Image of a macaque monkey taken by itself when it snatched a camera. Legal consensus is that this is in the public domain as a monkey is not considered to be a person in most countries.
The Landing files tool can be used to share files with others, comment on them and build dialogue around them.
Some files are treated specially: on the whole, pictures will be displayed as pictures (jpg, gif and png formats), audio will be played as audio (mp3 and a few other formats) and video will be shown as video (various formats). It is thus a way to build picture galleries, podcasts and vodcasts.
You can upload multiple files and even upload zip files, that will be extracted on this site into their individual components.
We welcome comments on public posts from members of the public. Please note, however, that all comments made on public posts must be moderated by their owners before they become visible on the site. The owner of the post (and no one else) has to do that.
If you want the full range of features and you have a login ID, log in using the links at the top of the page or at https://landing.athabascau.ca/login (logins are secure and encrypted)
Posts made here are the responsibility of their owners and may not reflect the views of Athabasca University.
Comments
Interesting on several counts!
So ...
If a monkey snatches my camera and takes my photo, then my photo is in public domain.
If a person snatches my camera and takes my photo with my camera, he owns the rights to my photo.
What if a photo is taken by a robot which is programmed to perform actions at random. If it takes my photo, do I own the rights or is it public. If I own the robot, do I own the rights to pictures it takes? If not, why not? I would be liable for any damage it causes.
Since wildlife is owned by the state, doesn't the state own the rights to this photo.
Which countries recognize the personhood of monkeys?
@Mary - possibly Belgium?
I hate to give ammunition to those who assert property rights over something that occurred by chance and that involved little visible creative effort. However, there might be a case here that this is not public domain, despite apparent consensus that it is.
I have a dog-cam that hangs around the dog's neck and that takes pictures at regular intervals. The vast majority of these are of course rubbish, but I have a great picture that our dog took of me as my profile image for Skype. Neither the dog nor I played any conscious role in taking it, though I guess I did consciously set the camera in motion in the expectation that there might be some interesting results and I did deliberately encourage her to run towards me. However, by the criteria suggested here, they might be considered to be public domain. The important issue here is that I played a very active role in selecting one that has value from a very large number that didn't. To some extent, albeit here in a more constrained way, this is what any photographer does when taking a picture- to consciously select an image from a range of possible images.
The owner of the camera in this case actively chose it from a range of others and, I'm guessing from the relative dimensions, probably trimmed it and maybe even adjusted some aspects of the colour balance and so on. This act of choice is what makes a photo a creative work in the first place. The fact that the choice is more constrained than it would otherwise have been doesn't affect the issue of whether a creative choice was made at all. A similar case might be made for some found or accidental objects that figure in dada art. For instance, the shattering of the glass in Duchamp's nude ascending a staircase or his R.Mutt urinal. On the other hand, if I picked out a particular pot that someone else had made on a shopping trip because of flaws in it that I happened to like, would I be the copyright holder? Probably not.
Interesting stuff.