File talk:Macaca nigra self-portrait (rotated and cropped).jpg/Archive 1

Witaj!

Jest chyba problem z prawami autorskimi tego zdjęcia. W metadanych pliku jak i w źródle skąd pochodzi plik (czyli z artykułu prasowego) wyraźnie jest zaznaczone, że właścicielami praw autorskich jest "Caters News Agency Ltd". Wydaje mi się, że to, iż akurat małpa nacisnęła na przycisk aparatu, nie powoduje automatycznie tego, że zdjęcie jest na wolnej licencji. P.S. Co do nominacji zaś na Valued Images, zdjęcie musi spełniać wszystkie 6 kryteriów, a na razie nie spełnia dwóch: musi być geokodowane oraz w scope musi być link do kategorii na Commons. Halavar (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Halavar: Zdjęcie nie jest na wolnej licencji, tylko nie stanowi przedmiotu prawa autorskiego (bowiem nie zostało wykonane przez człowieka, tylko przez małpę). Dane Exif są błędne. Jeśli chodzi o nominację do VI, podnieś proszę ten temat na stronie z nominacją, tak, żeby mogły odnieść się do tego również inne zainteresowane osoby. Z góry dzięki, odder (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Nie chodzi tylko o dane Exif, ale tak jak pisałem, przecież także na stronie www jest napisane "Caters News Agency Ltd" i to oni mają prawa do tego zdjęcia. W dziennikarstwie tak to działa, że agencja wysyła reportera, płaci mu wszystko i daje sprzęt, i oni mają prawa do zdjęć. To, że kaurat mełpa, zapewne nie w pełni świadomie, nacisnęła przycisk na aparacie, nie oznacza, że zdjęcie nie stanowi przedmiotu prawa autorskiego. Właścicielami ich bowiem jest "Caters News Agency Ltd". http://www.catersnews.com/legal.html

Pozdrawiam, Halavar (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@Halavar: Absolutnie nie masz racji. Zdjęcie zostało wykonane przez małpę przy pomocy aparatu należącego do Davida Slatera i w momencie nieobecności tegoż, więc ani Slater ani agencja Caters News nie mogą posiadać praw autorskich do tego zdjęcia — wystarczy zapoznać się z zalinkowanym artykułem w Daily Mail. Jeśli masz jakieś wątpliwości co do stanu prawnoautorskiego tej fotografii, zawsze możesz nominować ją do usunięcia. odder (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Aha, co do kryteriów VI, to są one tutaj widoczne: Commons:Valued_image_criteria Halavar (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status

Photographer David Slater claims that he owns the copyright to this photo: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.231.29 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)

@217.196.231.29: Thank you for sharing the link; I'm sure that many Commons contributors would be interested in reading the article. odder (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the monkey owns the copyright. He should give this up as it is a losing battle --80.193.191.143 12:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A monkey cannot own a copyright. However, it might be sensible for somebody to share the source which shows this particular photo is in the public domain.86.185.168.166 22:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested" This sounds like a joke. Slater "set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right". His camera. His work in getting the trust of the monkeys.

Monkeys do not take photographs. Find a source outside of Wikipedia to show that it is the public domain, yes, but I think you'll be looking a long time. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-28674167 Wikithieves... Meerta (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

From the page you linked to, a quote by Mr Slater: "the troop [...] could take their own photograph" MrWeeble (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Meerta asked for an authoritative source stating this photo is in the public domain. The quote you highlight does not state that. Is there in fact any source which states this photo is in the public domain? Please share it.217.196.231.29 12:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Meerta preceded it with a statement that "Monkeys do not take photographs" a falsification which is refuted by Mr Slater's own description of the process. The only source that could state with legal certainty whether a particular photograph is in the public domain would be a court of law should Mr Slater take such action. Any other statement is option and should be taken as such. However my opinion is informed by such legal decisions as Feist v Rural and Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. that stated the difficulty of a task and skill involved (such as setting exposure etc.) did not confer copyright coverage, originality must be introduced. While I acknowledge the skill of Mr Slater in setting up the camera and the hard work in bonding with the troop, he did not actually take the picture, decide the framing or the timing, that was done by the monkey. There has been art created by animals in the past, including photographs. In these cases, where copyright was claimed, it was usually by the owner of the animal; however Mr Slater did not own the monkey in this case, so he could not claim it through that. I am of the opinion that his claim of copyright in this photograph is invalid. MrWeeble (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that Slater being British, UK copyright legislation is more applicable, and it states:

"4.—

(1) In this Part “artistic work” means—

(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality," [my emphasis]

If "originality" was important, most people's snapshots wouldn't by copyrighted. Phantom Photographer (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be conceding that there is in fact no authoritative source stating this picture is in the public domain. Given that a photographer insists he owns the copyright and the only evidence to the contrary is the personal opinion of an anonymous Wikimedia Commons contributor (and there are also anonymous Wikimedia Commons contributors who take the opposite view) I believe it makes sense to exercise caution and remove the claim that this image is in the public domain from the file page.A Guy called Gerald (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should refuse to respond to contributors who rant about the alleged anonymity of other editors from a username that is actually anonymous, especially considering how many of us are not in fact anonymous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if my comment came across as a rant. My point is that we are in no position to know whether MrWeeble's legal opinion carries any weight when we know little about him. I myself do not claim to have any particular knowledge of copyright law. However, I assume some sort of authoritative source must exist which states this picture is in the public domain for that claim to be stated with such certainty on the file page, particularly in the context of a photographer insisting that he owns the copyright on grounds which appear at least to be worthy of consideration. Do you know of any authoritative source stating this picture is in the public domain please?A Guy called Gerald (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office has explicitly stated that photographs taken by monkeys are ineligible for copyright protection (page 54 of http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-full.pdf). I believe this qualifies as an authoritative source outside of Wikipedia showing that the photograph is public-domain. Slater being British does not directly affect the WMF. The WMF is based in the USA and US law is primary in this jurisdiction. 饒彥偉 (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is theft, pure and simple. Wikipedia steals images with apparently no remorse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.99.134.21 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)

I agree, I was surprised that Wikipedia is acting in such a blatantly dishonest way. Saying they can use the image freely because the monkey pressed the button is a ridiculous evasion since the monkey certainly did not set up the camera, exposure, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.113.65 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Another major point of theft of idea here is the story surrounding the incident of the "monkey selfi", this story makes the image iconic, and only reason it has value or worth is the story of the owner of the camera provided that is linked to the image, the picture would have no value without the story behind it and would therefore just be a picture of a monkey face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.35.206.142 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 25 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Yes, this is theft. Saying that the monkey, or nobody, owns the copyright is just a point of view supported by an argument. Not a decision of justice, which would be required to decide in that case, since the owner of the picture claims it to be his own. Wikipedia is not a court. 88.160.146.82 13:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not a theft. Saying that the copyright owner is David Slater is just is own point of view supported by an argument. No decision of justice has been taken to decide that in this case the copyright older is David Slater. Neither David Slater is a court. --Xavier Combelle (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

So the copyright status is disputed then? Surely in that case, wikipedia should do the safe thing and remove it, rather than (its editors) assume they can decide who has copyright. 217.156.212.1 13:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Theft is still theft before the finding of a court. If I publish Martin Amis's latest novel myself and sell it, it's still copyright infringement before action is taken by his publisher. Agree with the last comment. Meerta (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of his, but I think it's a bit of stretch to compare Martin Amis to a monkey.

I think this is a case of copyright theft, though. FormerIP (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The copyright owner is the person who triggered the camera, whether directly, by a remote release or on a timer. This is the case unless the copyright is sold. It doesnt matter who owns the equipment. In this case it is a wild animal who released the shutter, then there is no copyright owner. Citation http://lightbox.time.com/2014/08/06/monkey-selfie/#1 Cjmillsnun (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in those lawyer's arguments that convinced me. The DeGeneres photo is a different situation. I've made points elsewhere on the page. See the ITV lawyer's comments here: http://www.itv.com/news/2014-08-06/wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it/ Perhaps ultimately it's also aboue common sense and fairness. Meerta (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Surely it could be argued that it was, in fact, David Slater who triggered the camera by giving the monkey the control for the shutter - i.e. David Slater knew with a high degree of certainty that the monkey would press the button without the monkey understanding what it had done. Kingreka (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This is copyright theft. David Slater created the artistic work, providing a camera and the scenario. He allowed the monkey to manipulate his camera as part of the artistic creation process. This should be removed.Gsonnenf (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Very disappointed in Wikipedia's behaviour (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-28674167) This is clearly copyright theft, carried out in furtherance of a specious "animal rights" agenda. I understand that some activists may want to argue it that way, but for Wikipedia to support that as an official stance is shocking. Sorry, don't have an editing account so unsigned. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.251.189 (talk) 18:45, 08 January 2016 (UTC)

How can Wikimedia defend their position?

The argument presented is that the monkey tripped the shutter, therefore the image is in the public domain. So, by this reasoning, any photographer who uses a timer to release the shutter, or some other trigger such as a photo sensor, must then surrender their images to the public domain. Am I missing something, or is this an utterly irrational line of reasoning? The photographer went to great trouble and expense to arrange for these images to be recorded--it was not an accident. It's bad enough that copyright infringement runs rampant on the Internet; now we have an established web entity dictating what is or isn't public domain based on their collective, anonymous opinion, evidently without consulting any lawyers. I personally hope the photographer not only prevails, but is granted a substantial sum in damages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.55.74 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)

That's not the argument presented. By Slater's own admission the only decent photo taken on that shoot was the selfie - the one that illustrates all the articles on this topic. The monkey held the camera, the monkey posed for it, the monkey decided when to press the button. It's the monkey's work. --93.152.14.46 14:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not the version I read in the BBC News article I quoted above. However, even if that is the case, Wikipedia's case is weak. If an artist gets monkey's to paint pictures, they can claim copyright. Numerous artists have used random methods of creativity. The photographer went to great expense to create the conditions, had the idea of letting the monkey play with the camera, and owns the film. And what is Wikipedia doing deciding an issue that is in contention?

Sometimes photographers set their cameras to take automatically and select the best picture. Is this the camera's copyright? A wildlife cameraman sets a camera up to film a rare animal. The animal moves the camera about. The film maker selects the best edit. Does it belong to the animal? And automatic timelapse of a cityscape for a year. The film maker is on another continent. Does the copyright belong to the camera? Or maybe the cityscape which created the content of the picture?

An argument that seems to be presented seriously, and with frequency, is that the monkey has the copyright, but animals don't have copyright, therefore no one has the copyright. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum Meerta (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

How can David Slater defend his position?

Slater has shot himself in the foot by admitting that the image is the monkey's selfie, and thus not his own work. Now that his foot is bleeding, he is blaming others for the blood. What he should do instead is go see a doctor. In other words, now that he himself has cast doubt over the copyright, it's up to him to repair the damage. He should seek to have his copyright affirmed in court, if possible. In the meantime, nobody should feel compelled to avert their eyes from the blood because of Slater's screaming. Bleeding stumps attract attention naturally. Animal selfies want to be free. — Herbee (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Slater called it the monkey's selfie and others did because it's a fun idea and helps sell the work. However a monkey doesn't understand that it is taking a photograph, therefore has no intention of doing so and therefore cannot have creative input or be considered the author of the work in any serious sense. You're taking the "monkey selfie" phrase too seriously, and missing the reality. Other points made elsewhere on the page. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reputable organisation and therefore shouldn't arrogate these decisions to itself. Meerta (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed this is impinging on Wikipedia's reputation. It is obvious that the photographer is the owner of the image but since Wikipedia wants the image they have decided to steal it and defend that theft using a technicality. Even if that technicality is found to be legal Wikipedia will still get a bad reputation. I know I will not be donating to Wikipedia unless they settle this properly and refund the photographer for lost income. 19:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.113.65 (talk • contribs)

I will also not be donating any further to Wikipedia if they are going to step on copyright holders like this. -- vlad259 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.85.187 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 12 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Who should make these decisions? The courts have declined repeatedly to rule on issues that aren't live, so they won't comment on the matter unless there's a court case before them.--70.180.166.225 19:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about various international laws, but UK copyright does not need the photographer itself to own copyright. Therefore David Slater clearly owns copyright here. 86.162.151.96 16:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Decisions concerning copyright are decided in courts of law, not by anonymous Wikipedia committees, even if they are attempting to hide behind the US 1st Amendment to do so. The copyright to this photo is currently lawfully held by David Slater, who has asserted copyright under the methods enshrined in UK and EU law. If you want to challenge that copyright, go to court. Until then, the image should be deleted, and the only thing any future Deletion discussion should be authorized to judge is whether the existing copyright of the copyright owner David Slater has been infringed by unauthorized publication.--Ethdhelwen (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about the courts? You can't go up to a court and challenge a copyright; it has to be a live issue. Courts are designed to take cases where one party claims the other party is actively infringing on the other party's rights. We use the image, and then Slater sues us; that's the way to get a court to decide on the issue.

If decisions concerning copyright are decided in courts of law, then decisions concerning copyright are decided in courts of law, not self-serving photographers or anonymous Internet commentators. One of the things a court might well say is that you are wrong, that Slater doesn't and never has held a copyright on the photo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely right. At this point we don't know what a court will decide, merely that on the one hand a photographer claims to own the copyright and on the other hand some internet commentators claim he doesn't. In the circumstances it does not seem sensible to assert that the photo is in the public domain as there seems to be a growing consensus that it is unclear whether this is correct or not.A Guy called Gerald (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The WMF lawyer declined to delete this in response to a DCMA notice, and various other lawyers on the Internet have been quoted in news articles saying that the photographer is not the copyright. Opposed to that you have a photographer? When did he get his degree in law?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't personally have a photographer. I take it that you believe a WMF lawyer considered this issue and his advice was that the photograph is in the public domain. Could you please provide your source for this? Unfortunately the Wikimedia Foundation's statement simply says "We received a takedown request from the photographer, claiming that he owned the copyright to the photographs. We didn't agree, so we denied the request" and does not confirm your claim. If you have further information then it would probably be useful to this debate. Thank you.A Guy called Gerald (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Restraint, please

Please think of how you behave here. Yes, it's up to Slater to sue if he considers himself in the right. But that doesn't excuse insensitive battle cries about "bleeding stumps". That's the arrogant nonsense that makes Slater look fairly nuanced when he calls Wikipedians a "band of communists who think that because photographs are taken of the wild, then they should be free to everyone".[1] Think basic civility.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate other version title

{{editprotected}} This lists the non-rotated one (File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg) as a “lower resolution version” but it’s actually higher resolution now and should just be marked as “original image” or something like that. AJF (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This version is slightly lower resolution, but given the fact this is a closer crop, the same crop on that other image would be lower resolution. But sure. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have permission from Macaca for this work???

Dear collegues, I think we must delete this photo as we don`t have any permission from Macaca. It is awfull if we will neglect animal`s rights. So - do we have a permission? If no - delete. --A1 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I will enjoy seeing you argue that in court. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Needs to be deleted speedily as copyright violation

Wildlife photographers set up the conditions for an animal to trigger a camera all the time, using tripwires, bait and motion sensors, infrared sensors, and so forth. In the conditions for this photograph, the photographer was setting up to do just that when the monkeys got there earlier and played around with the devices. No court has ever held that a photographer lost their right to the copyright of the photo because of an animal "triggering" the device.

Wikimedia can't possibly win this battle in court, and the image needs to be speedily deleted as a copyright violation. DavidPatrick70 (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There is at least some doubt about the claim of copyright, the WMF have forgone the safe harbor protection of the DMCA by refusing to delete it after a DMCA request so it is not a speedy delete-able file. The ball, as they say, is in David Slater's court, he needs a court to rule that it is protected. LGA _talk^edits 00:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Your point about a court is absolutely right, and would be true of any photograph taken by any photographer that was listed as "in the public domain", whether a monkey was involved or not. If Wikimedia Commons decides to claim that a photo is in the public domain and WMC editors, and the foundation, refuse to withdraw the claim, then no photographer would be able to force them to change their mind without recourse to legal action. Of course, this does not in itself justify claiming that a photo is in the public domain.A Guy called Gerald (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Office says...

The just released draft of the Copyright Compendium III, Chapter 300, says "the Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. ... Examples: A photograph taken by a monkey." (section 306).--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Bigger resolution

The image seems to be bigger here: http://new.detektor.fm/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/affen-selfie.jpg --Pierre Rudloff (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Pierre Rudloff: Thank you! I have now uploaded this file as a new version. odder (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Spanish description is wrong

Please change this,

Autoretrato de un macaco negro crestado (Macaca nigra) en Célebes Septentrional, Indonesia, tras hacerse con la cámara del fotógrafo David Slater y hacerse una fotografía de sí mismo.

by this one

Autoretrato de un macaco negro crestado (Macaca nigra) en Célebes Septentrional, Indonesia, tras hacerse con la cámara del fotógrafo David Slater y tomarse una fotografía de sí mismo.

--Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@TheDJ: Please dont forget ''Macaca nigra'' --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessments

{{Editrequest}} please add {{Assessments}} to this file as [2]. Alborzagros (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

because file is protected.Alborzagros (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

•  Done, thank you! odder (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Over-rotated

{{Editrequest}} IMO, it's been over-rotated; it should have been rotated a couple fewer degrees counter-clockwise. Agree, User:Odder?--Elvey (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elvey: Yes and no. I agree that the file might be rotated a little bit better, but I think this eventual new version should be uploaded as a file of its own. We can then link it in the other_version field in the {{Information}} template. odder (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Oh and see #Bigger_resolution above first! (ec). --Elvey (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Fetch updated descriptions from File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg for this picture

{{Edit request}} Can somebody fetch the new descriptions from File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg, some strings here are outdated or missing. Robin0van0der0vliet (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done -- Powers (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A phrase in Chinese(simplified) description is not appropriate

{{Editrequest}} Current version: '一只雌黑冠猕猴（Macaca nigra）的自我拍照，摄于印度尼西亚北苏拉威西省。这是猕猴在玩耍摄影师大卫·斯莱特的相机时的自画像。'

The phrase '自画像' is not appropriate here. I read w:self-portrait in enwiki and the article says 'A self-portrait is a representation of an artist that is drawn, painted, photographed, or sculpted by that artist'. However, the corresponding Chinese phrase '自画像' only means a representation painted by the artist (zh:自画像), and for photographing, '自拍像'(selfie) should be used instead.

So please change the description by '一只雌黑冠猕猴（Macaca nigra）的自我拍照，摄于印度尼西亚北苏拉威西省。这是猕猴在玩耍摄影师大卫·斯莱特的相机时的自拍像。' --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, WhitePhosphorus, I have now updated the file description page as requested. odder (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for updating. :) --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No longer Public Domain

US 9th circuit court of appeals has ruled that this image is the copright of the human photographer.198.58.170.90 (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Photographer and PETA reach settlement over rights to monkey's selfie". I don't know what article you were reading, but it was apparently from a alternate universe. It starts "Attorneys announced a settlement Monday in a lawsuit over who owns the copyright to selfie photographs taken by a monkey. ... Attorneys for the group and the photographer, David Slater, asked the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the case and throw out a lower court decision that said animals cannot own copyrights."--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Here's another, but the settlement is only that 25% of proceeds will go to a Naruto-related charity—nothing about the copyright status?

Haag, Matthew (2017-09-11). "Who Owns a Monkey Selfie? Settlement Should Leave Him Smiling". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.

czar 22:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that only means that nothing has changed. Otherwise why would David Slater discard 25% of his profits? Regards, Yann (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that in the spirit of animal rights, Wikimedia should set a bold example by voluntarily pledging 25% of the revenue they make on this photo to help endangered macaques. ;) Wnt (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Is US Law really applicable in deciding the photos copyright status worldwide?

A good read and analysis on whether US Law is really applicable in deciding the photos copyright status worldwide: [3]. (1) It was first published online via a UK based licensing firm Caters News Agency. (2) Slater is a British national. (3) The photos were taken in Indonesia; hence "not US work". (4) The photos pass the originality test under UK/EU law. (5) UK/EU law does not automatically grant public domain copyright status for photos taken by non-humans. (6) UK law contains provisions for work created by non-humans, specifying that non-human entity can generate a work subject to copyright protection as long as the author of the process that led to the creation of the work can be identified.

PETA's claim (subjecting the copyright to a monkey) is now dismissed, which makes Mr Slater the only party to be claiming copyright for these photos.

Given that (A) no court (or any other body with legal powers) worldwide ruled these photos not to be Mr Slater's work or to be public domain; (B) these photos are not being recognised as public domain in the country of origin; (C) Wikimedia policy requires photos to be assigned PD status both in the US and country of origin; and (D) given the analysis from the article above, I would like to ask for community's opinion on why these photos are still on Wikimedia servers. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.197.120.22 (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Are PETA's dismissed, or David Slater's claims dismissed? Or both? Yann (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

PETA only claimed that copyright should be assigned to the monkey pictured. According to the settlement [4], Slater shall pay 25% of all proceedings for these photos to wild-life charities. As of now, David Slater didn't file a lawsuit to any court to prove that copyright is his. However, he is not obliged to do so as copyrights in the majority of countries (including UK, US and EU) are assigned automatically upon completion of the work. 2A02:C7D:C59:4500:ECC4:5C3B:AF62:3DF4 14:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

For making such an assertion, you should refer to legal documents, not to PETA's blog, which is highly biased POV seeing their bad faith is this affair. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What assertion are you talking about? PETA's blog is only here to give brief info on settlement conditions, which were confirmed by Slater as well. 2A02:C7D:C59:4500:F801:1CBD:4CF1:DB8B 14:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The settlement conditions are one thing, but they do not prove anything regarding the copyright. They just settled to avoid a lengthy useless legal battle, which none of them can win. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing to prove about the copyright. Under UK/EU law copyright was assigned to David Slater automatically (please see the article above). If somebody (for whatever reason) wanted to change the status of the copyright - they are welcome to do so in a court of law. Spoiler alert: it's been 6 years and so far nobody wanted to challenge his rights (apart from meaningless lawsuits from PETA). The question is: why Wikimedia feels the right to act as a court of law and decide whether this photo should be a PD or not? 2A02:C7D:C59:4500:F0BA:D0B4:8758:2A80 22:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

He didn't create the work so there was no copyright assigned to him. --Denniss (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"In instances where a person has arranged equipment and made artistic decisions prior to taking a photo, but wasn’t the one to press the trigger, the person making the arrangements could own the copyright. An example of this could be where a photographer has made the creative choices in setting up a shot, but got an assistant to actually press the trigger" [5]. Do you also suggest that the following hypothetical examples will produce PD images? (1) GoPro attached to dog's collar; (2) a digital camera attached to a high altitude balloon that will make series of photos once reaching 20,000m altitude; (3) a 3-day live stream from a camera attached to a tree in National Reserve in Madagascar; (4) a camera on a tripod that will take a photo of a bird every time a motion detector is activated. Thank you.2A02:C7D:C59:4500:CD44:BDC8:9663:9376 11:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In EU-copyright? I think not. Let's pick the EU country I live in. (The Netherlands) Prominent Dutch full professors specialising in copyright law believe this picture to be in the public domain. So much for the unfounded and most of all unsourced claim that EU-copyright law assigned copyright to David Slater automatically. Natuur12 (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Under UK and EU Law photographs are copyright protected upon creation. Read the contents of this paragraph: "3. Do I automatically get copyright protection, for example, if I take a photograph with my phone, or do I have to register my work to get protection?" [6]. Thanks for bringing "full Dutch professors", they serve as a good illustration of complexity of this situation. There are respected professors, copyright specialists and lawyers on both sides of the argument. At best, this case is very complicated and unprecedented. Unfortunately, Wikimedia's High Court decideded to rule on its own: "these photos are PD". Don't you think Wikimedia is not in the position to decide such cases? Yes, editors/admins at Wikimedia can't go to court for every photograph they want to use. However, they don't have to, most of the time their decisions are 100% clear and face no objections. But in Slater's case Wikimedia acts as foolish as PETA always does, i.e. "this situation is certain in our vision so we'll just sit here and wait until the independent overseas photographer will find time and lots of money to tackle our decision in court. However, this won't likely happen because court procedures and lawyers are extremely costly in the US, so come in and grab these photos". My point is: it's clear to you that Slater doesn't own the copyright, it's clear to me that he does. In cases like this Wikimedia should either abstain until the situation is resolved or file a lawsuit if they find it necessary. 94.197.121.69 09:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest volunteers reconsider if it is worth their valuable time playing this game with anon IP addresses. Users that have obvious long term experience on our projects but skip around using IPs rather than having sufficient commitment to Wikimedia Commons to stick to a consistent named account, not only appear dubious and may be using different IPs to appear as different people, they are highly likely to have a problematic background with Wikimedia projects. As well as these IP created threads being a probable circular time-sink, you are putting your own account at risk. The WMF have refused to answer questions about whether these addresses are being used by WMF banned users, but their threat remains; if a WMF employee later believes that you have assisted a WMF banned user, then they will ban you without any process for appeal and without any privilage to examine their evidence (diff). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Fae, (A) I have never had an account at Commons/Wikipedia or any other affiliated project; (B) I have never been banned at Commons/Wikipedia or any other affiliated project. Therefore, I ask you to (1) Stop talking off-topic. If you feel the unavoidable desire to speak to me about something not related to monkey selfie case, ask for my contact details. (2) Stop threatening IP users with bans. Your message is useless, uncalled for and insulting. IP editing isn't forbidden here and I urge you to consider apologising for implying that rules were broken. That's about it. If you have anything to add to the discussion - you are welcome to. Otherwise please refrain from posting here. 92.40.249.117 17:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Just noting my +1 on Yann and Natuur12. The private affair between Slater and PETA has no effect whatsoever on the status of the image. --Nemo 06:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Nobody in this discussion said anything about Slater vs PETA affecting the status of the image. 188.29.165.158 18:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, apart from being the cause and entire premise of the discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia’s actions in this matter are evil

Artists’ work has value. Art in digital form is easy to steal. Theft, easy or difficult, is theft. Theft of an artist’s labour and creativity feels very wrong. In this case the artist is a long time animall rights activist. The way this was handled at Wikimania is especially odious. I have made small monthly gifts to the Foundation for years, but I can not support an organization that delights in stesling an artist ‘s livelyhood, so I am stopping my contributions as of today. Wikipedia had such lofty principles, I am very sad that they have abandoned them.

Tom McIntyre San Francisco, CA ThomBombadil (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag points out this has been Wikimedia's principles since 2008, that we do not worry about the labor of the photographer or camera owner if it doesn't result in copyrightable output. Before criticizing someone for abandoning their principles, understand what their principles are first.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between the owner and the operator of the camera. The self-portrait was made by the camera operator, not the camera owner. The camera ower may not claim copyright of a work he didn't made. --Denniss (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a work for hire, and so Slater owns the copyright.

These animals are in a nature preserve where they get fed every day. That is why they tolerate humans so well. It doesn't matter if they were paid in dollars or bananas, the act of clicking the shutter, or even getting within a kilometer of it, would not have occurred without a quid pro quo. Thus, it does not matter that the hired worker was non-human - and works for peanuts. 74.88.72.78 00:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

So Mr. Slater, your claim is that you induced your minor employee who you apparently hired without any form of guardian permission for less than minimum wage to appear before you without clothes and take photographs of herself. Accepting a macaque as an employee would bring into play all sorts of legal issues that, were a court willing to contemplate the issue, Slater might deeply regret it. You can't hire monkeys, and if you could, you'd have all the red tape of any other employee.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

ROFL. This is the real monkey business! ;oD Yann (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)