Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
62 replies, posted
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html[/url]
[IMG]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01937/monkey-620_1937620b.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]Wikimedia, the US-based organisation behind Wikipedia, has refused a photographer’s repeated requests to remove one of his images which is used online without his permission, claiming that because a monkey pressed the shutter button it should own the copyright.
[B][URL="http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/DavidJSlater.htm"]British nature photographer David Slater[/URL][/B] was in Indonesia in 2011 attempting to get the perfect image of a crested black macaque when one of the animals came up to investigate his equipment, hijacked a camera and took hundreds of selfies.
---
But after appearing on websites, newspapers, magazines and television shows around the world, Mr Slater is now facing a legal battle with Wikimedia after the organisation added the image to its collection of royalty-free images online. The [B][URL="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page"]Wikimedia Commons[/URL][/B] is a collection of 22,302,592 images and videos that are free to use by anyone online, and editors have included Mr Slater's image among its database.
The Gloucestershire-based photographer now claims that the decision is jeopardising his income as anyone can take the image and publish it for free, without having to pay him a royalty. He complained To Wikimedia that he owned the copyright of the image, but a recent transparency report from the group, which details all the removal requests it has received, reveals that editors decided that Mr Slater has no claim on the image as the monkey itself took the picture.
[/QUOTE]
Just thought this was really hilarious.
What if the trigger for a photo is a smile detector? Does that mean the smiler is the photographer?
Or could you argue that the photographer is the one who sets up the shot? But doesn't the camera manufacturer set up the button trigger?
Either way the monkey definitely took those photos...
that monkey is a better photographer then some professionals i've seen
Wikimedia is stupid, it was taken [I]with his camera[/I] so it's his photo
If his camera wasn't there the photo wouldn't exist
[editline]6th August 2014[/editline]
monkey's got an eye for photography though I have to say
edit:
You can respond to my post with "BUT IF THIS DIDNT HAPPEN THE PHOTO WOULDNT EXIST EITHER" all you like but the fact of the matter is that the man who had the photo after the monkey [I]accidentally[/I] took the photo decided what to do with the photo and it is therefore his photo
If you have to go "TECHNICALLY speaking" in your post, your post is wrong
Also, the monkey is a monkey
technicalities are stupid
holy shit even monkeys take selfies these days
[QUOTE=Doomish;45613993]Wikimedia is stupid, it was taken [I]with his camera[/I] so it's his photo
If his camera wasn't there the photo wouldn't exist[/QUOTE]
So taking a picture with a rented camera makes the picture not yours?
[QUOTE=Doomish;45613993]Wikimedia is stupid, it was taken [I]with his camera[/I] so it's his photo
If his camera wasn't there the photo wouldn't exist
[editline]6th August 2014[/editline]
fuck dumb technicalities[/QUOTE]
They're obviously doing this for publicity and to spark a national debate, not as an adherence to some technical principles. Sucks he's going to be made an example out of.
[QUOTE=Doomish;45613993]Wikimedia is stupid, it was taken [I]with his camera[/I] so it's his photo
If his camera wasn't there the photo wouldn't exist
[editline]6th August 2014[/editline]
monkey's got an eye for photography though I have to say[/QUOTE]
The photo wouldn't exist if the monkey hadn't pressed the shutter button.
[QUOTE=Doomish;45613993]Wikimedia is stupid, it was taken [I]with his camera[/I] so it's his photo
If his camera wasn't there the photo wouldn't exist
[editline]6th August 2014[/editline]
monkey's got an eye for photography though I have to say[/QUOTE]
If the camera manufacturer hadn't made the camera, the photo wouldn't exist. Do they own rights to the picture? What about whoever invented the alloys used in making the camera? Does the picture belong to them?
I love those pictures so fucking much
[QUOTE=Doomish;45613993]Wikimedia is stupid, it was taken [I]with his camera[/I] so it's his photo
If his camera wasn't there the photo wouldn't exist
[editline]6th August 2014[/editline]
monkey's got an eye for photography though I have to say[/QUOTE]
If an amateur artist records an improvised song on my amateur equipment, am I the rightful owner of the song?
[editline]7th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=xqzyk;45613998]holy shit even monkeys take selfies these days[/QUOTE]
Arguably better than a lot of other selfies I've seen.
Ah yes the age old question.
If a monkey takes a picture of itself in the woods do you get the royalties?
[QUOTE=Kazumi;45614051]If an amateur artist records an improvised song on my amateur equipment, am I the rightful owner of the song?[/QUOTE]
This is going to turn into a discussion about if animals have the same creative rights as people.
---
#butfirstletmetakeaselfie
[del]I guess another relevant question is whether animals should be "allowed" to own copyrights.[/del]
edit:
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45614061]This is going to turn into a discussion about if animals have the same creative rights as people.[/QUOTE]
Comparing this to how Google treats Youtube and Twitch, I would be totally fine with a Wikipedia-owned video site.
[QUOTE=Doomish;45613993]Wikimedia is stupid, it was taken [I]with his camera[/I] so it's his photo
If his camera wasn't there the photo wouldn't exist
[editline]6th August 2014[/editline]
monkey's got an eye for photography though I have to say[/QUOTE]
if the monkey didnt take it it wouldnt exist
ssoooooo
can i hire that monkey for my next birthday party?
its still kind of unfair to the photographer
i mean say what you like about the monkey taking the pictures, but it was the photographers decision to even publish them
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;45614181]its still kind of unfair to the photographer
i mean say what you like about the monkey taking the pictures, but it was the photographers decision to even publish them[/QUOTE]
Why should that matter? If we're going with the assumption that non-humans have creative rights, then the photographer shouldn't really have the right to publish them as their own work at all.
I hate guys who gets famous and their attitude changes to "MUH MONEY! MUH MONEY!"
Anyone who do this should go fuck themselfs
that second picture used to be my phone background
They haven't exactly said the monkey owns it, they've said:
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/bfd5.png[/img]
Also the photo has been straightened because it was originally all slanted and shit, the monkey fucked up really badly on this one
that monkey takes pretty good pictures
better than 60% of what you'd see on instagram
Honestly, I think the guy just owns it. He took the time and money to buy the equipment, travel to a jungle, and then later develop/print the picture.
Maybe if the monkey had uploaded it the internet himself, we might have a real arguement.
[QUOTE=Doomish;45613993]You can respond to my post with "BUT IF THIS DIDNT HAPPEN THE PHOTO WOULDNT EXIST EITHER" all you like but the fact of the matter is that the man who had the photo after the monkey [I]accidentally[/I] took the photo decided what to do with the photo and it is therefore his photo[/QUOTE]
saying this is a bit different than "if its your camera its your pic"
don't freak out and dumb half the thread just cuz your choice of words was poor
The cameraman did work on these photos to make them presentable, presumably color correction and rotation, and he then uploaded the photos. If anything it's joint ownership but then again it's an animal and they aren't subject to our laws because they don't understand what copyright law is and do not participate in human society.
I mean hell, the monkey [B]stole[/B] the camera from a guy who paid good money for ownership of the camera and the license given by his photo editing software allows him to have copyright of the photos edited with it.
If a robber steals my camera and takes a picture do I legally have to give him the photos back when I get my camera back?
This is a stupid publicity stunt by Wikimedia. Give the guy his goddamn copyright.
give the monkey his pics
monkey rights
#monkey2014
[QUOTE=murple;45613982]that monkey is a better photographer then some professionals i've seen[/QUOTE]
Well he did take hundreds of photos
There is that old adage, "let a chimpanzee take a few hundred photos and at least 1 of them will be really good"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.