David Slater, a wildlife photographer, is in dispute with Wikimedia, the foundation behind Wikipedia, over a photo. He wants the picture removed from the public domain, Wikimedia is refusing on the grounds that the monkey took the picture. It is now a very famous image of a crested macaque grinning into the camera - the ultimate selfie. Slater argues that the selfie was only possible because he had spent £1,000s travelling to the animals' habitat in Sulawesi and positioned the camera in the first place. Wikimedia's policy is that it is public domain - there was no human author involved in creating the copyright, if anybody has image rights it would be the macaque. But primates do not have property rights, although the Planet of Apes films suggest that is only a matter of time.
I am a fan of wildlife photographers, Wikipedia and crested macaques, so this story leaves me very conflicted. It also may inspire the use of monkeys wore widely in professional photography, on the other side of the camera. If you are a magazine editor looking to cut costs, bring a gibbon with you to next photo shoot and let him operate the camera with remote control. Bazinga! The photos are no longer copyright so you don't have to pay.
Realistically, the costs of breeding, training and feeding a monkey, along with the handler's wages, mean that any savings on copyright would be offset by outgoings on tyre swings and bananas. So for the time being, professional photographers can relax - a monkey could potentially do their job but it's just too expensive.
There is a wider issue about copyright in the digital age which in turn is linked to content and content creators. Everybody likes free stuff: free beer, free food, free accommodation. All these words have positive associations, the best of all being free bar. The only time I've encountered a genuinely free bar, which included spirits, was at the Kobo party after the London Book Fair. It was excellent, I lost the power of coherent speech and have no memory of the taxi ride home. Free trumps paying for things, whenever we have the option. And many of us have become used to paying very little or nothing at all for much of the media we consume.
It's a great deal if you are a consumer of content, like anybody who enjoyed looking at the monkey selfie or anyone who uses BitTorrrent or other illegal download sites. Now I know a lot of people download media illegally, I used Limewire before it was shut down. In my defense, a lot of the music wasn't then available on iTunes or Spotify - they forced me into a life of crime, your honour.
(Thus far I have avoided using the phrase 'pirate' copies or 'pirate' media, because it makes me think of a man with one leg and a parrot on his shoulder which is confusing.)
But it is still a crime, not a serious one like murder obviously. Yes, everyone does it, but lots of people drive over the speed limit that doesn't mean we don't accept the need for speed limits. Yet when it comes to illegal copyright, many people I've spoken to who include IP lawyers, TV producers and a social media analyst for a major tech firm, justify their actions with a range of excuses:
'It's not really stealing because the Warner Brothers makes so much money anyway.'
'People who download illegally also buy content.'
'The copyright system is obsolete.'
This sounds like a variation of Wikimedia's defence over copyright infringement - a load of monkey balls. We pay to go to the cinema, to a football match, to attend a concert, go clubbing and go to the theatre. Why then do we expect to consume content at home for free. Or put it another way, we don't generally work for nothing or give our property away to strangers, so why do we think musicians, photographers, TV and film writes owe us a freebie? What have we done for them in return, other than click the rating button?
The scale of the problem was brought home to me when I had a second broadband line installed (it's for uploading commercial video work, not porn in case you were wondering). The engineer was polite, helpful and then proceeded to tell me about how I could hack my Netflix box to access everything for free and a range of other hacks that unlocked online HD video libraries. This guy worked for BT, who has a vested interest in getting people to pay for content for example, sports rights. But free wins every time.
Perhaps the answer lies in a more flexible copyright system with the facility for micro-payments and streaming extended more widely. Much as I love Wikipedia, pulling the monkey trick to use a photographer's work without permission is not the way forward either.
PS - In all honesty, I wish I had taken notes when the BT man was telling me his trade secrets. It's not like I was overcome with an attack of morals, it was that same syndrome when people start telling me directions, my brain shut down after the third word.
PPS - Here's a couple of excellent links on the issue of freebies
Harlan Ellison rants about working for free
Musician Whitey responds to a request for licensing his music for nothing
