"There's a gorilla on the screen - of course you're going to see it! But 50 percent of people miss the gorilla."
#3 GORILLA IMAGE SERIES#
The kids keep playing, and then the video ends and a series of questions appear, including: "Did you see the gorilla?" He stops momentarily in the center of the circle, looks straight ahead, beats his chest, and then casually strolls off the screen. Then, about a half-minute into the video, a large man in a gorilla suit walks on screen, directly to the middle of the circle of kids. Because the players are constantly moving around, viewers really have to concentrate to count the throws. Perhaps Wikimedia loathes the idea of private intellectual property because it is an open source project – but twisting copyright law to their benefit is not an egalitarian move, it’s just plain thievery.This task isn't easy.
#3 GORILLA IMAGE SOFTWARE#
If a computer is programed to write random software and the output were to become useful, Wikimedia could say the code could not be copyrighted because it was a product of random acts.Ĭrediting copyright to authors who create the conditions and manage the technology to bring works of authorship to market allows the public more consumable works. If a painter uses gravity to drop paint on a canvas, Wikimedia could argue that the painting was a product of natural forces, and has no ownership.
If a camera is placed alone in the wild and is set on auto-timer to capture photos randomly – or a motion sensor forces the camera to take pictures when there is movement – then the photographer who constructed the scenario would not own copyright to the resulting images because he/she didn’t press the button. If Wikipedia’s bizarre interpretation of copyright law were granted, then much more is at risk than merely these gorilla selfies. According to that definition, David Slater is the copyright owner. Therefore, the person who created the conditions for the photos must be credited with authorship. However, there’s a hole in Wikipedia’s justification: A gorilla is part of nature – not a person – and nature cannot be credited with authorship. Therein lies the rub for Wikimedia’s claim that the copyright to the gorilla selfie doesn’t have ownership.Īccording to copyright law, if a person pushes the shutter button to snap a photograph, that person provided the creative contribution and automatically owns the copyright – not the owner of the camera – and that is Wikimedia’s main argument. Since the gorilla photos are copyrightable, an individual must be credited with the creative work that made them consumable by the public. While someone might question whether taking a photo of nature qualifies as a creative contribution, photographs were added to the list of copyrightable works in the USA in 1865 shortly after the medium of photography was invented.
Some of the shots became famous, and Wikipedia decided to post them, claiming the photos are in the public domain since the gorilla acted as the photographer. During his three-day journey, a group of gorillas stole his camera for a while and snapped pictures. In 2011, photographer David Slater took a wildlife photography trip to Indonesia. The photographer, on the other hand, begs to differ. 501(c)3 parent company behind Wikipedia – the photograph has no ownership. If a gorilla snaps a selfie, who owns the copyright to the photo? According to thieving Wikimedia – the U.S. THIS JUST IN: In The Case of The Gorilla Selfie Copyright, Wikipedia, You Are a Thief.
0 kommentar(er)
