As far as the guidelines are concerned, the core requirement seems to simply be that the work was created by a human being. I guess there may be some level of ambiguity as to what "created by a human being" means, but I don't think it's especially problematic. Ultimately, there will always be grey areas, and such grey areas often end up being a matter for the courts.
The stuff about monkeys and elephants is presented as an illustrative example, and in the case of the elephant I agree with the example - it is clear that, in such a case, the elephant is quite clearly creating the work. However, in the case of "a photograph taken by a monkey", I think it's quite an ambiguous situation, both in the abstract and specifically with reference to the "monkey selfie", and so I think it's a poor choice of example. I still think this one should go to court.
But until a monkey can select a camera, do all the technical setup, then take photos, then intentionally select and edit them and post them online, there is no where near the same kind of intention.
The question is not whether the monkey had the intent to take a photograph, it's whether David Slater can claim sufficient creative expression in the photo to qualify as the creator.
That being said, if the monkey had in fact intended to take a photo (and no, I don't think it would need to be able to edit and post the photos online), I think it would be rather a clear-cut case. It probably wouldn't be particularly difficult to teach a monkey to understand the basic concept of taking photos (in the sense of press button -> recorded image), either.
I just thought of something interesting. The core issue here is the issue of creativity and labor, and the separation of the two.
Imagine for a moment that there is a painter with no arms. They hire a person to paint for them. They give this person extremely precise instructions about where to place the brushes, how to move them, how to mix the paint, etc. They are the source of all the creativity. But the person with the brush did all the labor. They contributed some very small amount of creativity within the bounds of the instructions they were given, but not much. Who gets the copyright for that?
One could argue that the person with the brush is the monkey. They simply pushed the button, and all the creativity came from the painter. But one could also argue that the person with the brush is the photographer. They contributed all the labor, but none of the creativity.
The law already covers similar cases where you have say, a songwriter and a musical performer. There are separate copyrights for both things. But the monkey case is not a good analogy for this. A songwriter is the sole creator of the song. They specify every detail and have complete creative control. The photographer controlled many things, but not everything. The exact expression on the monkey's face, the framing, and many other factors were happenstance within the parameters the photographer did control.
Let's say I write part of a song. I choose the key, the tempo, and select some key riffs. But then a jazz musician comes and improvises within those musical parameters that I selected. Do they owe me a fee the way they would owe a traditional songwriter?
Just finished listening. Just hearing of your experience with the fandom completely puts me off of the movie, but I may watch it because of your recommendation.
I honestly don't recall if watching any AVGN or affiliated media. I had to looks up who the fuck Doug Walker is. No idea of any other names that were mentioned.
All in all, I'm in no rush to watch the movie still. I recall of reading of tales of uber drama among the AVGN family. Just hearing the your story of awkwardness made me cringe.
I plan to avoid the screening area when it plays at PAX.
Imagine for a moment that there is a painter with no arms. They hire a person to paint for them. They give this person extremely precise instructions about where to place the brushes, how to move them, how to mix the paint, etc. [...] Who gets the copyright for that?
Sounds like a commissioned art to me. What's the law say about that?
Imagine for a moment that there is a painter with no arms. They hire a person to paint for them. They give this person extremely precise instructions about where to place the brushes, how to move them, how to mix the paint, etc. [...] Who gets the copyright for that?
Sounds like a commissioned art to me. What's the law say about that?
Well, let's say I ask you to draw Spider-Man, and you draw Spider-Man.
Is that different than if I tell you step by step instructions exactly how to move the pencil, how much pressure to apply, etc.
My gut reaction is specificity of the instructions is a matter of degree, not of kind. But I'm having a difficult time convincing myself strongly either way.
I'm genuinely curious as to the copyright status of a one-off, commissioned piece of art. I would say the commissioner gets all the rights, if it's bought and paid for. Give me a convincing argument though, I'll switch it up.
Comments
The stuff about monkeys and elephants is presented as an illustrative example, and in the case of the elephant I agree with the example - it is clear that, in such a case, the elephant is quite clearly creating the work. However, in the case of "a photograph taken by a monkey", I think it's quite an ambiguous situation, both in the abstract and specifically with reference to the "monkey selfie", and so I think it's a poor choice of example. I still think this one should go to court. The question is not whether the monkey had the intent to take a photograph, it's whether David Slater can claim sufficient creative expression in the photo to qualify as the creator.
That being said, if the monkey had in fact intended to take a photo (and no, I don't think it would need to be able to edit and post the photos online), I think it would be rather a clear-cut case. It probably wouldn't be particularly difficult to teach a monkey to understand the basic concept of taking photos (in the sense of press button -> recorded image), either.
Imagine for a moment that there is a painter with no arms. They hire a person to paint for them. They give this person extremely precise instructions about where to place the brushes, how to move them, how to mix the paint, etc. They are the source of all the creativity. But the person with the brush did all the labor. They contributed some very small amount of creativity within the bounds of the instructions they were given, but not much. Who gets the copyright for that?
One could argue that the person with the brush is the monkey. They simply pushed the button, and all the creativity came from the painter. But one could also argue that the person with the brush is the photographer. They contributed all the labor, but none of the creativity.
The law already covers similar cases where you have say, a songwriter and a musical performer. There are separate copyrights for both things. But the monkey case is not a good analogy for this. A songwriter is the sole creator of the song. They specify every detail and have complete creative control. The photographer controlled many things, but not everything. The exact expression on the monkey's face, the framing, and many other factors were happenstance within the parameters the photographer did control.
Let's say I write part of a song. I choose the key, the tempo, and select some key riffs. But then a jazz musician comes and improvises within those musical parameters that I selected. Do they owe me a fee the way they would owe a traditional songwriter?
I honestly don't recall if watching any AVGN or affiliated media. I had to looks up who the fuck Doug Walker is. No idea of any other names that were mentioned.
All in all, I'm in no rush to watch the movie still. I recall of reading of tales of uber drama among the AVGN family. Just hearing the your story of awkwardness made me cringe.
I plan to avoid the screening area when it plays at PAX.
Is that different than if I tell you step by step instructions exactly how to move the pencil, how much pressure to apply, etc.
I'm genuinely curious as to the copyright status of a one-off, commissioned piece of art. I would say the commissioner gets all the rights, if it's bought and paid for. Give me a convincing argument though, I'll switch it up.
Ricky, is that you?
All of the scenes in Las Vegas were enjoyable precisely because they were so self-indulgent.