File talk:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Description in Esperanto[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Please add the following description in Esperanto:

{{eo|Memportreto de ina Kresta Nigra Makako (''Macaca nigra'') en Norda Sulaveso (Indonezio), kiu prenis la fotilon de la fotografisto David Slater kaj fotografis sin per ĝi}}

Please also add the same description to File:Macaca nigra self-portrait (rotated and cropped).jpg and File:Macaca nigra self-portrait full body.jpg. Thank you! darkweasel94 16:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with metadata-stripped version[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Hi, I made a version of this file with metadata stripped but keeping the colour profile: File:Macaca nigra self-portrait (metadata stripped).jpg This, surprisingly, knocks a whole 1MB off the file with no reduction in quality. Furthermore, it means we're not hosting a file that contains copyright/licensing info, since we (at least just now) believe it to be Public Domain. Attribution can always be found on the description page for it. If my suggested update is uploaded as a new version of this file (File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg), please delete my separate upload (File:Macaca nigra self-portrait (metadata stripped).jpg) as it would no longer be needed. AJF (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew translation of descrition[edit]

It seems that the page is blocked and thus I can't add a Hebrew (language code: "he") translation to the description. So here goes: דיוקן עצמי של נקבת מקוק שחור Tzafrir (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tzafrir: Thanks, this is now ✓ Done. odder (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

I see no reason for full-protecting the site. Only one bad edit happend, from a new account, so half-protect would have been sufficient. --Itu (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straighten up & fly right[edit]

I find it hard to believe what is happening with this image. I'm a strong supporter of both open source software and open knowledge projects, and have been contributing to both for over a decade. There are places where I'd strongly support such projects fighting against silly copyright claims and/or appalling legislation like the DMCA.

This is not one of those. As far as I can see, the photographer clearly has copyright on the image; he went into the jungle, brought cameras, planned this sort of shot (inspired work; bravo!), and set it up. The fact that it was the monkey who actually pushed the button is irrelevant. In my view uploading the image here was a mistake and rejecting the two deletion attempts above a worse one. Those should not even have had to be discussed; copyright violation is grounds for immediate deletion. I have read the discussion and am amazed at the level of what seems idiocy to me.

Recently someone created a new version without the copyright notice, which in my view is completely unethical, getting close to criminal.

News stories say WMF is going to court to fight over this, and using the patently absurd argument that the monkey owns the copyright because he or she pushed the button. That is an admirably clever bit of legal trickery, but far from an honest argument. Anyway, if that were the case, then we'd need the monkey's permission to use the image.

I'd say we should delete the image, apologise profusely, and send some of the clever lawyers to see if a reasonable out-of-court settlement can be negotiated with the photographer who is suing for damages. We should not be perpared to pay an absurd sum, but we have done him damage and should be ready to pay something. 99.240.65.32 18:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC) (actually voy:User:Pashley but common login works everywhere but Commons)[reply]

I was the one who removed the copyright notice. I can see your point, but to be honest, it is nonsensical for us to simultaneously say the image is public domain and yet keep a copyright notice. We should do one or the other, so I removed the copyright notice from the file. Besides, if you really want to discuss this, might be better to open another deletion request. AJF (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, but in my view we should obviously delete the image, not the copyright notice. 99.240.65.32 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF is not claiming that the monkey owns the copyright. If you'd actually read the discussions, you'd know that. News stories making such claims are based on statements made by Slater deliberately misrepresenting the WMF's position. I'm sorry, but you're not really saying anything that hasn't been said already. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually read the discussion, as I said above. I know I'm not saying anything new, but I feel rather strongly that it needs to be said again. In over ten years of activity on various projects, I've seen no unethical actions from WMF. Here I see one awful enough that I have to think about dissociating myself from them, but I'd rather fight it from within than do that. 99.240.65.32 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ethics are subjective. Is it fair that the photographer doesn't own it? Perhaps not. (Though there is a case to be made that it is a violation of the animal's rights to allow its copyright to be given to the photographer where it would not if that animal had been a human.) But is it the law? Maybe. AJF (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just say this much: without Slater (or someone like him), there would be no such images. Nothing subjective about that. And these images aren't all that relevant to any of the our projects. We already have other quite useful, freely-licensed photos of black crested macaque. The selfies have limited use as informative illustrations. Fun to look at, but with surprisingly little useful information about anything the animal in question. We even have other animal selfies.
These image really seem more like trophies than useful resources.
Peter Isotalo 22:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we might have a trend in the making. Someone uploaded a selfie of Lionel Messi with a monkey on his shoulder which has been proclaimed as public domain. It's very unclear who the photographer is, though, so I've requested deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monkey and Lionel.jpg
Peter Isotalo 08:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The US Copyright Office has come right out and explicitly stated that photos taken by monkeys are ineligible for copyright. There could hardly be a more authoritative legal statement on the subject, at least as far as WMF is concerned. This case should be considered closed. See page 54 of http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-full.pdf 饒彥偉 (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slater wants to bring this to UK court, however. AJF (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different discussion. While the WMF may be affected by UK court judgments, it would be silly to argue that UK law trumps US law in the event of a conflict. The WMF is headquartered in the US, and US law is primary in this jurisdiction. It is completely clear that this image is not copyrighted in the primary jurisdiction of WMF. 饒彥偉 (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a UK court decides that Slater should have compensation, then the British authorities could maybe decide to seize the WMF's assets in the UK, if any. According to m:Wikimedia servers#Hosting, the WMF has assets in the Netherlands which could maybe be seized in the event of a dispute there. If the WMF has no assets in the UK, then I'm not sure if anything happens even if the court rules in favour of Slater.
If the WMF exports a copyright violation to another country by personally carrying it in a suitcase or by sending it by mail, then the WMF would normally be fined for copyright violation even if the copy is perfectly legal in the United States. I'm not sure how it works if you export a copyright violation to another country by distributing it on a website, though. It sounds like the same situation, but on the other hand, it is very difficult to prevent an Internet copy from being exported to another country. There was a recent EU court ruling on the matter, which said that personality right violations can be processed in any w:Lugano convention country (at least if the violator lives in a Lugano convention country), but that the verdict can't be worse than if it had been processed in the country where the violator lives. A Swedish court later accepted a copyright violation case where the violator was a Norwegian company, based on this court ruling. I'm not sure if this works for countries other than Lugano convention countries, though. It would seem to be a violation of Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention if the court takes the laws of the violator's home country into account in copyright cases.
I'm not sure what British law says about images like this, but I think that a (former?) Canadian law said that the copyright belongs to the owner of the storage device (e.g. film or memory card). --Stefan4 (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope some Wikipedia users might realise that it is not them who decide the copyright holder but courts and/or judges. 86.183.98.11 17:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until the courts rule, however, we must make our own decision. AJF (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing "other versions"[edit]

{{Editprotected}} Much like File:Macaca nigra self-portrait (rotated and cropped).jpg has this file as an "other version", so too should this file have that one as an "other version". AJF (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 19:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with large version[edit]

{{Editprotected}}

There currently exists File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_large.jpg which is a larger, more detailed version of this image. Can we update this file to be the large image, then delete and redirect _large? Thanks! AJF (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Tl}}'ing editprotected template. No consensus. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request[edit]

[edit=delete] selfie animals Epalimaerk (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}}

{{Delete|Memportreto de ina Kresta Nigra Makako (Macaca nigra) en Norda Sulaveso (Indonezio), kiu prenis la fotilon de la fotografisto David Slater kaj fotografis sin per ĝi}} Epalimaerk (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This file has been kept on two previous occasions. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg for previous discussion. —RP88 (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request[edit]

New grounds for deletion requiring a fresh review (since the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner) :

1) The US Court has very recently (January 2106) upheld the photographer's suit and ruled against PETA's case that the monkey had copyright.

2) The photographer holds a valid UK copyright and the image was first published by the UK's Daily Mail. Under the Berne convention, all signatory nations must respect the UK copyright.

3) The US copyright office's book is inapplicable since the image was neither created nor published in the USA. The copyright for publishing originated in the UK.

4) Wikimedia Commons lacks any court order explicitly finding that this image is in public domain. Mohsinpathania (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly object that the EXIF and other metadata is stripped to hide the photographer's CLAIM for copyright. It seems the previous DR's were obtained by such fraud being practiced. Mohsinpathania (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US Court has very recently (January 2106) upheld the photographer's suit and ruled against PETA's case that the monkey had copyright. A court recently held that the photographer (monkey) doesn't hold any copyright to the picture. The photographer (monkey) wasn't involved in the suit, I think. The court was silent on whether anyone other than the photographer (monkey) holds any copyright to the picture, though.
The photographer holds a valid UK copyright and the image was first published by the UK's Daily Mail. Do you have any evidence that the photographer (monkey) holds a valid UK copyright? Can monkeys hold copyright in the United Kingdom?
Under the Berne convention, all signatory nations must respect the UK copyright. Not true. According to Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed. Therefore, each Berne Convention member country is allowed to choose if the Berne Convention member country protects photographs taken by monkeys, and copyright protection is then granted only in those countries, but not in any other countries. A similar situation is described in w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.: a UK organisation claimed that certain photographs were protected by copyright in the United Kingdom and that they consequently were protected by copyright in the United States. It remains untested whether the photographs are protected by copyright in the United States, but the court ruled that the copyright status in the United Kingdom is irrelevant and that the photographs aren't protected by copyright in the United States.
The US copyright office's book is inapplicable since the image was neither created nor published in the USA. This is not true. The United States Copyright Office's document describes whether something is subject to copyright protection in the United States. The copyright status in other countries is irrelevant with respect to the United States copyright.
Wikimedia Commons lacks any court order explicitly finding that this image is in public domain. There is a document from the United States Copyright Office which says that photographs taken by monkeys aren't subject to copyright protection in the United States. The Copyright Office's staff probably knows what it is talking about, so unless there is a court ruling saying the opposite, it is probably safe to assume that there is no copyright protection in the United States. Since COM:L also requires the file to be in the public domain in the source country (the United Kingdom), it would be nice to have a similar confirmation from the United Kingdom, but I'm not sure why British copyright rules would be any different from United States copyright rules in this situation.
I also strongly object that the EXIF and other metadata is stripped to hide the photographer's CLAIM for copyright. The photographer is a monkey and thus not able to express any statements in EXIF metadata. The photographer has probably not even learnt that there is a concept which is called copyright. I note that an old revision of the file contains EXIF metadata which contains the camera owner's name, though. You might be mixing up the photographer (a monkey) with the camera owner (David J Slater). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Court has declined PETA's plea to be appointed as next friend for the monkey. So the monkey was represented and lost. The US Court has also declined the monkey's copyright, thereby establishing that the monkey was not the author / photographer.
The fact that the US Govt Copyright office also does not recognise the monkey's copyright further buttresses that the monkey cannot be treated, in law, as the author/ photographer.
Since the monkey cannot be the author / photographer, the only other person who can be deemed, in law, as the author/ photographer is David Slater.
You have misquoted 5(2) of the Berne Convention by leaving out the preceding phrase "Consequently, apart from the provisions of this convention" ... The Convention by 2(6) guarantees the protection and benefits of the author(s) in all member states. It clearly does not seek to benefit pirates like Commons,which is also clear from the preamble clause no. 1 defining the Convention is for the protection of rights of the authors.
As mentioned above, the court has now held that the monkey has no protection.
The stand of the Commons that the image is automatically in Public Domain has no legal basis considering that it was the photographer David Slater who moved the motion to dispute the monkey's authorship / copyright.
There is definitely a fit and proper case to be re-examined by the wider community via a Deletion Request process (based on the court's recent findings) and not over here.
The EXIF establishes David Slater's claim for copyright and authorship. Deliberately stripping the EXIF constitutes a fraud and imposes legal liability on those who further reuse this image under deceptive assurances by anonymous uploaders / commons users.Mohsinpathania (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about this document? The document does not seem to discuss whether PETA is the monkey's legal representative. I'd assume that no one can be the monkey's legal representative unless the monkey signs a document saying so, and I suspect that the monkey hasn't signed any documents.
Since the monkey cannot be the author / photographer, the only other person who can be deemed, in law, as the author/ photographer is David Slater. I note that the document states that the monkey is not the author within the meaning of the United States copyright law as there is no indication that a monkey can be the author according to that law. However, that does not automatically mean that David Slater is the author. It could also be that there is no author at all. Consider a beautifully formed mountain. Someone takes a photograph of the mountain, and is then accused by a religious person for distributing a picture of a 'work of art' (a mountain) in violation of the copyright, which belongs to God (the author). In this situation, the case would be dismissed by the court, either on the notion that God doesn't exist or that God isn't a human being (and thus can't hold any copyright). In this situation, the mountain wouldn't have an author.
The Convention by 2(6) guarantees the protection and benefits of the author(s) in all member states. Article 2 (6) states that This protection shall operate for the benefit of the author and his successors in title. This only helps in the event that there is an author in the first place. If there is no author in the first place, as likely is the case with this photograph, a country is not required to grant any copyright protection to the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the sole owner of Wikimedia Commons ? I am formally asking that this matter be re-examined again by the wider community, given that a US Court has recently dismissed the claim for the monkey's authorship / copyright on a motion to dismiss by David Slater. The odds in favour of David Slater's copyright, who I say is clearly the author and photographer and copyright holder for this and all the similar other pirated images of the monkey on Wikimedia Commons, has just increased exponentially. Accordingly, I am requesting a Commons user or administrator to file a Deletion Request because I am cannot do so at the present time. NB: Please keep religion / God out of this argument. Mohsinpathania (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, what do you have to say about my objection to the EXIF stripping of author information which was contained in the original image. Was the fact of this EXIF stripping by a Commons User, and its legal / criminal implications for reusers, explicitly discussed during the last Deletion Request ? Mohsinpathania (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an owner of Wikimedia Commons.
The court only stated that the monkey doesn't hold any copyright to the picture. The court didn't say whether anyone else holds any copyright to the picture.
what do you have to say about my objection to the EXIF stripping of author information which was contained in the original image. Was the fact of this EXIF stripping by a Commons User The EXIF, as quoted in the latest deletion request, contains a large chunk of text in the Description field, and the same text is also repeated in a number of other fields. I suggest that you take a look at wmf:DMCA Cranach Digital Archive: a file which contained a lot of text in the EXIF was stripped of the EXIF in a takedown request because it was suspected that the EXIF might be copyrightable. Thus, quoting the text in the Description field might be problematic (but it is also possible that it is unproblematic). I assume that quoting any other EXIF data would be unproblematic. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan2: Could you (or anyone else) provide a link to the DMCA takedown request for the text contained in the EXIF data that was then removed as an office action by WMF legal? If there is no office action, then I believe the full text can be included on the image page rather than being censored.
If the original EXIF data is suspected of being a copyright issue, then it should be subject to a specific deletion request in the normal way. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about wmf:DMCA Cranach Digital Archive? Someone sent a takedown request for four images. The Wikimedia Foundation deleted from one of the files but kept the rest of the file and did nothing with the other three images. I'm not aware of any takedown requests for the monkey picture or its EXIF. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this reply. I'm unsure what I was referring to now, it's too long ago. If something comes up again, please use a ping to keep it on my watchlist. --Fæ (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what about this?[edit]

news from bbc --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The settlement is an agreement on revenue, but has no new information about copyright. Nothing is the news reports can change the U.S. Copyright Office assessment that this is public domain. --Fæ (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "U.S. Copyright Office assessment that this is public domain". 103.30.143.106 09:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Villy_Fink_Isaksen -- That's a PETA harassment nuisance lawsuit which establishes exactly nothing.
103.30.143.106 -- The U.S. government included "a photograph taken by a monkey" as a specific example of something that would not be protected by copyright. AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg&oldid=259445091"