Copyright and Ownership in Photography: A Case Study Analysis

This essay delves into the complex issue of photography copyright, using the case of British photographer David Slater and the 'monkey selfie' as a central example. The paper explores the core question of copyright ownership when a non-human entity, in this case, a monkey, appears to be the creator of the photograph. It references the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, which typically grants copyright to the creator. The essay analyzes arguments around Slater's role in facilitating the photograph, the intentions of its use, and the extent of any alterations made. It examines legal precedents such as 'Perfect 10 vs Google' and 'Nussenzweig v DiCorcia' to support the view that Slater should be awarded copyright, as animals are not recognized as copyright holders under current law. It counters the claims made by PETA and addresses the use of the photographs by Wikimedia, concluding that Slater's efforts and risk-taking should be acknowledged, and his work should be accessible for public knowledge. The essay includes a bibliography of relevant sources.

Photography Copyright 1
PHOTOGRAPHY COPYRIGHT
by Student’s Name
Course code+Name
Professor’s Name
University Name
City, State
Date of submission

Photography Copyright 2
Copyrights in photography
In the artist world, photography is a genre in the art that is very popular in terms of
origination and distribution speed. Mainly, the reason behind its popularity is the creation of
photographs in the sense that one just requires a camera to capture a photo. Distribution speed
has been enhanced by the internet in that when photographs get to the internet they can spread
like wildfire depending on how they appeal to the viewers or how they are perceived to mean.
When this stage is reached, the question of who actually owns the photography comes in in
relation to the copyrights in the photography world. This paper seeks to look into the matter of
right ownership, personal view and support. The arguments will be done in relation to the British
photographer David Slater’s case.
According to UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, the copyright owner is
the person who created it. However, the argument is on whether Slater created the photography,
which has been argued against, or whether the monkeys created them (Dodgson 2017). Other
aspects that could be affecting the case is the intention of use for example as argued in the case
of perfect 10 vs Google, it was argued that infringement cannot be sustained in place of
distribution of knowledge to the many who access google. The other aspect of the argument is on
which form the selfies have been used, whether in the original form or whether altered and the
extent of the alteration if any. According to Murabayashi (2017), Iin the case of Nussenzweig v
DiCorcia, the extent to which the alteration has been done has separated the new photography
from the original ones. In this case, the original photos were used.
I would take the side of Slater being awarded the copyright since he is the one who acted
in a way that enhanced the capturing of these photos. Animals are not classified as human and
according to the copyrights law, only human being can own copyrights (Guadamuz 2016). The

Photography Copyright 3
argument of monkeys owning this copyright is therefore void. A leaf can also be borrowed from
the computer-generated works copyrights in which, the copyright owner is the person who
enhances through an arrangement the derivation of the outcome which in most cases is the
creator of the programme. In the case of Google, the infringement can be suppressed for the
interest of the many. Denying slater this right can lead to the discouragement of experimenting
and also lead to denial of knowledge which can be caused by the owners hiding their work from
the public. In this sense, slater should be compensated for his efforts to take risks of
experimenting and also encouraged to release his experimental outcome for the good of the
whole public knowledge.
In conclusion, PETA has no case since, even if the monkeys took the selfies that did not
change them to human beings or at least did not change their classification (PETA 2017).
Animals do not own copyrights and should, therefore, be out of the picture in this argument. The
photos had been used in their original form which means Wikimedia had used someone’s work
as their own which is wrong. The only defense Wikimedia can rely on is that they used the
photos for the public knowledge purpose as the case of perfect 10 vs google.

Photography Copyright 4
Bibliography
Dodgson, L. (2017). A photographer's life, livelihood, and bank account are in tatters because a
monkey took a selfie with his camera and is suing him for it. Available at:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/david-slater-the-photographer-in-the-monkey-selfie-court-case-is-
broke-2017-7 (Accessed 17 August 2017)
Guadamuz, A. (2016) ‘the monkey selfie: copyright lessons for originality in photographs and
internet jurisdiction’, Internet Policy Review, 5(1). doi: 10.14763/2016.1.398.
PETA (2017) PETA appeals ‘monkey selfie’ case on grounds that monkey owns copyright.
Available at: https://www.peta.org/blog/peta-appeal-monkey-selfie-case-grounds-monkey-owns-
copyright/ (Accessed: 28 August 2017).
MURABAYASHI, A, (2017) 8 LEGAL CASES EVERY PHOTOGRAPHER SHOULD
KNOW. Available at: https://petapixel.com/2014/10/28/8-legal-cases-every-photographer-
know/(Accessed: 15 March 2018)