# Wikipedia battle to go to court for a selfie ownership



## Zangetsu (Aug 7, 2014)

Wikipedia is currently embroiled in a unique legal battle with British Photographer David Slater

*Source:* Who owns a selfie taken by a monkey? Wikipedia battle to go to court - Tech2

Smile please!!!
*stech4.firstpost.com/tech2images/640x359/proportional/jpeg/2014/08/Monkey_NEW-624x351.jpg


----------



## Desmond (Aug 7, 2014)

WTF did I just read.

Technically, the monkey cannot own the picture. The monkey does not even understand the concept of money, let alone the concept of owning things. But since the camera that took the picture was owned by the cameraman, the pic should technically be owned by the cameraman. It should not be public domain until the cameraman puts it willingly to the public domain.


----------



## RCuber (Aug 7, 2014)

DeSmOnD dAvId said:


> WTF did I just read.
> 
> Technically, the monkey cannot own the picture. The monkey does not even understand the concept of money, let alone the concept of owning things. But since the camera that took the picture was owned by the cameraman, the pic should technically be owned by the cameraman. It should not be public domain until the cameraman puts it willingly to the public domain.



err
[YOUTUBE]E9hPYr-5tJk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## snap (Aug 7, 2014)

DeSmOnD dAvId said:


> WTF did I just read.
> 
> Technically, the monkey cannot own the picture. The monkey does not even understand the concept of money, let alone the concept of owning things. But since the camera that took the picture was owned by the cameraman, the pic should technically be owned by the cameraman. It should not be public domain until the cameraman puts it willingly to the public domain.



yea i read that non-humans cannot own copyrights so it is in public domain


----------



## paroh (Aug 7, 2014)

Zangetsu said:


> Wikipedia is currently embroiled in a unique legal battle with British Photographer David Slater
> 
> *Source:* Who owns a selfie taken by a monkey? Wikipedia battle to go to court - Tech2
> 
> ...



This is  the first time i see a really very unique picture of a handsome monkey ............................. actually which camera this monkey use to take his snap Chinese or japanese as he can became the brand ambassador for that camera company  & i also appreciate the skill of this monkey.
Actually the photographer should appreciate the monkey and leave the battle with the Wikipedia .


----------



## Desmond (Aug 7, 2014)

RCuber said:


> err
> [YOUTUBE]E9hPYr-5tJk[/YOUTUBE]



Dude, it is just trained to do that. Something like insert money to get something. But it does not understand how money has value.


----------



## RCuber (Aug 7, 2014)

DeSmOnD dAvId said:


> Dude, it is just trained to do that. Something like insert money to get something. But it does not understand how money has value.



I read some where that monkeys pay for mating.


----------



## Vyom (Aug 7, 2014)

I think Monkey should have a testimony in the court. Monkey should have a say if he wants to be the owner of the selfie. The monkey should plead for his rights and demand a bunch of bananas as royalty.


----------



## Desmond (Aug 8, 2014)

RCuber said:


> I read some where that monkeys pay for mating.



What? Where?


----------



## snap (Aug 8, 2014)

^^ yea i think it was on some cracked.com article or something  they pay in bananas it seems


----------



## Desmond (Aug 8, 2014)

snap said:


> ^^ yea i think it was on some cracked.com article or something  they pay in bananas it seems



Oh wait. I think its that article on porn or something. Don't remember the exact name.


----------



## ico (Aug 9, 2014)

has got to be the best selfie ever.


----------



## anirbandd (Aug 9, 2014)

Well, +1 to the photographer from me.


----------



## Anorion (Aug 9, 2014)

it belongs to the photographer 
the monkey did not buy the equipment 
this is terribly unfair to the photographer



DeSmOnD dAvId said:


> What? Where?






snap said:


> ^^ yea i think it was on some cracked.com article or something  they pay in bananas it seems




6 Things You Won't Believe Animals Do Just Like Us | Cracked.com


----------



## rijinpk1 (Aug 9, 2014)

Anorion said:


> it belongs to the photographer
> *the monkey did not buy the equipment *
> this is terribly unfair to the photographer



selfie


Spoiler



a photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically one taken with a smartphone or webcam


----------



## anirbandd (Aug 11, 2014)

So you mean to say, you take my cam/mobile and take a selfie  so you will have the rights to that image?? Even though you used equipment i bought? Even when you didnt rent them out? Even when you didnt take my consent?? 

And the monkey didnt even know what shitstorm it was arousing...


----------



## Anorion (Aug 11, 2014)

yep. I own the image. The person who clicks, owns the photographs. Professionals rarely use photos clicked by someone else, and when they do, they give clear attribution to the shot.  

but, if I am a monkey, things get a little difficult. It might come under Orphan works - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


----------



## anirbandd (Aug 12, 2014)

So. 

There are multiple imagea of tigers or lions which were taken by camera traps. The photo was triggered by the tiger or lion or by any other animal for that matter. 

Whom do the photos belong to??


----------



## Anorion (Aug 12, 2014)

the forest department, the stock photo agency, or whoever the trap was set up for

If I borrow your cam and take a photo with my other friend, and the "trigger" is the smile detection, and ask you to send it to me, the photo belongs to me first, the person who smiled next (because he triggered the camera), and you last, if at all, even though you own the equipment. 

it becomes tricky when any other animal is a human. Those photographers who know and care about copyright, do share credit or attribute if there is human involvement in exactly this scenario, where the photographer does not trigger the shot himself (say trap is triggered by a human in a vehicle).
so if it is published, and it is a respectable publication, the guy who triggered the trap gets credit in the byline along with the photographer.


----------



## anirbandd (Aug 12, 2014)

Getting mentioned is one thing and making some money out of it whole different thing. The photographer has mentioned that he makes a living out of this. So whereas I'd agree that the monkey gets mentioned in the caption, its highly unethical that Wikipedia has used his roziroti without his permission. 

At the end of the day it was the photographer who set up his equipment so that the monkey could take a selfie. And  ii highly doubt it was meant to be a selfie. IMO it was an accidental shot. Butit gravitated into this mess.


----------



## Anorion (Aug 12, 2014)

yep. I actually agree with you, and respect artists and creative people, and believe they should get the returns for their investment. 

but the thing is, if it were a human instead of a  monkey, the selfie would have belonged to the human, despite whatever cost of travel and equipment that was borne by the photographer. But I agree that Wikipedia editors are no body to take such decisions.


----------



## anirbandd (Aug 13, 2014)

yes.. that it was a monkey made an ocean of difference. Wikipedia editors did an unethical thing by hastily uploading it on wikimedia.


----------



## Anorion (Aug 13, 2014)

they fought among themselves, and constantly switched between keeping it up and taking it down

some photos just get into the wild, and belong to everybody, despite efforts by the creators to take control of the situation

some recent examples - the dog on top of himalayas, OP forgot to watermark it, and it just escaped into the net. philosoraptor was designed by a small 2 guy t-shirt company.


----------



## Inceptionist (Aug 13, 2014)

This whole thing is hilarious. I hope someone makes a movie about it.


----------



## anirbandd (Aug 21, 2014)

Anorion said:


> they fought among themselves, and constantly switched between keeping it up and taking it down
> 
> some photos just get into the wild, and belong to everybody, despite efforts by the creators to take control of the situation
> 
> some recent examples - the dog on top of himalayas, OP forgot to watermark it, and it just escaped into the net. philosoraptor was designed by a small 2 guy t-shirt company.



eh? link please!!

wanna see it.


----------



## Anorion (Aug 21, 2014)

story of the Himalayan Dog picture going viral, documents the frustration of the photographer not putting the watermark > Sebastian Wahlhuetter Photoblog 

the story of the copyrighted philosoraptor image, that became a meme, and is used as a public domain image > 403 Forbidden

home page of the shirt with the original design > Philosoraptor Shirt - Funny Shirts By Lonely Dinosaur â€“ Lonely Dinosaur Organic T-Shirts


----------



## Vyom (Aug 22, 2014)

> The US copyright regulators have confirmed Wikipedia's conclusion that a picture taken by a monkey or any other animal cant be copyrighted by the photographer who owns the camera.



Monkey selfie cannot be copyrighted, says US regulator | Digit.in

Monkey won. Now.. as I said...



> The monkey should plead for his rights and demand a bunch of bananas as royalty.


----------



## singleindian (Aug 24, 2014)

these copyright laws should be changed.Poor Photographer


----------



## Anorion (Aug 25, 2014)

agree, but the photographer, should have watermarked the image from his side, forget wikipedia, it could have been used anywhere in the wild. As a professional, he should have known this. That is what I have come to believe after the US regulator judgment, and learning from the previous examples where this has happened.


----------



## singleindian (Aug 25, 2014)

Anorion said:


> agree, but the photographer, should have watermarked the image from his side, forget wikipedia, it could have been used anywhere in the wild. As a professional, he should have known this. That is what I have come to believe after the US regulator judgement, and learning from the previous examples where this has happened.



this photo got famous because the monkey took it.and copyright laws says it only applies to humans taking photos.so how can watermarking it makes a difference.the photo still cant be copyrighted right?


----------



## TechnoBOY (Aug 25, 2014)

+1 to     [MENTION=56202]Anorion[/MENTION] and Its Wikimedia not Wikipedia[not sure]


----------



## anirbandd (Aug 25, 2014)

Its the wiki group.,. Media or pedia. Lol


----------



## Anorion (Aug 25, 2014)

singleindian said:


> this photo got famous because the monkey took it.and copyright laws says it only applies to humans taking photos.so how can watermarking it makes a difference.the photo still cant be copyrighted right?



this is about control over the photo by the photographer. the photographer was in possession of the photo even though copyright is owned by nobody/the monkey. Yep, the photograph cannot be copyrighted, but the photographer could have ensured that credit to him is permanently attached by never releasing a copy without a watermark. Additionally, wikimedia would not have used the watermarked image.


----------



## TechnoBOY (Aug 25, 2014)

anirbandd said:


> Its the wiki group.,. Media or pedia. Lol


Wikipedia is like encyclopedia,but Wikimedia is as a whole *www.wikimedia.org/


----------



## anirbandd (Aug 26, 2014)

TechnoBOY said:


> Wikipedia is like encyclopedia,but Wikimedia is as a whole *www.wikimedia.org/


Wiki wiki.. What are you pointing at?


----------



## Anorion (Aug 26, 2014)

wiki is a software for mass collaborative edits, was there for years before wikipedia
wikipedia is an encyclopedia is a web site that uses that software
wikimedia commons is a resource pool for creative commons licensed media, used in various web sites, only one of which is wikipedia

yes, the fight is between wikimedia commons and the photographer, not wikipedia.


----------



## singleindian (Aug 26, 2014)

Anorion said:


> this is about control over the photo by the photographer. the photographer was in possession of the photo even though copyright is owned by nobody/the monkey. Yep, the photograph cannot be copyrighted, but the photographer could have ensured that credit to him is permanently attached by never releasing a copy without a watermark. Additionally, wikimedia would not have used the watermarked image.



Ok,but can he make money by selling it?


----------



## Anorion (Aug 26, 2014)

hmm tricky question.. but answer is yes, only no one would be willing to buy it now because it's already in the wild without a watermark
just to be clear, the image cannot be copyrighted under US copyright laws (even by the monkey), it may be different for the country the photographer stays in, or wants to sell the image in, and watermarking is a way of exerting control over the photo irrespective of the status of the copyright, or despite the copyright clearly being held by nobody


----------



## Anorion (Nov 4, 2014)

uhh... so discovered that this has happened. 

*i.imgur.com/S1YTrLU.jpg

The credit for that photo is given to the monkey (Koko)


----------



## Desmond (Nov 5, 2014)

All's well that ends well.


----------

