That poor macaque: 1709 Blog readers say there is no copyright in her selfie

Alas: not much too
laugh about
copyright-wise

Following the huge debate generated by *that* macaque selfie, on 14 August last our own blogmeister Jeremy launched a poll asking 1709 Blog readers about their copyright-related thoughts [but can there be thoughts which are non-copyright-related? This will probably be one of our next polls] regarding that photograph: is there copyright in it? If so, who owns it?

The poll ended yesterday and received 354 responses [thanks so much to all those who took the time to vote!].

The results are well summarised here, but for the sake of completeness, here's what our readers think:

• "The monkey owns the copyright: she's the author, after all". This is true for just 24 readers (6%). 
• "Only humans are authors so the photographer owns the copyright as the nearest relevant human", say 107 readers (30%).
• "There is no copyright in works authored by animals: they are a gift to humanity which we can all use". This is not just the opinion of the US Copyright Office [see §306], but also of 187 readers (52%).
• "The United Nations should set up a special agency to own and control uses of all non-human works like this", is the ambitious suggestion of 16 voters (4%).
• "Whichever human gets to it first can keep it, just like any other bona vacantia" is the opinion of 20 readers (5%).

Who owns the copyright to THAT macaque selfie? Here's our new poll

Earlier today our dear Jeremy set up a poll asking 1709 Blog readers the following question:

THAT BLACK MACAQUE SELFIE: WHAT DO YOU THINK?

There is probably need to recall neither the background story nor what a macaque looks like: everybody knows already but, just in case, here you go.

The update on this story is that, following much copyright-related speculation, YOU can now have your say by selecting one of the following options:

• The monkey owns the copyright: she's the author, after all [this is fairly reasonable, just look at the IPKat: he has never doubted that Merpel - his favourite feline - owns the copyright to the posts she authors]
• Only humans are authors so the photographer owns the copyright as the nearest relevant human
• There is no copyright in works "authored" by animals: they are a gift to humanity which we can all use
• The United Nations should set up a special agency to own and control uses of all non-human works like this
• Whichever human gets to it first can keep it, just like any other bona vacantia

You have time until 1 September to cast your vote in our poll, conveniently situated at the top of the right-hand side of The 1709 Blog side bar.

Subject-matter categorisation under EU law: poll results

There are voting decisions
that are more difficult than others to make

Following the 4th GRUR Int / JIPLP Joint Seminar on the different notions of copyright-protectable works across the European Union (EU) which was held in Munich almost a month ago, this blog launched a poll asking its readers whether closed subject-matter systems [as is the case under UK law where, to claim copyright protection a work must - among other things - fall within one of the eight categories indicated by the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988] are no longer acceptable under EU law.

This blogger was and still is [more than ever] under the impression that the response should be in the sense that closed systems are no longer compatible with EU law. 

This follows especially from the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-5/08 Infopaq [here], Case C-393/09 BSA [here], Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08 FAPL [here], and Case C-145/10 Painer [here]. 

At the national level, also super-learned Mr Justice Arnold said [in his 2013 decision in SAS v WPL, at para 27] that:

"In the light of a number of recent judgments of the CJEU, it may be arguable that it is not a fatal objection to a claim that copyright subsists in a particular work that the work is not one of the kinds of work listed in section 1(1)(a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents 1988 and defined elsewhere in that Act."

It seems, however, that 1709 Blog readers do not agree with this conclusion. 

The 1709 Blog poll attracted 56 votes [thanks so much to all those who cast their precious vote!], and the results were as follows: 

• 23 people (41%) thought that the CJEU has not yet been asked to rule on national systems of subject-matter categorisation; 
• 22 people (39%) believed that the answer should be in the sense that we are now required to protect anything that is a 'work' if it displays sufficient originality;
• Finally, 11 voters (19%) held the opinion that it all depends on whether the CJEU wants to have a particular work (eg a graphic user interface) protected by copyright.