Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as monkey owns it

[KLaban]

-

[Iluvmycam]

I donate lots of my photos to Wiki commons. High quality stuff. The founder has provided a great service to humanity and our history is our right. Leave the pix on the Wiki.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I donate lots of my photos to Wiki commons. High quality stuff. The founder has provided a great service to humanity and our history is our right. Leave the pix on the Wiki.

If either the monkey or the photographer explicitly, in writing, offered to donate the image to Wiki, I would agree with you.

[fdisilvestro]

Apparently this debate has been going for a few years, here is an article back from 2011

http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/2011/07/27/dog-days-news-notes/

Remember: Next time a monkey takes a photo with your camera, just tell everybody that you were the one that did it. Who will know it was the monkey?
And to professional photographers: don't let your assistants press the shutter, as they might claim copyright to the images later :-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Here is a kicker: does Wikipedia have a model release? Ha!

[PeterAit]

Here is a kicker: does Wikipedia have a model release? Ha!

And, my monkey has a lawyer - y'know, that 900 pound gorilla!

[rpsphoto]

The monkey actually did a very good job with the composition and focus of that shot...much better than the selfies found on Facebook.

[ripgriffith]

If I read it correctly, wikimedia (not wikipedia) does not say the monkey owns the copyright; they say that the human photographer does not.  They do say that they believe that a non-human cannot own a copyright.

[Misirlou]

I'd be more sympathetic to this "monkey-owned" argument if the monkey cropped the image, tagged it with the correct color space for the web, and uploaded it. Clearly, it did not.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If non-humans can't own copyright, how about next-of-kin? And clearly, the photographer was both "next" to the monkey and "kin" 

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

If non-humans can't own copyright, how about next-of-kin? And clearly, the photographer was both "next" to the monkey and "kin" 

+1.

[Iluvmycam]

The monkey actually did a very good job with the composition and focus of that shot...much better than the selfies found on Facebook.

The monkey out-did the photog that is suffering from sour grapes. The photog cannot even hold on to his camera and he can't even match the photo skills of a monkey.

I read all sort of excuses by this greedy photog. Bottom line...he did not shoot the pix.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

This is a job for a very skillful lawyer. The bottom line is, I can't stand the fact that someone is using for free someone else's photographs. How about this: work for hire? In work for hire, photographer (in this case monkey) pressed the button, but does not have the copyright, which stays with the entity that hired him (or monkey). The bottom line: anything but public domain.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

This is a job for a very skillful lawyer. The bottom line is, I can't stand the fact that someone is using for free someone else's photographs. How about this: work for hire? In work for hire, photographer (in this case monkey) pressed the button, but does not have the copyright, which stays with the entity that hired him (or monkey). The bottom line: anything but public domain.

Next time I hire a monkey to work for me, I want you as my lawyer, Slobodan.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Next time I hire a monkey to work for me, I want you as my lawyer, Slobodan.

Hire me, you get both!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Another angle: what about all those National Geographic photos that are created by animals triggering a light or sound system the photographer set up and left unattended? Are those public domain too?

Oh, wait! How about all those lightning photos triggered by a special trigger attached to the camera, while the photographer is at a safe distance. Is Thor the copyright owner then?

[Misirlou]

And I'll repeat my argument. Maybe the monkey triggered the shutter, but it sure as hell didn't deliver the shot to the web.

[joneil]

An update on this story as of August 21st:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-cannot-be-copyrighted-us-regulators-say/

partial quote from the article:
----------------------------
United States copyright regulators are agreeing with Wikipedia's conclusion that a monkey's selfie cannot be copyrighted by a nature photographer whose camera was swiped by the ape in the jungle. The animal's selfie went viral.
The US Copyright Office, in a 1,222-page report discussing federal copyright law, said that a "photograph taken by a monkey" is unprotected intellectual property.
Wikipedia says the public, not the photojournalist, owns the rights to ape's pic.
"The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants. Likewise, the Office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the Office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy state that the work was inspired by a divine spirit," said the draft report, "Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition." [PDF]
----------------------------------

Personally, I think the monkey should get paid....

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The Office bureaucrats sidestepped the issue, as expected. No one claimed the monkey should hold the copyright, so their point is moot. The real issue is that the photographer who paid for the trip and equipment, was there, photographing the monkeys, who processed and published the image, should hold the copyright. Just like National Geographic holds the copyright for images triggered by an animal, or any other work for hire (where the person holding the copyright did not press the shutter).

[Peter McLennan]

Slobodan's point about remotely-triggered images is interesting, but without merit, IMHO.

Such images are the result of careful setup and complex technologies, premeditated, designed and implemented by the photographer.  Whether animal motion or a thunderclap actually triggered the shutter is irrelevant.  The resulting images are a result of the photographer's intent. 

The monkey was in total control of the camera, with no intent evidenced by the camera's owner.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did read a John Grisham novel once.