via:
Showing posts with label Photos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Photos. Show all posts
Sunday, April 19, 2026
Thursday, April 16, 2026
A Monkey Goes to Court
What happens when something that isn't human makes art? A series of bizarre court battles trying to answer that question centred around this image. Ultimately, it will influence what ends up on your screens and headphones forever.
It was a humid day in the Indonesian jungle, and photographer David Slater was following a group of crested black macaques, a critically endangered and particularly photogenic species of monkey.
He wanted pictures, but the macaques were nervous. So, Slater put his camera on a tripod with autofocus on and a flashbulb, allowing the monkeys to inspect it. Just as he hoped, they started playing with his gear. Then one of them reached up and hit the shutter button while staring directly into the lens. The result was a selfie, taken by a monkey. And its toothy grin inadvertently answered a basic question that sits at the heart of technology.
What came next was nearly a decade of legal battles around an unusual dispute: when something that isn't human makes a work of art, who owns the copyright? Thanks to AI, that's become a issue with some deep implications for modern life – and what it means to be human.
One of the most alarming predictions about AI is that corporations will replace the human-created music, movies and books you love with an endless stream of AI slop. But the US Supreme Court just upheld a decision about AI and copyright which suggests that future may be harder to pull off than the tech industry hoped. The path is still uncertain, and right now, the legal system is the site of a battle that will shape what you read, watch and listen to for the rest of your life. It all traces back to that one little monkey.
Monkey business
The monkey took that selfie in 2011. For a brief, blissful period, Slater enjoyed global attention from the picture, but the troubles began when someone uploaded the photo to Wikipedia, from where it could be downloaded and used free of charge. He asked the Wikimedia Foundation to take it down, arguing it cost him £10,000 (worth about $13,400 today) in lost sales. In 2014, The organisation refused, arguing the photo was in the public domain because it wasn't taken by a person.
The row prompted the US Copyright Office to issue a statement that it would not register work created by a non-human author, putting "a photograph taken by a monkey" first in a list of examples. (Slater didn't respond to interview requests, but his representation arranged for the BBC to use the photo in this article.)
The story gets weirder. Soon after, the advocacy group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) sued Slater on behalf of the monkey. The case argued all proceeds from the photo belonged to the macaque that took the picture, but it was really seen as a test case, an attempt to establish legal rights for animals. After four years and multiple court battles, a San Francisco judge dismissed the case. The judge's reasoning was simple: monkeys can't file lawsuits.
"It was kind of the biggest public conversation piece on this topic," says intellectual property lawyer Ryan Abbott, a partner at Brown, Neri, Smith and Khan in the US. "At the time it was very much about animal rights. But it could have been a conversation about AI." [...]
The missing author
When the US passed the Copyright Act of 1790, we only had to deal with things like writing and drawing. But the invention of photography decades later raised troubling questions. You could argue cameras do the real work, a person just hits a button.
"The Supreme Court looked at this and said, you know, we're going to interpret this purposively," says Abbott, who represented Thaler in a case against the Copyright Office. "Copyright was designed to protect the expression of tangible ideas. And that's broad enough to cover something like photography."
The same logic could apply to AI. "What you really have in photography is exactly the same thing you have here. You have a person issuing instructions to a machine to generate a work," he says. "What's the difference between that and me asking ChatGPT to make an image?"
by Thomas Germain, BBC | Read more:
Image: David Slater/ Caters New/BBC
[ed. More issues than you might imagine.]
It was a humid day in the Indonesian jungle, and photographer David Slater was following a group of crested black macaques, a critically endangered and particularly photogenic species of monkey.
What came next was nearly a decade of legal battles around an unusual dispute: when something that isn't human makes a work of art, who owns the copyright? Thanks to AI, that's become a issue with some deep implications for modern life – and what it means to be human.
One of the most alarming predictions about AI is that corporations will replace the human-created music, movies and books you love with an endless stream of AI slop. But the US Supreme Court just upheld a decision about AI and copyright which suggests that future may be harder to pull off than the tech industry hoped. The path is still uncertain, and right now, the legal system is the site of a battle that will shape what you read, watch and listen to for the rest of your life. It all traces back to that one little monkey.
Monkey business
The monkey took that selfie in 2011. For a brief, blissful period, Slater enjoyed global attention from the picture, but the troubles began when someone uploaded the photo to Wikipedia, from where it could be downloaded and used free of charge. He asked the Wikimedia Foundation to take it down, arguing it cost him £10,000 (worth about $13,400 today) in lost sales. In 2014, The organisation refused, arguing the photo was in the public domain because it wasn't taken by a person.
The row prompted the US Copyright Office to issue a statement that it would not register work created by a non-human author, putting "a photograph taken by a monkey" first in a list of examples. (Slater didn't respond to interview requests, but his representation arranged for the BBC to use the photo in this article.)
The story gets weirder. Soon after, the advocacy group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) sued Slater on behalf of the monkey. The case argued all proceeds from the photo belonged to the macaque that took the picture, but it was really seen as a test case, an attempt to establish legal rights for animals. After four years and multiple court battles, a San Francisco judge dismissed the case. The judge's reasoning was simple: monkeys can't file lawsuits.
"It was kind of the biggest public conversation piece on this topic," says intellectual property lawyer Ryan Abbott, a partner at Brown, Neri, Smith and Khan in the US. "At the time it was very much about animal rights. But it could have been a conversation about AI." [...]
The missing author
When the US passed the Copyright Act of 1790, we only had to deal with things like writing and drawing. But the invention of photography decades later raised troubling questions. You could argue cameras do the real work, a person just hits a button.
"The Supreme Court looked at this and said, you know, we're going to interpret this purposively," says Abbott, who represented Thaler in a case against the Copyright Office. "Copyright was designed to protect the expression of tangible ideas. And that's broad enough to cover something like photography."
The same logic could apply to AI. "What you really have in photography is exactly the same thing you have here. You have a person issuing instructions to a machine to generate a work," he says. "What's the difference between that and me asking ChatGPT to make an image?"
by Thomas Germain, BBC | Read more:
Image: David Slater/ Caters New/BBC
[ed. More issues than you might imagine.]
Monday, April 13, 2026
Sunday, April 12, 2026
Masters: 4/12/2026
Masters 2026: Sometimes golf needs to be told to go to hell
Golf is supposed to be a gentleman's game, a polite handshake between competitor and course. In reality it’s a hostage negotiation. We try to maintain our composure, but this sport operates like a bad contract with fine print you didn't read — every clause designed to remind you that the house always wins. Other sports at least pretend to be fair. You can outwork a defender, wear down a pitcher, grind an opponent into submission. Golf offers no such recourse. What it delivers, you take.
The toll of that arrangement is real. Every bad break deposits something into an account you can't access, pressure building in increments so small you barely notice until you realize the damage on the statement. Expecting players to absorb that indefinitely without some kind of release is fantasy. These are obsessive competitors who have organized their entire lives around a game that sets an impossible bar and then moves it. Perfection is the expectation and failure the guarantee.
Which is why the release, when it comes, makes a strange kind of sense. A perfectly deployed expletive, the kind that arrives with equal parts exhaustion and clarity, can work like a pressure valve, the emotional equivalent of opening a window in a stuffy room. And there is something cathartic about watching a club meet its end after a particularly unforgivable betrayal, a brief and satisfying severance of a relationship that clearly wasn't working. These aren't ugly moments. They're honest ones. Reminders that no matter how much money is on the line or how many people are watching, nobody has actually figured out how to make peace with this game.
What's maybe more compelling than the outbursts themselves is how reliably we seek them out. There's a recognition factor at work. The sudden collapse of the professional facade revealing something deeply familiar underneath, like running into a coworker at the grocery store and realizing they also have no idea what they're doing. These are the best players in the world, and when the wheels come off, they look exactly like the rest of us: bewildered, aggrieved, and entirely convinced the game is cheating.
by Joel Beall, Golf Digest | Read more:
Images: J.D. Cuban/Adam Glanzman[ed. Factoid of the day (because, of course... it's the Masters):]
Masters week is an economic bonanza for residents. And for the homeowners who open their doors? Well, often it's the best investment they've ever made. A home less than three miles from Augusta National rents for $30,000, and the premium end? They command six figures.
The best part … every dollar these homeowners earn is likely tax-free thanks to a provision in the federal tax code called the "Augusta Rule." Allowing homeowners to rent out their property for up to 14 days a year without paying a cent in income tax on the earnings.
***
Every April, Augusta, Ga., transforms and becomes one of the most sought-after destinations in the world. Masters week is an economic bonanza for residents. And for the homeowners who open their doors? Well, often it's the best investment they've ever made. A home less than three miles from Augusta National rents for $30,000, and the premium end? They command six figures.
The best part … every dollar these homeowners earn is likely tax-free thanks to a provision in the federal tax code called the "Augusta Rule." Allowing homeowners to rent out their property for up to 14 days a year without paying a cent in income tax on the earnings.
Thursday, April 9, 2026
China stands to benefit most from the war-driven energy crisis (WaPo)
Image: AFP/Getty, and Lorenzo Martinez
Sunday, April 5, 2026
Saturday, April 4, 2026
Monday, March 30, 2026
Sunday, March 29, 2026
Saturday, March 21, 2026
Tuesday, March 17, 2026
Saturday, February 28, 2026
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)