JSDev Posted August 6, 2014 Posted August 6, 2014 Wikipedia Refuses to Delete Photo as Monkey Owns It http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html
cobra2411 Posted August 6, 2014 Posted August 6, 2014 Fascinating! My first thought is not so much does the monkey own the picture, but does the photographer own it. I doubt the monkey understands the concept of copyright. We can use timers and triggers to take photo's and not manually press the shutter release and still own the picture because we control the timers and triggers, but in this case the monkey owns his body. Now, my dog owns his body and I'm sure with a little time I could teach him to take selfies, but he would be working as my agent for a reward. This was clearly a case where the photographer lost control of his equipment. So next though, if I take his camera and take a photo, who owns the photograph? The owner of the equipment or the photographer. How about if a tree fell and triggered the camera? Or some other random event. In the end the lawyers will be the only winners.
Magnus Posted August 6, 2014 Posted August 6, 2014 No. Property rights are not about the relationship between a person and a thing. It is an ethical principle governing the relationship between two people, with regard to their rivalrous uses of a thing. I have no ethical relationship with a monkey because the monkey can't reciprocate -- the monkey can't choose whether to aggress against me, or to keep his hands to himself. 2
jacbot Posted August 6, 2014 Posted August 6, 2014 "...It is an ethical principle governing the relationship between two people,..." monkeys are people too.)
Magnus Posted August 6, 2014 Posted August 6, 2014 "...It is an ethical principle governing the relationship between two people,..."monkeys are people too.) Then why do they keep stealing my stuff and breaking everything?Plus, their taste in music is just awful.
JSDev Posted August 7, 2014 Author Posted August 7, 2014 This is really a discussion about what is and isn't public domain, in disguise. However, the photographer is right; the picture is his, by default.
Magnus Posted August 7, 2014 Posted August 7, 2014 This is really a discussion about what is and isn't public domain, in disguise. However, the photographer is right; the picture is his, by default.There is no legitimate right in so-called "intellectual property," for either humans or monkeys. Copying isn't theft. IP is just pattern-protectionism. 3
ChrisN Posted August 10, 2014 Posted August 10, 2014 What a fascinating question! No. Property rights are not about the relationship between a person and a thing. It is an ethical principle governing the relationship between two people, with regard to their rivalrous uses of a thing.I have no ethical relationship with a monkey because the monkey can't reciprocate -- the monkey can't choose whether to aggress against me, or to keep his hands to himself. I believe Magnus is right here - an entity that has no concept and no intellectual potential (now or in the future) for property rights or morality cannot be considered valid recipients of property rights. A wild beast (with anything short of SciFi genetic alteration shinennagans) will live in a state of nature - Killing, stealing, and in some instances raping without any processed thought concept of what it is that they are doing. In addition, the photographer setup the situation for this to occur, the camera, the power, luring in the monkey who mearly by pure accident and with no understanding of what he had actually produced by triggering the camera. Because the monkeys triggering of the camera was purely accidental but only able to occur as a result of the photographer's actions, the effects and responsibilities lay with the photographer. If person A sets up a net trap, and person B walks over it with no knowledge of it being there and a whole group of people get caught up inside the net we would say that the responsibility for why people were in the net would lay with person A. Any flaws with that? 1
JohnH. Posted August 10, 2014 Posted August 10, 2014 If it is the monkey's picture, how did they get its permission to use it?
Magnus Posted August 10, 2014 Posted August 10, 2014 If it is the monkey's picture, how did they get its permission to use it?The monkey has a fantastic media agent. 1
WasatchMan Posted August 10, 2014 Posted August 10, 2014 Can a tiger be put on trial for murder? Nonhuman animals can own certain things. If a monkey throws its poop at you, he owns that action, however it doesn't own the moral consequences of that action, because it is unable to comprehend moral decisions. The concept of property ownership requires the ability to understand, and commit, to that concept.
Sal9000 Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 The monkey can own the photo because his brain controlled his fingers. His brain owns his body, thus he has self ownership.
greekredemption Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 If the monkey defends its property, then yes, it can be said to 'own' property.
Hannibal Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 Monkeys can recognise ownership among other monkeys. Humans have no need to recognise any theoretical right that an animal may have, so humans don't recognise ownership in monkeys. 'Can monkeys own property' is too vague a question to yield a sensible answer as we've already seen assumptions being made that ownership is a human-only concept. And we see elsewhere that some of us suppose that animals have rights. Both of those are incorrect, of course. I'd say 'yes' they probably do (i'm not a zoologist though), but as a human I don't care - if i want it i'll take it. The monkey can own the photo because his brain controlled his fingers. His brain owns his body, thus he has self ownership. Assuming he understands the concept of ownership.
Recommended Posts