By now you've probably heard of the "Cindy Sherman of the Monkey World," as we dubbed her recently. While working in an Indonesian national park, British nature photographer David Slater had his camera purloined by a clever macaque monkey who took several self-portraits, apparently fascinated by her own reflection in the lens. The exceptionally charming images that resulted caught the eye of Britain's Daily Mail and won the cheeky monkey fans around the world, as well as "calling into question notions of personae, monkeyhood, affect, and the history of photography itself," as we put it.
We were being tongue-in-cheek, but as it turns out the images have indeed called the very nature of photography into question. The pics are now at the center of a lively debate about copyright, with implications not just for Slater but for the entire world of animal art (yes, there is a world of animal art).
After hearing about the accidental monkey masterpieces, the Web site Techdirt posted a short essay musing on the fact that several of the images bore a credit line attributing them to the U.K.-based Caters News Agency, for which Slater works. Copyright is generally held by the person who takes the picture, and since the author was in this case the monkey -- Slater explicitly stated that he had no hand in creating the image -- Techdirt wondered by what basis Caters could have acquired the copyright.
Someone from the news agency promptly wrote to Techdirt to request that the images be removed from the site -- without, however, addressing the fact that the original post had specifically challenged Caters's legal right to own the monkey pics at all. "These images are being used without David's or our permission, therefore can I ask you remove these images from your site immediately," went the letter. Techdirt writer Michael Masnick replied in an email, asking what the legal rationale was for the request, and claiming "fair use" to boot.
Caters News Agency fired back: "Michael, regardless of the issue of who does and doesn't own the copyright -- it is 100% clear that the copyright owner is not yourself. You have blatantly 'lifted' these photographs from somewhere -- I presume the Daily Mail online. On the presumption that you do not like to encourage copyright theft (regardless of who owns it) then please remove the photographs."
Techdirt adduced the testimony of a number of legal experts to show that Caters's understanding of copyright here is shaky. More importantly, in a followup post, the Web site goes deeper into the intricacies of copyright law, concluding that it seems fairly clear on the fact that only humans get copyright, whether in Indonesia, the United Kingdom, or the United States. "In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship," says a quote by the U.S. Copyright Office. "Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable."
All of this leads to big questions for the world of contemporary art, where works generated by "mechanical processes" and "random selection" are established parts of the vocabulary (see Cory Arcangel's current show at the Whitney) -- as are art projects that involve snapshots taken by a third party, for that matter (Nikki S. Lee). But never mind that, our question is: What does this mean for Cooper the Cat? The Seattle-based feline art phenomenon has built an empire -- or really, his owners have built an empire -- on his photographic snaps, made by a collar-mounted camera that automatically takes a picture every 10 minutes. Unframed photos by Cooper sell in $145 dollar range, and he even has a "Cat Cam" book of his work for sale. But now the very basis of his art practice may be called into question, all based on the actions of one goof of a monkey. Stay tuned.
-Ben Davis, ARTINFO
More of Today's News from ARTINFO:
See Highlights from Moscow's New Sex Museum, Where Art, Politics, and Coitus Engage in an Unholy Threesome
WikiLeaks' Unrealized Project: What We Learned From Hans Ulrich Obrist's Epic Interview With Julian Assange
Bonjour, Monsieur De Chirico!: Paris Museum Secures the World's Largest Bounty of the Surrealist's Masterworks
5 Reasons Why Kanye West Might Actually Make It in Fashion
Prolegomena to a Contemporary Theory of Judgment, or Why Some Art's Cool
Like what you see? Sign up for ARTINFO's daily newsletter to get the latest on the market, emerging artists, auctions, galleries, museums, and more.
Follow ARTINFO on Twitter: www.twitter.com/artinfodotcom
Can monkey who took grinning self-portrait claim copyright?
When a monkey steals your camera, who holds the copyright to the photos he takes?
A life form, in this case a Monkey, our ancestors so to speak, has less rights than a corporation?
Do we live in a world where a company is treated as a "person" but a life form has NO rights?
It's a crazy world we live in, and put up with.
Long Live Monkey Photography!!!
Well, I suppose that puts online comments sections in the public domain.
Maybe we should view such animal-paticipated "behind the camera" creations, artwork, and other types of material as co-created, allowed under new human-animal copyright laws. As protectors of wild animal rights we could set up a special international fund with the animal's share of any proceeds which would be used to advance the condition of their particular species (with a portion going to wild animals everywhere of course).
Afterall, if we are so fascinated by animal creations, by intelligent design or by accident, as a way of ascribing them human-type abilities (isn't this the REAL basis of our attaction this body of animal-influenced work?) then don't they deserve some of the human-like rewards as well? At the very least they are co-creators of these various images, artwork, and even music (whales "singing" for example) and deserve some legal recognition/protection of their creative contributions.
As for the comment that Cindy wouldn't have any use for a copyright on her creations, I would disagree. She could have a special personal fund set up from related proceeds, and enjoy having more bananas, and maybe even buy her freedom from captivity, perhaps to even live a human-type existance. But nahhhhhhh.....what intelligent monkey would truly wish to live like us?
Part 3 END
I've seem similar "accidential" photos and videos, done by birds to tigers, when an animal absconds with someone's photography equipment, including cell phone-cameras, and result in very interesting yet accidental photo outcomes. So this same delima is happening at an increasing rate due to some many cameras out there, so who owns/copyrights the resulting images?" And the interest is so high that some people are deliberately trying to get animals to steal their cameras! (I assume tracking devices are embeded or attached). And combined with so with so many video cameras out there in the hands of the public, and with security cameras all around us, this is a growing area that needs to be better defined, and defenseable in a personal and legal manner.
Part 2
It is a neat interaction and not altogether unexpected if you've followed the unhappy meetings of human settlements and wild animals amid garbage cans and abetted by screen doors. Our sense of unpredictability around them makes us write them out of our laws. It's not us against them; we are of and from the same nature soup after all.
The underlying argument for human copyright existing here seems to be if David and the Carter Agency didn't make the photos available publicly, then there would be no images to copyright, or copy, in the first place. Therefore it's their contribution to the publication of such photos which is the controlling factor for copyright, not what was the actual circumstances at the moment of creation of such photos. Ownership/marketing versus copyright guidelines.
And the unstated but strongly implied idea is that under the USUAL circumstances involved, IF the photo were clicked by a human, this image would be copyrightable. The huge irony is that the very factor that takes creative control OUT of human hands , and INTO the unintended hands of a monkey, is the MOST intruging and marketed aspect of said photos, The Carter Agency seeems to wish to have the "non-human" added market-value and eat their copyright cake as well.
Part 1