Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Wikimedia refuses to remove animal selfie because monkey ‘owns’ the photo

(1/7) > >>

Renegade:
This is interesting for the whole IP/copyright blabbering.

http://myfox8.com/2014/08/06/wikimedia-refuses-to-remove-animal-selfie-because-monkey-owns-the-copyright/

Wikimedia has denied a photographer’s request to remove a “monkey selfie” photo because the monkey pressed the shutter button making the photo ineligible for copyright, according to the Telegraph.

Nature photographer David Slater was in Indonesia in 2011 when a crested black macaque stole his camera and took hundreds of photos, including the famous selfie that was featured in publications across the world.

Many of the photos were blurry shots of the jungle floor, but among the throwaways were the selfie that gave Slater worldwide attention.
--- End quote ---



More at the link.

I'm tempted to type some bad puns...

Tuxman:
Monkey see, monkey do?

After all, Wikipedia now ignores the monkey's copyright by just declaring the photo "Public Domain" without her consent. The monkey should sue them.

Stoic Joker:
Great, now the new poster child for IP law really is a monkey with a loaded weapon.

40hz:
Awesome!

Good article over at TechDirt about how the Wikimedia Foundation has a record of not rolling over any time a bogus takedown notice is received. Read the full article here.

Kudos To Wikimedia Foundation For Resisting All Government Requests To Censor Content
from the good-to-see dept

Wikimedia's new Transparency Report has been getting some attention, in part because it brought attention back to the whole monkey selfie copyright debacle. However, the rest of the transparency report itself is rather interesting, starting with the fact that it appears that Wikimedia rejected every request to pull down information (unrelated to copyright, which we'll get to in a second).
--- End quote ---

Renegade:
The whole thing seems to just show how cracked & broken copyright is.

Someone else brought up this case...

You're out at a typical tourist destination when a couple hands you their camera and asks you to take a picture of them up against a background. You say yes, then snap a nice picture of them.

You own the copyright? On their camera?

So, if I can extend that a bit...

But of course! Because, Wikipedia and monkeys! Therefore you say to the couple that they can purchase your intellectual property (copyright) interests in the photo for the paultry sum of $25.00, as you firmly grip the camera and put it behind your back. After all... that's YOUR photo...


Now, I'm not saying yes or no there, but it brings up an interesting question --- who "owns" the photo?


* Would you please snap a picture **of** us?
* Would you please snap a picture **for** us?
Would the way the couple actually asked the question matter? Above, "of" and "for" are very different. i.e. I can snap a picture "of" you but not "for" you. It could be for someone else, like your mother or me or a trashy magazine/newspaper.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page