US Copyright Office: Photos Taken by Animals Have No Copyright. Nor Do Photos Taken by God.

Aug 22, 2014

Maaz Khan
Maaz Khan

Maaz Khan

Maaz Khan started off teaching himself photography with a disposable Kodak camera he got for his 7th birthday. His main weapons of choice are now the 5D Mark II, and an LG G2 when mobility calls.

Join Discussion

Share:

US Copyright Office: Photos Taken by Animals Have No Copyright. Nor Do Photos Taken by God.

Aug 22, 2014

Maaz Khan
Maaz Khan

Maaz Khan

Maaz Khan started off teaching himself photography with a disposable Kodak camera he got for his 7th birthday. His main weapons of choice are now the 5D Mark II, and an LG G2 when mobility calls.

Join the Discussion

Share on:

Two weeks ago, the story of the selfie-taking monkey gave me what I had thought was the best article title I was ever going to get to right. I was wrong. This is the best article title that I’ve ever gotten to write.

For those who missed it, around the beginning of this month Wikipedia was caught in a bit of controversy for its ruling on photographs taken by a monkey with photographer David Slater’s camera, saying that Slater had no copyright to them since he wasn’t their photographer. In a update to the story equally as bizarre as the story itself, the US Copyright Office released a 1,222-page document establishing new policies and reaffirming existent stances set on copyright law; touching on the subject at hand, the Office basically said that a picture taken by a monkey is unclaimed intellectual property.

“The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. Likewise, the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit,”

– Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition

If you’re thinking about rereading that, don’t. You saw right; the Office released a statement saying they can’t register work created by supernatural beings. Just in case someone out there thought otherwise, the US Copyright Office made sure to go out of its way and let us know that we can’t copyright anything made by Ra’s Al Ghul.

As weird as law in the US can be at times, it seems like this case may be a lost cause for the photographer behind the picture. Either way, whatever royalties he may have lost, he’s definitely gained some attention with this story, and hopefully that’s enough to give him some peace. Hey. When the monkey wins, it’s life telling you to move on.

Told you it was happening.
Told you it was happening.

[Via Ars Technica]

Filed Under:

Tagged With:

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

Maaz Khan

Maaz Khan

Maaz Khan started off teaching himself photography with a disposable Kodak camera he got for his 7th birthday. His main weapons of choice are now the 5D Mark II, and an LG G2 when mobility calls.

Related Posts

U.S. Copyright Office proposes new copyright registration rules for groups of photos US Copyright Office proposes 41% increase in copyright registration fees Register Your Photos With The US Copyright Office Directly From Lightroom With Imagerights Plugin US Copyright Office weighs in on the Warhol/Goldsmith Prince “fair use” photo saga

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

21 responses to “US Copyright Office: Photos Taken by Animals Have No Copyright. Nor Do Photos Taken by God.”

  1. Andrew Raby Avatar
    Andrew Raby

    But aren’t we all animals

    Reply
    1. Ali Koke Avatar
      Ali Koke

      by the way we act and the way we think certainly yes

      Reply
  2. Elaine Farrar Howell Avatar
    Elaine Farrar Howell

    So all those photos from remote/game trigger cameras are up for grabs too?

    Reply
    1. Thomas Dumonet Avatar
      Thomas Dumonet

      Don’t give them ideas ! They could really do it…

      Reply
    2. JC Sullivan Avatar
      JC Sullivan

      As I read it – that’s what came to mind first.

      Reply
  3. Ryan Filgas Avatar
    Ryan Filgas

    They just opened up a bag of worms. This isn’t over. And why would the copyright office have any say over photography copyright?, Shouldn’t a panel of photographers decide that? They shouldn’t poke their noses into something they know nothing about.

    Reply
  4. rmcmahan Avatar
    rmcmahan

    So, does this mean that a photograph of lightening activated from an optical trigger? The lightening actually took the photo, or did the optical trigger actually take the photo? Either way, it technically/literally wasn’t a human that pushed the button.

    Reply
  5. Andy Thien Avatar
    Andy Thien

    What about camera traps (motion sensor)? Lightning triggers?

    Reply
  6. John C Avatar
    John C

    For now if you do a picture by trigger, you should probably not tell anyone that ;-)

    Reply
  7. CROFT Photography Avatar
    CROFT Photography

    Interesting. So if I set up my cameras with a laser trigger actuated by the presence of an animal, even though I set it all up, technically the animal is triggering the photograph. No copyright for me?

    Reply
  8. J. Philip vanHeijkoop Avatar
    J. Philip vanHeijkoop

    awesome, that means I can finally post those duck face selfies Satan took with my phone.

    Reply
  9. Tarrith Do'Urden Avatar
    Tarrith Do’Urden

    I think the copyright should default to the person who’s camera it is if it’s a picture taken by an animal.

    Reply
    1. cnnspy Avatar
      cnnspy

      Or we could simply elevate it to status of a human and give it legal rights of a human. Then, it could have its own right to copyright. Yeah, sounds silly. Like giving rights of a human to a ‘smartphone’ simply because it can make human sounds.

      Reply
  10. David Avatar
    David

    Does that mean all of Jeff Koons work is no longer owned by him but by the primates who actually make it?

    Reply
  11. Stephen Nelson Avatar
    Stephen Nelson

    I feel like this monkey was doing work for hire, so the copyright should be owned by the person who commissioned the work (the photographer).

    Reply
    1. 3rdStoneMan Avatar
      3rdStoneMan

      Did the camera owner pay in bananas or something… He (the monkey) needs to be compensated for his work for hire contract! And did the monkey sign said contract…Hmmm

      Reply
  12. Mike Hill Avatar
    Mike Hill

    That is not what my law book on copyrights said… I guess I need a new law book after I just bought this recent one in January. So is time laps an act of God?

    Reply
  13. TB Photo Avatar
    TB Photo

    Well that quote says the creator must by human. It says nothing about who or what pulls the trigger. So as I understand it, if you plant your tripod, compose your image and start a timelapse, you created it so it’s yours. If you pick a tree, decide which way to point it and mount your game triggered camera, it’s yours. If you setup your lightning trigger, point your camera at an incoming storm, and Koko swings in, grabs the camera and starts taking pictures of his armpit, you can’t copyright it.

    Reply
  14. Sam Jost Avatar
    Sam Jost

    Actually there are cases of work purportably created by divine beings, just look up the story of “a course in miracles”.

    Reply
  15. Ahmet Avatar
    Ahmet

    Seriously, 1222 pages? What?!
    On the other hand the sentence said “created”. Whoops, what is creating? Definitely not pressing the button or triggering a laser trap.

    Reply
  16. nite Avatar
    nite

    “I had thought was the best article title I was ever going to get to /right/. I was wrong”

    Was that intentional? If so, well done?

    Reply