
Wikipedia refuses to delete photo taken by monkey - christop
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html
======
notahacker
The bigger picture here is that the Wikimedia Foundation is apparently willing
to spend donors' funds on defending the claimed right to publish this.

Is "professional photographers don't have the right to claim ownership over
expensively set-up and finished work if an animal presses the shutter button"
really an important principle of freedom of information worth fighting for?

Or is it more of a complicated case that may possibly be winnable through an
arcane technicality in the US legal system, but even if successful would
probably be less useful to the average Wikipedia-user than the equivalent
amount spent on cleaning up existing copyright-free content. Nice as the image
is, more useful and interesting stuff gets deleted from Wikipedia every day.

~~~
lmm
The Wikimedia Foundation long ago fell to the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Many
people assume they're donating to cover server costs, and Wikipedia's
advertising is carefully constructed to avoid challenging this assumption. But
in fact most servers are already donated inclusive of all costs by large
companies like Google and Yahoo. Most donations go to funding the ever-
increasing Wikimedia payroll.

~~~
Hello71
moreover, exactly what other parties would be in this oligarchy?

~~~
eru
Oh, I think Imm means that wikipedia is run for the benefit of its runners.
Just like companies are run (in practice) for the benefit of the managers---no
matter what stories we tell about shareholder capitalism.

------
curiousgeorgio
The monkey does _not_ own the copyright, just as my intervalometer does not
own the copyright to my time lapse photos, and a carefully constructed rube
goldberg machine triggered by an ant (and later pressing the shutter release
button) doesn't make the ant the copyright holder.

Wikimedia's own argument states that "the photographer would have had to make
substantial contributions to the final image." In creating the circumstances
for the monkey to hit the shutter release button, the photographer _did_ in
fact make the most substantial contributions to the final image.

In another light, do we give camera operators the ultimate/highest credit for
the work of a studio-produced motion picture? No - they are credited, but the
director is the one who created the circumstances under which the camera
operator's actions capture the essential product of a whole team's work,
guided by the director.

~~~
Symmetry
But in this case the monkey was also the director. If David Slater had been
intending or worked towards what ended up happening in some way I'd be a lot
more sympathetic to his copyright claims, but as it is he didn't have any
agency in creation of the photograph except in owning the camera and failing
to secure it.

~~~
curiousgeorgio
And I would argue that even if David Slater didn't fully intend for the monkey
to take the photo, he had more intention or expectation for that happening
than the monkey had for taking a photo. The monkey was only interested in the
sound made by the camera, not in directing a photo shoot.

~~~
Symmetry
Well, it might be that the monkey wouldn't deserve copyright even if copyright
could reside in a monkey. There are broad classes of works like phone books
which don't get copyright at all:

[http://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-
copyri...](http://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-
copyrightable-works/creativity-requirement/)

------
radicalbyte
The photo would have been unremarkable, worthless were it not taken by a
monkey. The value is the novelty, the random act. Not the "setup".

I can't blame him for trying to make a buck from it, but he's really pushing
he boundaries of reason by claiming copyright for a creative work that he did
not create.

~~~
brk
Except that the monkey has no concept of creative licensing, payments,
royalties, etc. In this case the monkey is really just a remote shutter
release made out of meat.

I could see the argument if the monkey were a 9 year-old child, the child
might not fully grasp these concepts _today_ , but you could anticipate a
point where the child _would_ understand. Much like child actor laws
protecting their earnings.

I could see the wikipedia logic if there was some expectation that copyright
would eventually matter to the monkey.

Forget that the monkey is an organic being... If the camera were shot up in
the air in a rocket and had a pressure switch to take a series of photos at
5,000 feet (or maybe more directly at some random altitude or point in
travel), who would "own" the photos? The rocket? Or the person who put the
events together to capture those images in that manner.

~~~
jonnathanson
_" Except that the monkey has no concept of creative licensing, payments,
royalties, etc."_

That doesn't matter. Plenty of grown adults have no concept of creative
licensing, payments, royalties, etc., and might never be in a position to
understand them. Similarly, the 9 year old child is the creator and owner of
his work _at the time of its creation_ , regardless of the expectation that
he'll eventually learn what the legalities of that creation mean. A mentally
disabled or permanently incapacitated individual who is incapable of
understanding copyright, and presumably never will be capable, is still
entitled to copyright protections.

What this really boils down to is the monkey's personhood. A person can
legally create and own intellectual property, regardless of his cognizance of
it. If we believe a macaque is in some ways a person -- not a human, but a
person -- then this argument holds some merit. If we do not, then it becomes
more tenuous. The question isn't whether the monkey understands the
ramifications of her photo; it's whether the monkey had creative agency in
taking the photo.

~~~
brk
We are talking about aspects of a human-created and arbitrated legal system.
All these rules and such are essentially designed to revolve around how we
treat and compensate each other.

Monkeys have no concept or participation in this legal system in the same way
you wouldn't find two dogs arguing about how to handle a human sniffing their
asses and who is the "dominant" one in that case.

We as a society have decided to give certain protections and recognitions to
humans who are too young and/or too mentally disabled to participate in this
system at the "full" level. Presumably we have decided this because we choose
to recognize all humans as equal and applicable to receive a certain level of
inalienable rights.

Most of our laws that relate to non-humans (animals) treat them as a form of
property or otherwise seem to indicate we have no explicit desire to grant
them the same rights and protections as actual humans. This could change with
legal precedent, but the general consensus (IMO) is not on the side of
wikipedias arbitrary ruling.

~~~
jonnathanson
I agree with you that Wikipedia's decision is arbitrary, self-serving, and
more than a little silly. But it raises interesting questions about the
personhood of animals with higher intelligence. I don't think we could be
having this conversation, for instance, if a cat took the photo.

And yes, all of our laws are human constructs. The question is whether we
start including human-like animals under the protections and rubric of some of
those laws. I don't necessarily have an answer, but I do think it's a fun
intellectual challenge.

[EDIT: It's worth noting that Wikipedia's actual claim isn't so much that the
monkey "owns" the photo. It's that the photographer _doesn 't_. In other
words, Wikipedia is claiming that, in de facto terms, nobody owns the photo.
The monkey is its creator, but because a monkey is not entitled to legal
authorship, the photo is public domain.]

------
christop
The image is used on the English Wikipedia page for "Selfie", and according to
the image page on Wikimedia Commons:

"This file is in the public domain, because as the work of a non-human animal,
it has no human author in whom copyright is vested."

[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macaca_nigra_self-
por...](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg)

~~~
nitrogen
It's interesting that the deletion nomination tag is still on the image, but
the deletion discussion is marked as closed.

~~~
zoips
Which is too bad. I'm curious about rtc's argument around machines taking the
pictures. It seems the logical conclusion of his argument is that if you buy a
camera, and the software on the camera takes a picture without the act of
camera owner, then the owner of the camera doesn't own the copyright but
instead the company that made the camera? That seems like a very strange
conclusion.

~~~
bitJericho
I think the issue at hand is that (from what I've read) the photographer set
the camera down without intending for the monkey to pick it up and start
snapping.

I don't think anybody would be arguing about the copyright had the
photographer given the monkey the camera.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Googling I find the requirements for copyright:

"the work must have been developed independently by its author, and there must
have been some creativity involved in the creation"

This case is certainly debatable on those points.

~~~
dhimes
Serious question: If I steal a camera and take pictures with it, am I the
copyright owner of those pictures?

~~~
jahewson
Yes, though if you're taking a picture of a scene which was set up by someone
else then they may own the copyright in that scene. There can be multiple
owners of copyright of different aspects of an image, e.g. if I make my own
cartoon and include Darth Vader as a character, then I naturally own my own
the copyright to my work but it still infringes on Disney's copyright and I
don't have the right to reproduce those aspects publicly.

Also if the images you take have no creative merit then there's no copyright.

------
onan_barbarian
This is highly relevant to most startups in that it may establish a useful
precedent on who owns _code_ written by monkeys.

------
7952
This fight is a fantastic way for David Slater to generate more royalty
income. Think how many news outlet are going to use that image today!

~~~
SeanLuke
Taken directly from Wikimedia?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
At the very least, the Guardian have paid for it.

------
logfromblammo
The monkey is a non-economic actor. She does not even need to be included in
the equation.

The photographer was the sole driving force in bringing the image to the human
marketplace. He is the last link in the chain that is even capable of
exercising ownership over the image. His equipment was at risk while in
macaque hands. His judgement culled the hundreds of unfocused, uncomposed, or
otherwise useless images. He probably did post-production work on the photo to
make the colors look right in varying presentation media.

There is just no way--if you believe in copyright at all, that is--that the
copyright on the photo is not 100% vested in David Slater. If he had any
reason to believe he could not personally profit from putting additional work
into macaque selfies and publishing them to a human audience, every last one
would be deleted, to make room on the card for something that might pay the
rent.

Besides that, unilaterally declaring it to be public domain just doesn't
satisfy the "don't be a dick" rule.

Here's a hypothetical. Slater, instead of rigging the shutter button to take
still photos, sets it up to start a video recording on the first press, then
to apply a frame marker to the video for every subsequent press. Before
allowing the macaque to take the camera, he starts the video recording. Upon
retrieving the recording, he then deletes all frames that would not be usable
as a still photo. By the "shutter button" standard, he owns the copyright.

If rephrasing the technical aspects of the creation scenario results in
different copyrights, your criterion is too flimsy to be used as a copyright
guideline. Clearly, the "shutter button" standard is bullshit, especially
given that any monkey can push a button.

My criterion is that the market would never have had access to the image at
all, were it not for Slater bringing it forth as trade goods. Therefore, I
name him owner of the original photo, and from that, allow him the right to
enforce exclusivity and license any copies, as permitted by established
copyright law.

The monkey, being non-human, and a non-participant in human markets, is not
competent to hold ownership over anything. It has no specific rights to its
own likeness, or to any of its own creations. Original ownership of property
derives from the act of making something available for trade, even if no price
is specified, and in respecting the trade offers of others. Wikimedia
Foundation really needs to rein in its own troop of button-pushing yard-apes
before lawyers get involved.

~~~
Daishiman
"The market" is not a criterion for copyright; in fact it has nothing to do
with copyright at all. Some things are marketable and cannot be copyrighted,
some things can be copyrighted and are not marketable at all

The photographer did not set out to get monkeys to push the trigger on the
camera; the final situation that set in motion the creation of the work was
not put forth by himself and is a complete accident.

There was a case of a bird stealing a camera and flying with it; it was
considered to be in the public domain. It's unlikely that a ruling on this
would show anything different.

~~~
logfromblammo
Marketability is not at issue. That just means that no one wants to own
something more than the person that already has it. It is entirely possible to
own something that literally no one else in the universe wants. There is no
marketability, but there is still ownership. There is always the possibility
that someone might change preferences and offer a trade.

The photographer did not push the image capture button. But the macaque didn't
accidentally post-process the best images and sell them for publication,
either. The human did all the work necessary to make the image valuable to
other humans.

If the macaque painted a masterwork with oils on canvas, and left it in the
jungle, the human that finds it owns it, and the copyright for it. In the same
vein, the person who finds a piece of driftwood with an uncanny resemblance to
Cthulhu owns it. It does not matter if it was constructed or found. The value
lies in separating what is appealing to other humans from what is not.

Suppose that J.D. Salinger wrote a book and kept it locked in a vault, with
orders that it be burned on his death. A thief sneaks in, cracks the lock,
copies the manuscript, and publishes it under his own name. He owns the
copyright. I guess J.D. should have shared his creation with other humans by
publishing. Like patent, the monopoly privilege of copyright is predicated on
bringing the product to the marketplace, even if no one wants to buy or no one
can raise the sale price.

------
sosuke
In the event he doesn't own the copyrights to the photos, I wonder if David
Slater would have released the photos with the same story of the monkey taking
a selfie if he had known it would be without financial gain.

Reading the nomination page
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Macaca_nigra_self-
portrait_\(rotated_and_cropped\).jpg#Macaca_nigra_self-
portrait_and_derivatives) just makes me feel bad for David Slater in the end.
They argue that he had no part in the photos creation. If he had not been
there taking the photos, this photo wouldn't have existed.

~~~
marianminds
The burden of that argument is that you'd never be able to 'own' photos of
strangers or anybody who doesn't sign a release, or stranger's pets, or any
piece of art or architecture, because the scene or object that gives the
photos its essence was actually created largely by other people. You have to
tie photo ownership to the physical act of taking them, and this one was not
taken by him. He hadn't even intended to give the monkey his camera or tried
to arrange for it - it was pure fluke, unless you count the agency of the
monkey. Which here almost seems more legitimate.

~~~
sosuke
For clarity

This is public domain footage now, because the bird stole the camera:
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/bird-steals-
camera-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/bird-steals-camera-
video_n_4371165.html)

This is copyright, because the photographer strapped cameras to the bird:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_photography](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_photography)
"A photograph of Schlosshotel Kronberg (then called Schloss Friedrichshof
after its owner Kaiserin Friedrich) became famous due to its accidental
inclusion of the photographer's wing tips. In a breach of copyright it was
shown in German cinemas as part of the weekly newsreel in 1929.[16]"

------
mjgoins
"as it is jeopardising his livelihood" \-- So if a monkey hadn't taken a
selfie, he'd be starving and homeless.

~~~
Alupis
Doesn't the monkey technically own copyright over the images? I mean.. just
because it's this guy's camera doesn't mean he has copyright, unless the
monkey transferred copyright to him via some sort of agreement.

~~~
guan
The US Copyright Compendium states that “authorship”, which is a prerequisite
for copyright, requires a human author. In previous cases copyright in natural
patterns such as wood patterns has been rejected. If the purported author is a
non-human animal, then there can’t be copyright (in the US).

[http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#202.02(b)](http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#202.02\(b\))

The Compendium reflects the rulings of the Copyright Office and a court might
see things differently. Or the Copyright Office might agree that this
photograph was not authored by the human. If they don’t agree, then at the
very least you can’t register the copyright and get statutory damages. (Unless
you sue the Copyright Office to force them to register.)

~~~
voidlogic
Then is sounds like wikipedia is correct, a non-human took the photo, that is
not disputed, not a human author, therefore the prerequisite for copyright is
not met and the image is public domain.

------
huherto
Among other arguments.

There was a moment on time when Slated owned the photograph in a very real
sense. At that moment he had all the rights to the photograph. It was in his
possession. No one could have forced him to release it. He releases the
photograph with the expectation of being protected by the copyright. If he
looses the copyright then the copyright is not serving the purpose it was
supposed to serve. To give certainty to people that invest their time and
resources to create things and release them.

~~~
chrismcb
But he did not create the photograph.

------
stephenbez
Can't David Slater issue a DMCA take down request which Wikipedia would have
to comply with?

In order for it to be put up again, wouldn't that require some action from the
rights holder, which in this case is an animal and can't do any action?

~~~
jahewson
Yes, the photographer certainly could file a DMCA takedown, if he hasn't
already.

No, action from the rights holder is not required to restore the material.
Remember, the rights holder is the person filing the DMCA takedown - at least
it should be. For the material to be restored it requires the _poster_ of the
material to file a counter notice, not the rights holder.

------
NAFV_P
The article still leaves the reader in the dark as to how the image was made
public in the first place.

From the article> _Wikimedia 's editors are split on the legal issues. One
user, Saffron Blaze, said in a comment section associated with the photo: "I
am not sure I am convinced by the no copyright argument. In this case the
outcome was very disrespectful of the photographer who created the conditions
that allowed these photos to be created. There are some jurisdictions where
even the monkey could be imbued with the copyright as its creator."_

Original source [0].

As an old art student, I can readily sympathise with this. Spontaneity is
often considered to be an important component of _great art_.

[0]
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Macaca_nigra_self-
portrait_%28rotated_and_cropped%29.jpg#File:Macaca_nigra_self-
portrait_.28rotated_and_cropped.29.jpg)

~~~
nailer
Thanks for finding the source. The newspaper could have at least added a
nofollow link to the wikipedia article for those of us who want to see the
picture at full resolution.

------
RIMR
So if I rob a store and I activate a motion-detecting camera, do I own the
copyright on the evidence against me? Can I claim self-incrimination if MY
footage is used in court against me? Can I sue my victim for copyright
infringement if they share footage with the media?

~~~
jahewson
No, such footage would not pass the basic creativity requirements for
copyright eligibility.

~~~
spinlock
I disagree. The burglary is obviously performance art.

~~~
contingencies
Certainly if you write about it first and can therefore demonstrate that it
was a considered act of the same with plans to publish.

------
jeroen
From the article:

 _" To claim copyright, the photographer would have had to make substantial
contributions to the final image, and even then, they'd only have copyright
for those alterations, not the underlying image. This means that there was no
one on whom to bestow copyright, so the image falls into the public domain," a
recent transparency report from Wikimedia said._

Even if the photographer would not hold the copyright to the raw image, his
post-processing would give him copyright to his alterations. Thus, the final
image does not fall into the public domain and Wikimedia has no right to use
it like they do.

~~~
deong
I believe you need to substantially transform a public domain work in order to
qualify for copyright on a derived work. If the original image is public
domain, it's not clear that cropping and basic editing would qualify.

I think Wikimedia is in the wrong here, for what it's worth, but I don't think
it's clear cut either way.

------
argumentum
As an aside, what an unsettlingly photogenic animal this is, particularly its
piercing eyes and expressive face. At first, I did not actually believe this
was a real animal, and thought it was animated or from the planet of the apes
.. then I googled the species (crested black macaque).

Though I totally agree with Wikipedia's stance, and am not a supporter of IP
in general, it's an amazing picture, and its no wonder the photographer in
question is attempting to claim it.

------
coldcode
And a new monkey business is born - letting animals take pictures and make
money.

------
mariuolo
Shouldn't they ask the monkey for permission before publishing it then?

~~~
mnw21cam
This is a matter of degrees. (No, not that type of degree.)

Let's assume for the moment that the monkey, as a non-human, cannot own
copyright. Therefore it is a choice between the human holding copyright and
the image being in the public domain.

If a monkey draws a picture using mud on a sheet of bark that has fallen on
the ground, and a human notices the picture and picks it up, does the human
own copyright? (Probably not, in my opinion.)

If the monkey picks up a camera offered to it by a human, who has set up the
camera, switched it on, etc., and the monkey takes a picture, does the human
hold copyright? (Not sure.)

If a human sets up a camera on a tripod, pre-focusses it, sets up a motion
detection system to trigger the shutter, and the monkey walks past it
triggering an image to be captured, does the human hold copyright?
(Definitely, in my opinion.)

~~~
collyw
>If a human sets up a camera on a tripod, pre-focusses it, sets up a motion
detection system to trigger the shutter, and the monkey walks past it
triggering an image to be captured, does the human hold copyright?
(Definitely, in my opinion.)

Conversely, I see lots of cool pictures of people doing crazy stuff, kayakers,
going off massive waterfalls, bikers doing backflips, street performers,
magicians. To me it is the subject of the picture who has spent years
training, he / she is what makes the picture interesting (the photographer may
make the colours a bit nicer, or the focus sharper, but the subject is what
_makes_ the picture).

Yet the photographer owns the copyright.

(To be fair I kind of agree with your last point, but I think that the
photographer automatically getting copyright is the problem. I doubt giving
the subject ownership would be enforceable, and would likely lead to many more
problems related to censorship).

~~~
dfxm12
Typically, those people would have to give the photographer a model release
for the photographer to use the photos for commercial purposes.

~~~
rmc
And there's data protection law that might come into play.

------
CanSpice
Legally, how would this differ from a monkey stepping on a remote trigger, or
stepping in front of a motion detector to trigger a camera to take a picture?
Are all of the pictures on Snapshot Serengeti
([http://www.snapshotserengeti.org/](http://www.snapshotserengeti.org/))
copyrighted by the animals in them?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Of course only humans can hold copyright. But an issue here is, the
photographer never intended to take the picture (in this way); it was an
accident. So its debatable.

~~~
bdamm
It's not an accident - the photographer recognized the opportunity, and
allowed the animals to continue. He put himself there to be part of the
animal's scene. He was there to photograph the animals, and that's what
happened.

Ultimately, every photograph is an accident; nothing bad happens in between
the photographer's recognition of the correct moment, and the exposure of the
medium. That time is non-zero, and bad things can happen in between those
times, and when they don't you get the photo you want.

And how many photographers hold down the shutter, while they reel off a dozen
pictures, hoping that one of those photos is a good one? Were those photos
"accidents" and therefore not copyrightable? I don't think the courts would
agree.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Probably not a lot of 'allowing' going on - don't want to get between a
Macaque and its toy.

Anyway the idea is, the requirement for copyright is "developed independently
by the author" and "some creativity involved". It was not 'by the author. And
is it creativity if its an incident totally out of the control of the author?
Debatable.

~~~
bdamm
Do you consider war photography to be creative?

------
bjt
Wikipedia is being disingenuous and immature here. I would be very surprised
to see a court agree with their argument.

Courts generally try to avoid reaching perverse results that undermine the
purpose of the laws they're enforcing. Copyright exists to support the kind of
work that Slater was doing.

~~~
jpatokal
...and asserting that images accidentally created by non-human animals belong
to the public domain undermines copyright how, exactly? I'm not seeing much of
a slippery slope here.

~~~
bjt
Copyright exists to incentivize creativity. The fact that we're arguing about
this proves that there's at least one photographer that would be
disincentivized by your proposed rule.

This also happens more than you might think. See the video of a lion stealing
a wildlife photographer's Go Pro video camera, for example
([http://gizmodo.com/5805961/lion-steals-and-chomps-on-
gopro-w...](http://gizmodo.com/5805961/lion-steals-and-chomps-on-gopro-while-
filming)). If wildlife photographers know that they can keep copyright in such
situations, that will incentivize wildlife photography generally (at the
margin), and these kinds of pictures/videos specifically. The world will be
that much more awesome.

I see no reason why "letting a monkey play with my camera" should be less of a
creative act by a photographer than "clicking the shutter button". Artists
have done much weirder things.

It's very common in wildlife photography to have a pressure pad that triggers
the shutter. See [http://macrocam.blogspot.com/2013/09/remote-shutter-
release....](http://macrocam.blogspot.com/2013/09/remote-shutter-release.html)
for example. Are those pictures not worthy of copyright because an animal
pushed the button?

A rule based on incentivizing photographers will give Slater the copyright
here. Whereas a rule based on the hair splitting advocated by Wikipedia would
cast doubt on the copyrightability of all kinds of creativity that rely on an
element of randomness or non-human actors (e.g. animals, the wind, sunlight,
/dev/urandom).

------
adultSwim
Best headline I've read in a long time.

~~~
tripzilch
You must have missed this one, then:
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/russia-loses-
contr...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/russia-loses-control-of-
satellite-full-of-geckos-9628002.html) (the actual title is funnier than
what's in the URL)

------
huherto
Since the Monkey cannot hold the Copyright.

Lets suppose you drop your Camera and at that moment you get a great
photograph. It was mere an accident, but how can somebody argue that you don't
own the copyright ?

------
wrath
[http://www.blogcdn.com/travel.aol.co.uk/media/2013/01/323ng1...](http://www.blogcdn.com/travel.aol.co.uk/media/2013/01/323ng125p086upnationalgeographic512949.jpg)

My understanding is that this image was captured by a camera trigger that was
setup National Geographic photographer (Sorry, I'm unsure the name). This has
been a highly published photo by National Geographic; does this mean that the
tiger should be owed all the royalties and not the photographer?

~~~
wmil
Well the photographer set up the camera and the trigger. Framing the
background is an artistic contribution.

And the important part is that the photographer would have still owned the
copyright if it was a human who set off the trigger.

However, imagine a person picked up his camera and took a selfie. The person
would own the copyright, not the owner of the camera. The photographer didn't
contribute anything artistic.

This is a monkey selfie, so it's in an interesting legal situation.

The best comparison is to abstract paintings done by elephants. Does anyone
own a copyright on those?

------
nextw33k
Whilst I am of the opinion that the original photo is not copyrighted because
it was taken by a Monkey.

I would have to question what is the actual photo being distributed? Is it the
original work or was it a version that had been edited before being posted
online? Can you take a public domain item, alter it and it then become a
copyright? If I used it in a logo, does that logo become public domain?

Personally I wish the photographer would use the work to promote himself
rather than fighting for royalties.

------
basseq
Regardless of where the copyright ownership falls, it is not within
Wikipedia's power to make that call. David Slater claims copyright, and
without a legal opinion to the contrary, they don't seem to have a leg to
stand on.

This seems like Wikipedia editors overreaching.

~~~
Symmetry
If I were to claim that I had copyright of the photo, would that prohibit
David Slater from using it until the courts had settled things? It is
absolutely Wikipedia's prerogative to use a photo they believe they are
entitled to use. Now, they do lose the DMCA safe harbor exemption by not
complying, but that only matters if a court should hold that they're guilty of
copyright infringement.

~~~
basseq
Point of clarification: Wikipedia isn't just _using_ the photo, they are
offering it up to others to use as part of their "collection of royalty-free
images" (Wikimedia Commons). In a sense, they are acting as a distributor, not
just an end-user.

------
larvaetron
How exactly did Wikipedia confirm the photo was taken by a monkey?

------
mrjames
Did Wikipedia get permission from the monkey to post the photo? Clearly they
didn't think this through.

In cases like this there should be implied copyright holder. Let's say I'm on
vacation with a friend. I hand a stranger my camera to take a picture of us.
Does that mean I can't post the picture on my facebook page without officially
assigning copyright to myself? Of course not.

~~~
x1798DE
Not all photos are burdened by copyright. If no human owns the copyright, it's
in the public domain.

------
sslayer
So does the Cow own the Milk?

------
aaron987
I tried to research this topic further, but the Wikipedia pages about
copyright makes no mention of monkeys.

------
Fastidious
Wikimedia Foundation is wrong. The photo belongs to the owner of the camera
who captured the photo. This, of course, would be a total different issue if
the operator of the camera was human.

~~~
huherto
He did more than owning the camera. He set up the camera and let the monkey
play with it, hoping to get lucky with a great shot.

~~~
ASneakyFox
The monkey stole the camera. Either way though its the monkeys work. Not his

------
ChrisNorstrom
This is just ridiculous. Animal rights ideology taken to an extreme.

● The photographer owns the camera and placed it there.

● The photographer set up the shot.

● The majority of the work was done by the photographer.

● An animal cannot own intellectual property, or copyrights because it doesn't
have the intelligence to understand what those are.

● An animal cannot administer copyright permissions.

The absurd notion that copyrights can belong to animals are no different than
the absurd idea that a human can "marry" an animal or a tree. An animal cannot
legally take part in a practice which it does not comprehend.

~~~
x1798DE
No one is (or at least should be) suggesting that the animal owns the
copyright. Animals can't own copyrights, so "creative" works produced by
animals automatically enter the public domain.

