|
|
|
|
|
|
by wrath
4327 days ago
|
|
|
http://www.blogcdn.com/travel.aol.co.uk/media/2013/01/323ng1... My understanding is that this image was captured by a camera trigger that was setup National Geographic photographer (Sorry, I'm unsure the name). This has been a highly published photo by National Geographic; does this mean that the tiger should be owed all the royalties and not the photographer? |
|
|
And the important part is that the photographer would have still owned the copyright if it was a human who set off the trigger.
However, imagine a person picked up his camera and took a selfie. The person would own the copyright, not the owner of the camera. The photographer didn't contribute anything artistic.
This is a monkey selfie, so it's in an interesting legal situation.
The best comparison is to abstract paintings done by elephants. Does anyone own a copyright on those?