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
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.
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.
has got to be the best selfie ever.
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...
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
yes.. that it was a monkey made an ocean of difference. Wikipedia editors did an unethical thing by hastily uploading it on wikimedia.
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.
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 – Lonely Dinosaur Organic T-Shirts
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.
+1 to [MENTION=56202]Anorion[/MENTION] and Its Wikimedia not Wikipedia[not sure]
Its the wiki group.,. Media or pedia. Lol
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.
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
uhh... so discovered that this has happened.
*i.imgur.com/S1YTrLU.jpg
The credit for that photo is given to the monkey (Koko)
All's well that ends well.
& i also appreciate the skill of this monkey.
