Legalities aside, it's a great picture. On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > Remember the story about the monkey who took a self-portrait and David > Slater, the photographer who tried to claim copyright on it? If not, > here's T.O.P. on the subject: > http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/07/monkey-business-monkeywrench.html > and TechDirt: > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/01182015052/monkeys-dont-do-fair-use-news-agency-tells-techdirt-to-remove-photos.shtml > > I sent a query about this matter to Rich Stim, the IP lawyer who > writes Nolo.com's intellectual property blog. TOP and other places > around the web had so many non-lawyers spouting off about this case I > thought it would be interesting to see what a real lawyer (whose books > on IP law are widely respected) had to say. > > It's bad news for Slater. > > http://dearrichblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/hijacked-and-automatic-photography.html > > But it think it's generally good news for everyone that Mike J's > speculation that photos taken by automatically-triggered mechanisms > can't be registered turned out to be groundless. > > > -- > Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia > www.robertstech.com > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. >
-- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
