Quit Playing Around: Monkey Stirs Up Copyright Controversy with Selfie

A brief departure from copyright in the education sector and more a post on copyright education. As you know, I am a big fan of bizarre and random stories, and yesterday saw the return of the 'monkey selfie' story as reported in the Telegraph. Briefly, a British wildlife photographer was photographing crested black macaque monkeys in Indonesia when the monkeys began to show an interest in his equipment and started taking pictures of themselves. One of the photos has found its way on to Wikimedia and now the photographer is threatening to sue for copyright infringement and damages. But if the monkey took the photograph, who really does own the copyright?

First off, let's do some copyright 101: for an artistic work to benefit from copyright, it must be original and a product of intellectual creation, skill and judgement by its author. We will return to questions of ownership shortly, but first let's examine whether this photograph would qualify as an artistic work to benefit from copyright.The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) states in s.4(1) that an artistic work means, among other types of work, "a photograph,...irrespective of artistic quality". Photographs which are 'selfies' are not new; rather they have become more popular with the widespread use of smartphones. The Oscar selfie earlier this year is a classic example; this was a product of Ellen DeGeneres' creation, bringing together top celebrities into one frame of a photograph, thereby making an original work (it is highly unlikely that photos including all of these celebrities exist). You could argue that the level of skill and intellectual creation is fairly limited, but it is an original work nonetheless and qualifies for copyright. Does the monkey's selfie differ, then, from the Oscar selfie? Particularly as the photograph was not actually taken by Ellen DeGeneres? The problem with the monkey selfie is that, although it is original in the starkest sense of the word, there appears to be little intellectual creation, skill and judgement (although how can we criticise the monkey, given that it can't tell us..?!), unless the shot was set up by the photographer in some way, adjusting settings, focus, filters and so on to capture 'true' likenesses. Additionally, if the photographer has adjusted the image using Photoshop (see the Red Bus case which continues to perplex lawyers), an element of intellectual creation, skill and judgement could be argued.

But what about the question of authorship? The author, as defined by s.9(1) of the CDPA, means "the person who creates [a work]". On first glance this would appear to be the monkey, who quite literally 'created' the work when it touched the trigger and set off the camera. However, animals cannot be authors according to the CDPA, and therefore their works are not subject to copyright. So is there actually a copyright owner in the work, or is the photograph not subject to copyright at all and therefore public domain?

Could it be argued that the photographer did not actually create the work because he did not take the photo? It's not quite as simple as that. Although the CDPA does not go into further detail about the author of an artistic work, leading legal experts have submitted that the author "is the person who made the original contribution and...need not be he who pressed the trigger" (Laddie, Prescott & Vitoria, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs, 4th ed, 4.61 p.254). 'Original contribution' in this sense can take several forms: there may be originality, for instance, in the use of angle, filters, light, exposure, and so forth which create a photograph. There may be originality in terms of the creation of a scene or subject to be photographed; this certainly is the case in the Oscar selfie, but may also include the set up and control of the illumination of the subject. Finally, it may just be a 'right place right time' type of originality, the photographer capturing a scene because he made a special effort to go and find it. In this respect, the wildlife photographer would appear to qualify as at least a contributor to the photograph. There is an added complication that allegedly the monkeys found the camera by accident and that the photographer did not set up the shots, but even so the serendipity aspect of originality cannot be completely ignored. 

Finally, could this be considered as a computer-generated work? Again, the CDPA in s.9(3) states that the author of a computer-generated work "shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken". It is less likely that this work could be construed as a computer-generated work, but it would appear that the same principles of authorship could apply, in that the photographer would be the author of the work.

It's a fascinating debate and I would definitely want to be in court watching this particular case. It is difficult to say whether the arguments would go in favour of the photographer being the author; this is certainly the verdict in a blog post by our US friends across the pond, who argue that as there was no official creator of the photograph other than the monkey, and the monkey does not qualify as an author, there is therefore no copyright in the photograph. It does however seem a bit unfair to the photographer, who should probably be recognised as a contributor at the very least. Perhaps we should ask the monkey? ;-)

Fair Use v Fair Dealing

There’s been a lot of speculation following Cameron’s announcement of a review of IP Law about the implications of moving towards a ‘fair use’ provision in copyright law. Rights holders are against it, educational institutions should be for it, but what does it really mean?

Spot the Difference

Although it’s not easy to do, let’s compare and contrast US Copyright Law with UK Copyright Law:

Both are subject to the Berne Convention

Copyright duration is 70 years from the death of the author/creator in both laws

Copyright is an automatic right in both laws

Both recognise moral rights (to an extent)

Both have exceptions and/or defences to copyright infringement

The US has a system of copyright registration, the UK used to but it was abolished a long time ago

The major difference which Cameron arguably hasn’t taken into account is that the US has a system of Copyright Registration, whereas the UK does not. This system strengthens the hand of the rightsholder and allows them greater protection for their work, enabling them to claim significantly higher damages when infringement occurs. This, in my opinion, could be where an attempt to move towards US law may fail – rightsholders will simply see a move to expand fair dealing exceptions as an excuse for commercial entities to use their works for free.

Fair’s Fair...

So, the burning question.. what’s the difference between fair use and fair dealing?

One major difference is that the US Law lists the factors to be taken into consideration when determining whether the use made of a work is fair. These factors are as follows:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

These factors relate to a wide range of purposes for which use of copyright work is not considered an infringement. These purposes include criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.

In the UK, there is no such definition of ‘fair’ in the Copyright Act. Rather, it is subject to the whims of case law, and since the eleven word infringement case in Denmark, societies and publishers are afraid to define the scope of what is considered ‘fair dealing’. Instead, UK fair dealing sets out provisions for each particular purpose rather than grouping them all together. Thus, criticism and review becomes one, non-commercial research another, and so on. Some fair dealing provisions do not extend to unpublished works (criticism and review, for example), whereas in the US “the fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." (US Copyright Act)

My thoughts...

This may be an ideal opportunity for educational institutions to provide a wish list of extensions to the fair dealing provisions set out in the Copyright Act to the government's review. As such, it should be seized by those working in education. Ideally, we would like to see 'fair' defined in UK law as it is in US law, and an expansion of the educational exceptions so that they are less technology-specific and allow for the use of material for the purposes of teaching/delivery of courses within educational institutions.

However, my cynical side is inclined to think that 6 months is not long enough to undertake a review of IP Law, when the Gowers Review took at least 4 years. And the provisions made there haven't even been implemented yet. My personal feeling is that if Cameron wants to go down the fair use path and widen the exceptions, chances are that he may have to make the process of dealing with copyright infringement easier for rightsholders. Without a system of copyright registration or even a central Copyright Office, the ideals of the fair use provisions may just be a slice of Google pie in the sky...