• Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
    62 replies, posted
Great pictures and all that, but what a stupid argument.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:One-of-the-photos-taken-b-013.jpg[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg[/url] Links to them on Wikipedia. Unneeded really cause pictures are already in the article, but if you wanna see them actually on Wikipedia here it is because few of the articles I found linked to it.
it's still his rights given he initially published the images. The monkey isn't a human and can't sign a waiver nor file a claim against him so until the 'owner' of the photos contests it, he holds at least some minimal rights to the distribution. while I'm rather impressed by the selfies, whoever from wikimedia is trying to contest the photo is being a royal bag of dicks in defending the upkeep of the photo. Just claim fair use already
[QUOTE=Swebonny;45614084][del]I guess another relevant question is whether animals should be "allowed" to own copyrights.[/del] edit:[/QUOTE] I honestly think it's a legitimate question.
its a fucking monkey they cant own shit wikipedia has some fucking retarded rules
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;45614794]I honestly think it's a legitimate question.[/QUOTE] What a pointless thing to question. Wild animals don't even understand what copyrights, patents, waivers, royalties, etc. are and aren't capable of understanding them either.
[QUOTE=Primigenes;45614903]Man someone at Wikimedia must be taking the piss out of this guy[/QUOTE] my best guess is the guy was a douche about getting the picture taken down so the wiki guys decided to pull this stunt just to mess with him
[QUOTE=SleepyAl;45614526]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.[/QUOTE] I disagreed at first, but now I agree based on your input.
The guy funded the trip, the equipment, and put the time towards getting the picture. Seeing as monkeys aren't legally recognized as humans I'd say the next best copyright holder is the photographer. I get what they're saying but they're being needlessly pedantic about it.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;45614002]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] I feel bad because they are going to make a monkey out of him.
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;45615013]I feel bad because they are going to make a monkey out of him.[/QUOTE] this whole thing is bananas
[I]“If the monkey took it, it owns copyright, not me, that’s their basic argument. What they don’t realise is that it needs a court to decide that,” he told the The Telegraph. “I’ve told them it’s not public domain, they’ve got no right to say that it’s public domain. A monkey pressed the button, but I did all the setting up.”[/I] I feel bad for the guy. Imagine being in his shoes, doing all that shit, finally getting the monkey to understand and do as he wanted. And then people go saying "Well fuck you it's not your photo"
[QUOTE=paul simon;45615139][I]“If the monkey took it, it owns copyright, not me, that’s their basic argument. What they don’t realise is that it needs a court to decide that,” he told the The Telegraph. “I’ve told them it’s not public domain, they’ve got no right to say that it’s public domain. A monkey pressed the button, but I did all the setting up.”[/I] I feel bad for the guy. Imagine being in his shoes, doing all that shit, finally getting the monkey to understand and do as he wanted. And then people go saying "Well fuck you it's not your photo"[/QUOTE] Actually the monkey just stole his camera and ended up taking pictures because it liked the sound of it, according to the article.
[QUOTE=paul simon;45615139][I]“If the monkey took it, it owns copyright, not me, that’s their basic argument. What they don’t realise is that it needs a court to decide that,” he told the The Telegraph. “I’ve told them it’s not public domain, they’ve got no right to say that it’s public domain. A monkey pressed the button, but I did all the setting up.”[/I] I feel bad for the guy. Imagine being in his shoes, doing all that shit, finally getting the monkey to understand and do as he wanted. And then people go saying "Well fuck you it's not your photo"[/QUOTE] But he didn't? According to the article the monkey took the camera from the guy without the guy intentionally doing anything. Maybe if there was a lot of post-production stuff he had to do to touch the image up, then he's got a case, but if he had no creative input then he should have no creative license.
[QUOTE=Govna;45614911]What a pointless thing to question. Wild animals don't even understand what copyrights, patents, waivers, royalties, etc. are and aren't capable of understanding them either.[/QUOTE] Not true. We have taught gorillas to learn sign language and they have learned to do many things (albeit very simply and sometimes incorrectly) we have shown them through communicating. Who's to say that we won't get even farther when we finally can understand porpoise language and communicate with them? Who's to say we can't teach and give rights to many primates and porpoises since they clearly do have the intelligence to learn these things?
[QUOTE=dai;45614930]my best guess is the guy was a douche about getting the picture taken down so the wiki guys decided to pull this stunt just to mess with him[/QUOTE]I'm almost sure it's this.
Seriously, I think ownership should default to him at the worst, anything other than a human simply doesn't understand the concepts, to put it bluntly. That monkey didn't give a shit about creative expression, or royalty fees, or even photography. He just pressed a fucking button. MAYBE the monkey is the photographer here, but if your child takes a picture of himself on your camera, and you put it online, does he own it? Probably poorly worded but the point still stands. Ownership should default to the closest relevant party if they're not intellectually adjusted to concepts of copyright.
Something about the pictures bugs me. Like, in a weird way, I swear the monkey looks like it's CGI.
why are we only now respecting the rights of animals??? i don't think they got all the animals in nature documentaries to sign a waiver; they'd better be careful. elephants never forget, after all. and sharks are like lawyers. etc etc etc animal stereotypes
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;45615330]Not true. We have taught gorillas to learn sign language and they have learned to do many things (albeit very simply and sometimes incorrectly) we have shown them through communicating. Who's to say that we won't get even farther when we finally can understand porpoise language and communicate with them? Who's to say we can't teach and give rights to many primates and porpoises since they clearly do have the intelligence to learn these things?[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5jxPLKB_jo[/media]
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;45615330]Not true. We have taught gorillas to learn sign language and they have learned to do many things (albeit very simply and sometimes incorrectly) we have shown them through communicating. Who's to say that we won't get even farther when we finally can understand porpoise language and communicate with them? Who's to say we can't teach and give rights to many primates and porpoises since they clearly do have the intelligence to learn these things?[/QUOTE] Two gorillas. We have taught two gorillas to communicate using American Sign Language, and both were under controlled circumstances to study. [b]Wild[/b] animals do not have any concept of copyrights, waivers, or any of that shit-- all of which are human constructs. We've taught a handful of bonobos, orangutans, and several chimps to communicate with sign language as well; again, under controlled circumstances. Wild animals are not humans, Planet of the Apes is not going to happen, and saying a wild monkey nullifies the copyright to this particular series of pictures or for that matter is the copyright holder is absurd.
Even Monkeys like the sound of the shutter, wow.
This sounds like something belonging in a South Park episode
[url]https://transparency.wikimedia.org/content.html[/url] If the writer of this piece would actually bother to check, instead of just believe the photographer right away its immediately clear that WikiCommons doesnt think thecopyright belongs to the monkey. They simply state there is no copyright on it at all. They base this on the photographers first stories where he boasted about how accidental it was. Seems like the photographer is just trying to influence public opinion to get his way. Lost all sympathy.
I'm just wondering how long it will be before this starts appearing on T-shirts and the like, then he has really shot himself in the foot.
Could a Getty images not be argued here? - [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26463886[/url] The story is so big and the photos so ubiquitous that it's become part of the public interest for these images to be royalty free plus it is unreasonable to think the copyright can be enforced at this point The photographer should still be credited though, even if he has been a total asshat over these 2 photos
It's his photo, imo. He's getting screwed over.
If he edited the photo then I would say he has rights to the edited version, but there's no reason he should have the rights to the original photo more than anyone else. If I borrow a friends camera and take a picture, the creative rights do not default to him. If he had intentionally set up the idea of getting the monkey to take pictures of itself, he might have a case, but the way I see it, he had nothing to do with the photo being taken except he happened to own the camera. Again though, if he edited the photo I will agree he has rights to the edited version, but if he acted like a dick when trying to take the photo down, I can understand Wikimedia being dicks in return.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;45618362]If he edited the photo then I would say he has rights to the edited version, but there's no reason he should have the rights to the original photo more than anyone else. If I borrow a friends camera and take a picture, the creative rights do not default to him. If he had intentionally set up the idea of getting the monkey to take pictures of itself, he might have a case, but the way I see it, he had nothing to do with the photo being taken except he happened to own the camera. Again though, if he edited the photo I will agree he has rights to the edited version, but if he acted like a dick when trying to take the photo down, I can understand Wikimedia being dicks in return.[/QUOTE] What constitutes "editing" the photo? Merely resaving it as a .JPG? Adding an unnoticeable dot on the photo?
[QUOTE=Starpluck;45618552]What constitutes "editing" the photo? Merely resaving it as a .JPG? Adding an unnoticeable dot on the photo?[/QUOTE] Actual creative work? Color/contrast, straightening, cropping etc.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.