Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'

Vice got a hold of a lawyer they know, and he gave the rundown of the legalities:

http://www.vice.com/read/who-owns-the-monkey-selfie-345

 

No, You have to look at all the facts, not just banana pick certain ones.

The *monkey used the camera without permission. The monkey forfeited its rights when it did that.

The monkey was photographed in a public place.

The monkey did not ask for or sign a contact.

The monkey abandoned the camera and thus asserted no claim to the images it contained.

The monkey still owes the photographer compensation for unauthorized use of the equipment.

The monkey, as far as I can ascertain, has never contested these facts.

So the monkey has no legitimate claim.



*[By "monkey" I am referring to the subject of the photos in question. Any resembleance to anyone in the Wikimedia organization is purely coincidental.]

 

I must say, since Wikimedia/Wikipedia sucks so bad, there's gotta be a better alternative right?

 

I would think so. Any encyclopedia that bases its articles on fact and not PC.

 

I'll try to avoid getting this thread off track any more, and while I could stir up controversy with examples of political correctness, I'll just give this non-pc example for now and hope it will suffice:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ientists-warn-after-errors-found-9441686.html

So if you want to trust it because it's the most popular free source, do so at your own risk.

So hopefully we can get back to the serious monkey business that started this thread.

 

Regulators: No one can copyright animal selfies, not even monkeys - The Washington Post

 

We all know that artists and authors will not create art or novels unless they are given, among other things, the legal right to stop the unauthorized use of their work on the internet. Thus, this ruling will now deter monkeys from creating novels (See e.g., The Infinite Monkey Theorem) art, and selfies.

It is an irrefutable fact that a world with more monkey selfies is more fun than a world with none, so, now that monkeys are denied copyright, we and the monkeys all lose.

This raises the issue of whether or not The U.S. Copyright Office has an anti-monkey and anti-fun bias.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution,among other things,guarantees the right of citizens to petition their government.

As you may know, President Obama has a policy whereby if a petition reaches 100,000 signatures within 30 days, the President will respond. So let all us U.S. citizens exercise our Constitutional Rights and start such a petition. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/

I believe it would be quite interesting and entertaining to all citizens and monkeys to read The President's reply to such a petition.

I say that as Corporations are now considered to be "persons" under the Constitution so should monkeys also be considered "persons" under the Constitution. Especially since monkeys are far more intelligent and social than most Corporations. Monkeys are living beings with feelings, emotions, and cooperative societal awareness, unlike Corporations.
When was the last time you read about a psychopathic /sociopathic, solely greed-driven monkey bankrupt The Treasury,destroy an economy, and cause massive suffering by millions of persons?