This is actually a really famous and interesting copyright case that established some important bounds of copyright. How much of an artist’s intent is necessary to claim copyright? Can an artist set up a situation in which some creative product is produced?
There is actually a lot of animal photography that is dependent on the animal itself to trigger the camera, such as trail photos or even those cute photos of squirrels interacting with dollhouse furniture like tiny little humans. There is a lot of meticulous planning, experimentation, and patience that goes into “spontaneous” photographs.
This also set a huge precedent for legal cases around AI image generation, didn’t it? Since that also falls under “works not created by a human” and are therefore not copyrightable. We could have been dealing with a much bleaker AI art law situation than we have today because of this funny monkey photo case.
The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my pipe? No, it’s just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture “This is a pipe”, I’d have been lying!
It’s basically like Anime, the tv shows do exist but no records were saved. You could try to find any source of advertising or something that connected with the tv show.
en.wikipedia.org
Newest