Not a monkey, but an Ape.
A couple of years ago wildlife photographer David Slater experienced some technical difficulty on a shoot. The resulting photographs went viral causing a brief splash of attention and publicity for Slater. Now those same images are the center of lawsuit between the photographer and Wikimedia Commons concerning their copyright status.
Slater is suing Wikimedia for posting the image labeled in the Public Domain, meaning no one holds the rights to the image and anyone may freely the use said image in any capacity. Slater maintains he holds the copyright as the images creator. Why the debate? Wikimedia says since the it was the actual monkey who took the photo, the image was in the public domain from upon creation. (Legally, an animal cannot assert copyright.) Slater says he invested the money and time to travel to Indonesia planning on taking photographs of the monkeys in their native environment and made all the technical and creative decisions necessary to create the image. The only part the monkey played in the images creations was the physical acts of running away with the camera and activating the shutter.
Wikimedia’s argument is utterly facile in several respects, but its greatest failure is not understanding what creates photography. For most people, photography is pointing an image taking device toward and object and pressing a button. (Indeed, this was how the image captured by the monkey.) For the photographer, creating a photograph involves conceiving of an idea and insuring the conditions for said idea’s execution. (Slater decided he wished to photograph endangered macaque monkeys. So he traveled to Indonesia, the animals natural habitat.) Next, the photographer needs to insure the proper equipment is at hand to capture the image. (The acquisition of many thousands of dollars of cameras, lenses, tripods and sundry equipment.) Next one chooses the proper camera, lenses and exposure settings for the conditions. (Which Slater did, otherwise the images would be under or overexposed.) These are only a few of hundreds of small decisions a major shoot such as Slater’s comprises.
If Slater was sitting at a café sipping coffee and the monkey made off with his camera, Wikimedia’s argument MIGHT hold water. In this situation, there was no intent by the creator to make images, it was an accident. What actually happened was serendipitous but a direct result of an individuals creative vision. The monkey pushed a button.
There is no argument when a professional shoot planned by an artist and an assistant “pushed the button”. The photographer who conceived the shoot is sole proprietor of copyright. Why Wikimedia wishes to argue the situation here is different seems ludicrous until you realize they suffer from what I term “Technological Tunnel Vision”: the misconception that technology is now so simple anyone, even a monkey, can do something. In this case the editors of Wikimedia’s wrongheaded interpretation of copyright law relies on photography now being so simple it no longer requires education, experience and equipment. I point out several million blurry, ill composed and underexposed Instagrams as my counter-argument.
I believe Wikimedia is arguing from a sincere belief and not from a profit standpoint. (Particularly in light of their being a not-for-profit organization.) They believe in the free and open exchange of information and this image is in the Public Domain.
Unfortunately, this erroneous belief is going cost thousands of dollars to litigate. If Slater loses, which as copyright law now stands he may, opening the door for profit based entities to push further against photographers. Since the days of George Eastman photography occupies a niche where almost anyone can do it, but only a few can do it well. In these days where the intense demand for photography is rivaled only by the more intense desire not to PAY for photography, it makes sense.
The idea photography is no longer a craft and skill strangles the industry, it forces people like Slater to fight court battles to prove their work is meriting the protection of law. Writers are not forced to defend their livelihood because word processing software is ubiquitous, so why are photographers singled out?
Because, “Hey look, a monkey can do this!”. It would take a LOT more monkeys to replace writers. Not to mention all those typewriters.