Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by SweX, Aug 7, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
  2. vojta

    vojta Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Posts:
    830
    Yes, I own the copyright. Give me the money.
     
  3. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Haha I actually thought I would include @vojta as a joke in the post but then I changed my mind and decided not to do that :D
     
  4. vojta

    vojta Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Posts:
    830
    If you don't have money I would consider maní.
     
  5. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    1,958
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
    I assume he accepts bitcoins :)
     
  6. subhrobhandari

    subhrobhandari Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    708
    So I guess the technicians should get all the copyright in music and movie industries. :isay:
     
  7. SnowWalker

    SnowWalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    Posts:
    160
    Location:
    USA
    So I suppose Wikimedia got the monkey's permission?

    Wikimedia is such a trustworthy organization run by such honest people.:rolleyes:
     
  8. SnowWalker

    SnowWalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    Posts:
    160
    Location:
    USA
    But then, wouldn't the monkey had to have gotten permission to use the camera to be able claim possession of the photos?

    It really doesn't matter; Wikipedia cares little about facts.
     
  9. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,052
    Location:
    USA
    Yes! Arrest the monkey!

    If the item had been a gun instead of a camera, and the monkey had shot a bunch of people, this guy wouldn't want to claim ownership of that. It's all a matter of perspective...
     
  10. SnowWalker

    SnowWalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    Posts:
    160
    Location:
    USA
    Guess what; it wasn't a gun! And what the guy would want to claim doesn't matter!

    There are more to facts than perspective and senseless arguments.:)
     
  11. SnowWalker

    SnowWalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    Posts:
    160
    Location:
    USA
    BTW: who said anything about arresting the monkey? You're full of red herring aren't you? ;) Try to stick to the subject.
     
  12. guest

    guest Guest

    Oh wow even monkeys do selfies these days. My socialization skill just has been exceeded by a mere monkey aaaaaaaaaaaa :D

    Wait a minute, wait a minute the pictures were taken in the territory of my country! We should get royalty for that too! :D
     
  13. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,052
    Location:
    USA
    You guys are no fun. Not like this is a serious topic anyway... :p
     
  14. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    3,526
    Location:
    USA - Back in a real State in time for a real Pres
    Considered using this as desktop. Very cool photo. Looks totally natural & like he's having a good time.
     
  15. MikeBCda

    MikeBCda Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Posts:
    1,627
    Location:
    southern Ont. Canada
    While this may yet wind up in court, Wikipedia simply pointed out to the (human) photographer that under U.S. law, for all the setting-up and other preliminaries he did, he didn't actually take the pic himself so he has no legal copyright status as its "creator". Neither does the monkey, since copyright ownership must belong to a human, so WP's opinion (and courts will almost certainly agree) is that the photo(s) is/are in the public domain.
     
  16. SnowWalker

    SnowWalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    Posts:
    160
    Location:
    USA
    Do you actually know the law, or are you just giving your opinion based on what Wikipedia has said and as to what the courts would "almost certainly agree" to?

    I don't know the law either, but the photographer was the one who originally had complete control over the photos and when and how they would be released. As pointed out before, it was produced at his expense, on his equipment, and he did not give anyone else permission to use his equipment to take the photos.

    So, while this is a fun topic, and it's "cool" to side with Wikipedia in denying the photographer any compensation, I don't believe anyone can truthfully say that Wikipedia is above board and acting with good intentions. If they're legally right in appropriating the images, it's a loophole in the law they're trying to take advantage of.

    As someone pointed out in the article:
    "Wikimedia's editors are split on the legal issues. One user, Saffron Blaze, said in a comment section associated with the photo: "I am not sure I am convinced by the no copyright argument. In this case the outcome was very disrespectful of the photographer who created the conditions that allowed these photos to be created. There are some jurisdictions where even the monkey could be imbued with the copyright as its creator.""
    But then, Wikipedia isn't known for their integrity, IMO.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2014
  17. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,030
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Hmmm ... a story found in the Telegraph. :rolleyes:
     
  18. SnowWalker

    SnowWalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    Posts:
    160
    Location:
    USA
    You know what they say about monkeys and typewriters.......

    ::ape smiley::eek:_O
     
  19. SnowWalker

    SnowWalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    Posts:
    160
    Location:
    USA
    Just in case someone doesn't know it goes something like this: Given enough time and enough monkeys typing on typewriters, they will produce a novel, but you'll never recoup the money you spent in monkey feed, because Wikimedia will steal it. Given much less time, fewer and less intelligent monkeys, they will produce a newspaper editorial. Give one demented deaf, dumb, and blind monkey an hour or so and he'll produce a Wikipedia article.

    :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
  20. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,030
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    They work for the Telegraph? ;)
     
  21. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,030
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Oh, this made me laugh out loud! :argh:
     
  22. Oximoronman

    Oximoronman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Posts:
    87
    Monkey is thing (res) as camera in law,so it can't have anything in own possesion so, owner of copyright on photos is owner of camera IF HE DIDN'T LEFT CAMERA ON OWN WISH AND WIKIPEDIA FOUND IT IN JUNGLE AND GOT IT.In that case copyright can be in public domain,or Wikipedia's.
     
  23. Enigm

    Enigm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Posts:
    188
    Well, does the photographer have the models written consent to publish the portrait ?
    No ?
    Then he owes the monkey a whole lot of bananas.
    I think that greedy weasel should just stick 'his' copyright where the sun don't shine and if he needs to make money :
    GET A REAL JOB .
     
  24. MikeBCda

    MikeBCda Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Posts:
    1,627
    Location:
    southern Ont. Canada
    Admittedly my knowledge of the current appropriate law is antique by several decades now, but I did spend a number of years as a law clerk for a law firm specializing in patent, trademark, and copyright matters. Also, I never did look at Wikipedia, and I apologize for the misleading "Wikipedia ... pointed out ..." wording which implied that I did ... the wording was more or less a verbatim quote from the Reuters news item where I first saw this story.

    (Edit, afterthought) While I agree that the whole legal system relating to intellectual property rights desperately needs revised and updated (look at just the computer hardware/software/firmware field, for instance), under the US laws as they stood way back then, neither the photographer nor the ape would have had any proprietary rights under the circumstances, and the finished product would have public-domain status.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
  25. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    the guys should own the picture, it doesn't matter if the monkey clicked on the trigger or not.

    the guy went over there to great expense and set up the equipment in the forest.
    there would have been no picture without his presence.

    sometimes, art is made with the providence of some good luck.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.