its the guy who set up the equipment first. It was the leading factor in the series of events that led to the photo capture. If he didnt travel there, or made the marque leave before taking the pictures then he wouldn't have those photos. He should get compensation on the fact he DID WORK FOR THOSE SHOTS.

It's like you going to work and the boss saying free domain you dont get shit. Well is that fare? Is that logical to stiff someone out of THEIR TIME AND EFFORT to provide you with something? I'm not against people that want to put out free stuff. It's them saying "I gave my time and effort for your enjoyment and that's all I ask for." I'm really ok with that. Patents and copyrights are not the evil what people put them out as. Free domain leads to the person that is trying to make money off of someone else's work with little or no effort of themselves. Patents and copyrights are there to keep the people that LIVE off of there work the monetary gains they need to continue with their life.

But he's not claiming ownership of any physical thing, it's an abstract concept, a pattern of data that no doubt exists in thousands or millions of computers around the world. It makes as much sense as me claiming ownership of any old number, let's say 1005. Nobody else is now allowed to use 1005. Ever. It's mine now.

Is that fair?

[Reelya]

It makes as much sense as me claiming ownership of any old number, let's say 1005. Nobody else is now allowed to use 1005. Ever. It's mine now.

Is that fair?

1005 is a common number. 4 digits. A 1000x1000 photo is like a million-digit number. The analogy really doesn't make sense. 1005 is also easy to generate and can encode many different valid meanings. the huge number that codes that photograph probably only codes to that one, meaningful thing, and is basically impossible to generate accidentally. Probably generated once in the history of the universe. The "it's silly to say someone owns a number" thing doesn't really scale up from small numbers, to the level where we are talking about complex artworks.

Photo, movies, songs, games. They're all a number.

Where do you draw the line though? Should a company that spent $100 million making a movie get no protection at all? After all that was just a number, and numbers already exist in a theoretical sense, nobody "owns" them.

If we allowed free copying from day 1, sure we'd still get movies and games. But forget any detailed stuff, it'd only be indie quality at best. We might still get Lord of the Rings, but with papier mache swords and make up like early Romero zombie movies.

Also for this picture in the thread, I think there's a big difference between fair use laws / policies, and claiming something is public domain. If it's public domain, anyone can exploit that for personal gain. Nobody is going to be stopped from looking at that picture if it's copyrighted, if they want to. That's the difference between recognizing something as copyrighted or public domain. It's who is allowed to commercialize the work.

 That guy did spent a shitload of money to fly to the other side of the world with expensive equipment expressly for the purpose of taking photographs, which is his profession, they didn't happen entirely at random and just fall into his lap.

[Graknorke]

Photo, movies, songs, games. They're all a number.

Where do you draw the line though? Should a company that spent $100 million making a movie get no protection at all? After all that was just a number, and numbers already exist in a theoretical sense, nobody "owns" them.

Yes that is the thing I just said.
The concept of ownership of non-physical concepts is broken and needs to be reworked.

[miauw62]

If he didn't want people to see the photos, he shouldn't have uploaded in the first place, lol.

This is probably the stupidest post in this thread so far.

I have to say its the guy who set up the equipment first. It was the leading factor in the series of events that led to the photo capture. If he didnt travel there, or made the marque leave before taking the pictures then he wouldn't have those photos. He should get compensation on the fact he DID WORK FOR THOSE SHOTS.

It's like you going to work and the boss saying free domain you dont get shit. Well is that fare? Is that logical to stiff someone out of THEIR TIME AND EFFORT to provide you with something? I'm not against people that want to put out free stuff. It's them saying "I gave my time and effort for your enjoyment and that's all I ask for." I'm really ok with that. Patents and copyrights are not the evil what people put them out as. Free domain leads to the person that is trying to make money off of someone else's work with little or no effort of themselves. Patents and copyrights are there to keep the people that LIVE off of there work the monetary gains they need to continue with their life.

But he's not claiming ownership of any physical thing, it's an abstract concept, a pattern of data that no doubt exists in thousands or millions of computers around the world. It makes as much sense as me claiming ownership of any old number, let's say 1005. Nobody else is now allowed to use 1005. Ever. It's mine now.

Is that fair?

Illegal primes is a thing.
But what about analog pictures and movies? Those aren't just numbers.

Copyright is good and necessary, currently it's just far too restrictive and lasts far too long.

I feel like the guy owns the photo, because if he doesn't, then who owns photos made with a timer? The photos made by hanging up cameras in the woods overnight? I'm also fairly sure movies sometimes use automated cameras, does that mean that those scenes are in the public domain?

[Neonivek]

As with many laws like Copyright laws.

The problem isn't that they exist, they are a very necessary law, it is how they are abused.

This one though... is just dumb... There are only TWO people who can technically own that photo. One is the legal guardian of the monkey (the zoo) and the other is the owner of the Camera.

If the monkey has no legal guardian it automatically falls within the domain of the owner of the camera... and since the zoo hasn't tried to claim legal ownership of the picture...

This is just Wikipedia making up excuses.

[Reelya]

Zoo? There was no "zoo", I don't know where you got that. Not from the story.

He went to the jungle in Indonesia to take photos of the wildlife. That's the main reason I think his claim has merit. He did spend a shitload of money flying expensive gear to the other side of the world, and trekked through the jungle (not without it's own risks) to get these photos.

If some dick took happy snaps at the zoo and people uploaded them I couldn't give a fuck, but don't take food out of the mouth of a craftsman who shelled out a lot of his own money to create this, it's not like he's a movie studio rolling in cash or anything.

[alexandertnt]

But he's not claiming ownership of any physical thing, it's an abstract concept, a pattern of data that no doubt exists in thousands or millions of computers around the world. It makes as much sense as me claiming ownership of any old number, let's say 1005. Nobody else is now allowed to use 1005. Ever. It's mine now.

Is that fair?

Numbers have nothing to do with it. For example, if you print the image it's no longer a number, but is still owned by the same person regardless.

[Duuvian]

Before giving my personal opinion I would like to ask what you think about this issue?

Hmm...

Now how do I get these monkeys to film naked ladies?

Just kidding. I can't easily think of other things that are automatically illegal to record.

Perhaps spy agencies could have monkeys perform surveillance with stolen cameras.

Spoiler: Cute as a button (click to show/hide)

[Graknorke]

But he's not claiming ownership of any physical thing, it's an abstract concept, a pattern of data that no doubt exists in thousands or millions of computers around the world. It makes as much sense as me claiming ownership of any old number, let's say 1005. Nobody else is now allowed to use 1005. Ever. It's mine now.

Is that fair?

Numbers have nothing to do with it. For example, if you print the image it's no longer a number, but is still owned by the same person regardless.

It's a certain pattern of colours then, which can be represented as numbers.
The point is that the thing he owns is the concept of those colours arranged in that way. It's not as if he made a single physical picture and that is the thing that he owns, like a painter would.

[hops]

Never change, Wikipedia.