If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Wikipedia and photographer battle over who owns the copyrights to a monkey selfie. I submitted this because I really like the words "monkey selfie"   (arstechnica.com) divider line 144
    More: Amusing, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, nature photographer, monkeys, apes, uproars, DMCA takedowns  
•       •       •

4866 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Aug 2014 at 8:33 PM (7 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



144 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-08-06 04:30:37 PM
Slater said the picture should not be in the 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," he said.

Based on the 2011 story, the monkey did the setting up. Maybe Slater did the work and falsely credited the monkey to get publicity. Seems to have backfired. Unless people read this and hire Slater, Awesome Primate Photographer, for a high paying job. Then it worked.
 
2014-08-06 06:50:23 PM
When my pet monkey throws his feces, I do not claim credit, even though I fed him.
 
2014-08-06 07:49:29 PM
We need to find and kill that monkey immediately. For our own good as a species.
 
2014-08-06 08:31:50 PM
The picture does not remind me of the selfies that get posted in TotalFark Discussion.

No.  Not at all.
 
2014-08-06 08:36:58 PM
Wikimedia editors are clueless farktards. Who knew? Oh right, everyone.
 
2014-08-06 08:37:54 PM
Monkey selfie with dynamite!
 
2014-08-06 08:39:33 PM
"Monkey Selfie" is my new band name.
 
2014-08-06 08:41:36 PM
Unless it is a work for hire the one who takes the photograph owns the copyright. If the monkey can operate a camera it can sign a licensing contract.

Get a pin because it's on, it's on like....
 
2014-08-06 08:41:59 PM
Hmm...my camera equipment, my expense and effort getting to wherever the damned monkeys are, but the images taken with my equipment aren't mine.

Fark you wiki.  It's dumbass decisions like these that guarantee I will never donate a nickel to your site.
 
2014-08-06 08:42:09 PM
Here's hoping this becomes a photoshop thread.
 
2014-08-06 08:42:13 PM
I think it's "original research" on the part of the wiki to self-servingly decide a legal question: who has copyright of the photo.

I would think that if it's in dispute, they should ethically step away from it until real authorities chime in.
 
2014-08-06 08:42:26 PM
www.dailyfailcenter.com
 
2014-08-06 08:43:03 PM
So if the money took it, he owns copyright?  How many bananas does he want in fees?
 
2014-08-06 08:43:32 PM

Occam's Nailfile: It's dumbass decisions like these that guarantee I will never donate a nickel to your site.


Be honest. They already weren't getting your nickel.
 
2014-08-06 08:44:22 PM

ZAZ: Based on the 2011 story, the monkey did the setting up. Maybe Slater did the work and falsely credited the monkey to get publicity. Seems to have backfired. Unless people read this and hire Slater, Awesome Primate Photographer, for a high paying job. Then it worked.


Some thoughts I had about this.

1) If the dude had set the camera up to take shots on an interval, would he retain the rights?

2) Can monkeys do 'work for hire'?

(A private monkey/monkey for hire)
 
2014-08-06 08:45:28 PM
Wikimedia can declare whatever it wants, but they do not get the final say on this, the courts do. File a DMCA notice and go from there.
 
2014-08-06 08:46:03 PM
Who you calling a black macaca nigra monkey, you honky monkey!
 
2014-08-06 08:47:16 PM
Hey, hey, we're the Monkee
 
2014-08-06 08:49:43 PM

lordargent: ZAZ: Based on the 2011 story, the monkey did the setting up. Maybe Slater did the work and falsely credited the monkey to get publicity. Seems to have backfired. Unless people read this and hire Slater, Awesome Primate Photographer, for a high paying job. Then it worked.

Some thoughts I had about this.

1) If the dude had set the camera up to take shots on an interval, would he retain the rights?

2) Can monkeys do 'work for hire'?

(A private monkey/monkey for hire)


1)  I'd say "yes" because he directly caused the photos to be taken.  The series of actions was deliberately set in motion by his direct action.  When you break it down, a lot of things happen between the time you press the shutter button and the time the image is captured but nobody questions that the person who set that series of actions in motion owns the result of those actions.  Same thing.

2)  No.  A monkey is not competent to agree to an employment contract.
 
2014-08-06 08:50:51 PM
I agree with Wikipedia. The photographer did no work other than pick the best pic. It isn't Wikipedia's fault that the photographer couldn't do the hard lifting himself.
 
2014-08-06 08:51:10 PM

GlamrLama: "Monkey Selfie" is my new band name.


came to say the same thing! i smell a lawsuit.....
 
2014-08-06 08:58:57 PM
Am I mistaken in thinking that that is the best selfie ever taken, by anybody, anywhere?
 
2014-08-06 09:00:17 PM
Let's simplify this a little. If the monkey wasn't a monkey and was instead a human, then who owns the picture?
 
2014-08-06 09:01:06 PM

Indolent: The picture does not remind me of the selfies that get posted in TotalFark Discussion.

No.  Not at all.


Whatever dude.
 
2014-08-06 09:01:13 PM

Old Man Winter: We need to find and kill that monkey immediately. For our own good as a species.


If only there were some way to identify that monkey.
 
2014-08-06 09:01:50 PM

Triumph: Here's hoping this becomes a photoshop thread.


An infinite number of monkeys with Photoshop...
 
2014-08-06 09:08:34 PM
Just more proof that the majority of high-and-mighty editors at Wikipedia are assholes. The guy owned the camera, slogged to the jungle, set up the camera to function the way he wanted for his shots, developed the images, picked through them to find good ones, and was the only human with any claim to the process or equipment. He clearly owns the copyright, whether it was a monkey that pressed the shutter button, or a computerized timer.

If Daft Punk can claim copyright on Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger  despite Edwin Birdsong composing the majority of the original music that Daft Punk lifted, then this guy can just consider the monkey an assistant and claim the copyright.
 
2014-08-06 09:13:03 PM

Joe USer: Wikimedia can declare whatever it wants, but they do not get the final say on this, the courts do. File a DMCA notice and go from there.


I agree, I think the photographer is right here. It was his equipment that was used to take the photo, and he retained possession of the camera.
 
2014-08-06 09:13:51 PM

Foxxinnia: Let's simplify this a little. If the monkey wasn't a monkey and was instead a human, then who owns the picture?


If the monkey is considered an assistant to the photographer who owns the equipment, arranged the shoot, set up the equipment in any way, and developed the photos, then the photographer owns the copyright.

You think all photographers push their own buttons? Nope.
 
2014-08-06 09:13:51 PM

WilderKWight: Just more proof that the majority of high-and-mighty editors at Wikipedia are assholes. The guy owned the camera, slogged to the jungle, set up the camera to function the way he wanted for his shots, developed the images, picked through them to find good ones, and was the only human with any claim to the process or equipment. He clearly owns the copyright, whether it was a monkey that pressed the shutter button, or a computerized timer.


I disagree, I think the guy is being as asshole, not Wikimedia.  It's a neat photo, but he didn't take it.  If I borrow your camera and take a cool photo with it, who owns the copyright, you or me?

The more that's in the public domain the better.
 
2014-08-06 09:16:17 PM

strangeluck: Joe USer: Wikimedia can declare whatever it wants, but they do not get the final say on this, the courts do. File a DMCA notice and go from there.

I agree, I think the photographer is right here. It was his equipment that was used to take the photo, and he retained possession of the camera.


so stolen gun used as a murder weapon = murder charges for the owner?
 
2014-08-06 09:17:49 PM

WilderKWight: Just more proof that the majority of high-and-mighty editors at Wikipedia are assholes. The guy owned the camera, slogged to the jungle, set up the camera to function the way he wanted for his shots, developed the images, picked through them to find good ones, and was the only human with any claim to the process or equipment. He clearly owns the copyright, whether it was a monkey that pressed the shutter button, or a computerized timer.

If Daft Punk can claim copyright on Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger  despite Edwin Birdsong composing the majority of the original music that Daft Punk lifted, then this guy can just consider the monkey an assistant and claim the copyright.


Right, and the person who owns the microphone that Buddy Holly sung into owns the rights to his songs.

The monkey stole his camera and took a bunch of pictures with it.  If the camera owner had been more than the pair of legs carried the camera into the habitat containing said monkey, I would be on his side.  As it is, owning a piece of equipment doesn't make you an artist.  You have to have creative input into the process.
 
2014-08-06 09:19:07 PM

TuteTibiImperes: WilderKWight: Just more proof that the majority of high-and-mighty editors at Wikipedia are assholes. The guy owned the camera, slogged to the jungle, set up the camera to function the way he wanted for his shots, developed the images, picked through them to find good ones, and was the only human with any claim to the process or equipment. He clearly owns the copyright, whether it was a monkey that pressed the shutter button, or a computerized timer.

I disagree, I think the guy is being as asshole, not Wikimedia.  It's a neat photo, but he didn't take it.  If I borrow your camera and take a cool photo with it, who owns the copyright, you or me?

The more that's in the public domain the better.


May I use that in an ad for my new product, the copyright protection shutter shield Loka-Camera?
 
2014-08-06 09:19:38 PM
dailyotter.org
dailyotter.org
 
2014-08-06 09:20:53 PM

mrlewish: strangeluck: Joe USer: Wikimedia can declare whatever it wants, but they do not get the final say on this, the courts do. File a DMCA notice and go from there.

I agree, I think the photographer is right here. It was his equipment that was used to take the photo, and he retained possession of the camera.

so stolen gun used as a murder weapon = murder charges for the owner?


Pants-on-head retarded analogy for $800?

My goodness, you really have to be profoundly limited to think that criminal homicide and civil copyright law are subject to the same constraints and logic.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-08-06 09:23:05 PM
The United States does not recognize "sweat of the brow" as cause to claim copyright. The Supreme Court said the White Pages (ask your parents) was not copyrightable because there was no creative effort in alphabetizing a list of names. Copyright rewards creativity, not effort alone.

I don't know what other countries do.

In the United States owning the camera that took a picture does not give you copyright, nor does hauling your equipment a thousand miles with worn out boots up a mountain in the snow both ways.

There is a lot of claiming of copyright for content that ought not to be copyrightable, and legal threats for uses that are clearly fair use.

Most people don't litigate copyright when the claim is dubious. They fold, or the service provider pulls the content on receiving a DMCA takedown notice. Wikipedia is big enough to call a bluff.
 
2014-08-06 09:25:34 PM

Glitchwerks: [dailyotter.org image 650x325]
[dailyotter.org image 600x600]


This is why you _ALWAYS_ have a UV filter protecting the lens.  UV filter = $50-100 (good filter).  Lens = $400-40000.  Which would you rather have scratched?

Oh.  Image copyright?  Considering the amount of post-processing that goes into just about any good image (lightbox, photoshop, just getting color temp right, cropping, etc), pressing the shutter is just one step in the chain.   If someone wants to claim that some part is public domain, then that might be the .Raw file.  Definitely not the finished image.
 
2014-08-06 09:30:38 PM

EdNortonsTwin: Unless it is a work for hire the one who takes the photograph owns the copyright. If the monkey can operate a camera it can sign a licensing contract.

Get a pin because it's on, it's on like....


Essentially it is a "work for hire"  It was taken by his own camera,  he owned the equipment that it was taken from and he basically "hired" the monkey to take the picture,
 
2014-08-06 09:31:57 PM

WilderKWight: Just more proof that the majority of high-and-mighty editors at Wikipedia are assholes. The guy owned the camera, slogged to the jungle, set up the camera to function the way he wanted for his shots, developed the images, picked through them to find good ones, and was the only human with any claim to the process or equipment. He clearly owns the copyright, whether it was a monkey that pressed the shutter button, or a computerized timer.

If Daft Punk can claim copyright on Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger  despite Edwin Birdsong composing the majority of the original music that Daft Punk lifted, then this guy can just consider the monkey an assistant and claim the copyright.


Eh, I'm guessing you didn't quite read the article, because the monkey stole the camera from the photographer and took a number of pictures (most of which are blurry) before the photographer recovered the camera. Aside from owning the camera, the photographer didn't have any real involvement in the taking of the photos.
 
2014-08-06 09:31:57 PM

mrlewish: strangeluck: Joe USer: Wikimedia can declare whatever it wants, but they do not get the final say on this, the courts do. File a DMCA notice and go from there.

I agree, I think the photographer is right here. It was his equipment that was used to take the photo, and he retained possession of the camera.

so stolen gun used as a murder weapon = murder charges for the owner?


If it was stolen and fired by a monkey, yes.
 
2014-08-06 09:32:50 PM

joeshill: Glitchwerks: [dailyotter.org image 650x325]
[dailyotter.org image 600x600]

This is why you _ALWAYS_ have a UV filter protecting the lens.  UV filter = $50-100 (good filter).  Lens = $400-40000.  Which would you rather have scratched?

Oh.  Image copyright?  Considering the amount of post-processing that goes into just about any good image (lightbox, photoshop, just getting color temp right, cropping, etc), pressing the shutter is just one step in the chain.   If someone wants to claim that some part is public domain, then that might be the .Raw file.  Definitely not the finished image.


EXACTLY.

But see, we have a lot of people in here who likely have never written, produced, or created anything artistic and claimed copyright for purposes of making a living, and they think that pushing the button makes the monkey a photographer.
 
2014-08-06 09:32:58 PM

XveryYpettyZ: WilderKWight: Just more proof that the majority of high-and-mighty editors at Wikipedia are assholes. The guy owned the camera, slogged to the jungle, set up the camera to function the way he wanted for his shots, developed the images, picked through them to find good ones, and was the only human with any claim to the process or equipment. He clearly owns the copyright, whether it was a monkey that pressed the shutter button, or a computerized timer.

If Daft Punk can claim copyright on Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger  despite Edwin Birdsong composing the majority of the original music that Daft Punk lifted, then this guy can just consider the monkey an assistant and claim the copyright.

Right, and the person who owns the microphone that Buddy Holly sung into owns the rights to his songs.

The monkey stole his camera and took a bunch of pictures with it.  If the camera owner had been more than the pair of legs carried the camera into the habitat containing said monkey, I would be on his side.  As it is, owning a piece of equipment doesn't make you an artist.  You have to have creative input into the process.


Arguing for wikipedia in this case is essentially saying that you own whatever you produce at work even though you used your employers time and money and equipment to produce it.  That's not the way copyright works.
 
2014-08-06 09:35:50 PM
By Wikimedia logic, camera operators own the rights to most major films released in the last century. I'd love to see them try to fight that battle.
 
2014-08-06 09:37:52 PM

Cluckity: By Wikimedia logic, camera operators own the rights to most major films released in the last century. I'd love to see them try to fight that battle.


Camera operators sign an employment contract which defines them as employees and assign any rights they have to the studio/production company. Standard employee contract.

Do you think there's a similar relationship between a monkey and a photographer?
 
2014-08-06 09:39:06 PM

Warlordtrooper: XveryYpettyZ: WilderKWight: Just more proof that the majority of high-and-mighty editors at Wikipedia are assholes. The guy owned the camera, slogged to the jungle, set up the camera to function the way he wanted for his shots, developed the images, picked through them to find good ones, and was the only human with any claim to the process or equipment. He clearly owns the copyright, whether it was a monkey that pressed the shutter button, or a computerized timer.

If Daft Punk can claim copyright on Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger  despite Edwin Birdsong composing the majority of the original music that Daft Punk lifted, then this guy can just consider the monkey an assistant and claim the copyright.

Right, and the person who owns the microphone that Buddy Holly sung into owns the rights to his songs.

The monkey stole his camera and took a bunch of pictures with it.  If the camera owner had been more than the pair of legs carried the camera into the habitat containing said monkey, I would be on his side.  As it is, owning a piece of equipment doesn't make you an artist.  You have to have creative input into the process.

Arguing for wikipedia in this case is essentially saying that you own whatever you produce at work even though you used your employers time and money and equipment to produce it.  That's not the way copyright works.


Not at all.  I am willingly entering into a relationship with my employer where they pay me and control my work product.  If I were on a friend's home computer they wouldn't control my work product.

The monkey isn't an employee of the camera owner.

If the camera owner had dropped the camera and accidentally shot an award-winning photo, I would be all for his ownership of the rights to the image.  Having a monkey steal your stuff doesn't even rise to that level of agency.
 
2014-08-06 09:39:37 PM
So all the wildlife pictures taken with trip wire shutters are public domain?
 
2014-08-06 09:40:00 PM
Let's ask the monkey if it can stay up.
 
2014-08-06 09:40:14 PM

RexTalionis: Cluckity: By Wikimedia logic, camera operators own the rights to most major films released in the last century. I'd love to see them try to fight that battle.

Camera operators sign an employment contract which defines them as employees and assign any rights they have to the studio/production company. Standard employee contract.

Do you think there's a similar relationship between a monkey and a photographer?


No monkeys are not humans and cannot be bound by the same legal principals that humans can,  monkeys cannot own property and therefore cannot have copyright,  there fore the sane solution is that the copyright goes to the owner of the camera  (considering the fact that he was there with the camera when the picture was taken)

For all those people saying that "he didn't do anything" well wiki did even less than that!.  In what insane twisted logic should they have rights to the photograph.
 
2014-08-06 09:43:18 PM

Warlordtrooper: RexTalionis: Cluckity: By Wikimedia logic, camera operators own the rights to most major films released in the last century. I'd love to see them try to fight that battle.

Camera operators sign an employment contract which defines them as employees and assign any rights they have to the studio/production company. Standard employee contract.

Do you think there's a similar relationship between a monkey and a photographer?

No monkeys are not humans and cannot be bound by the same legal principals that humans can,  monkeys cannot own property and therefore cannot have copyright,  there fore the sane solution is that the copyright goes to the owner of the camera  (considering the fact that he was there with the camera when the picture was taken)

For all those people saying that "he didn't do anything" well wiki did even less than that!.  In what insane twisted logic should they have rights to the photograph.


Apparently "public domain" is a mystery to you.  Wiki isn't claiming exclusive rights to the photo, just the right to use it.
 
2014-08-06 09:44:32 PM
i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 50 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report