Dogs as Photographers

<p>There's some seriously interesting photos here. Great point of view - a <em><strong>dog as a photographer</strong></em>. Is this the beginning of strapping cameras to all sort of animals? <br>

http://www.boredpanda.com/dog-takes-photos-heart-rate-monitor-phodographer-heartography-nikon/</p>

<p>Some of those are better than a lot of images posted to <insert your favorite social network site>. :-)</p>

<p>It would probably pay to remember that a human has likely chosen which pictures to show, which will skew the results. Social networking sites are, unfortunately, much less edited. Also, a dog might not be able to make a conscious series or learn from or repeat his photographic results.</p>

<p>My lab would get lots of shots of the dog bed and my shepherd would spend the day trying to get the camera off her chest. <br>

Though I've considered attaching my narrative camera to one of their collars.</p>

I should think a lot of those photos would include chest hair and a big wet tongue hanging down. You can see from some of the angles that the dog didn't take the shots. The photo of the brown dog, for instance, had to be taken from above the brown dogs head. Maybe the phodographer was standing on his hind legs? Nah.

<p>And be aware that if the animal takes the shot, it can't be copyrighted in the US. (Don't know about elsewhere.) PETA has filed a lawsuit to challenge this (the photo in question was taken by an ape), but they won't be successful. In fact, I doubt that they even have standing to sue.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And be aware that if the animal takes the shot, it can't be copyrighted in the US.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Which was, by the way, an incredibly stupid decision. If a human does everything but physically push the button, how is that not that person's photo? Does a human without fingers lose the copyright if he sets up everything in a photo, but asks another human to push the button?<br /><br /></p>

<p>Well, the absence of shots of fire hydrants and other dogs' butts does imply a certain amount of good taste. More importantly: Not one single selfie!</p>

<p>I think we should give Grizzler a gift PhotoNet subscription...</p>

<p>Damon: I think the issue is about whose creative act it is, not who pushes the shutter. The human would have to argue that he or she set up the photo, and that the trained animal was following orders. But, if taking the photo is under the control of the animal, then it can't be the creative act of a human. And, an animal can't own a copyright. A photographer's assistant or a mechanism (e.e., timer) set up by a human is under his or her control, so that photographer is the creator.</p>

<p>So does it depend on how good the dog is at obeying human commands?</p>

<p>And why is it that animals can't own copyrights? It would seem fair to me.</p>