5 ms·

Wikimedia Refuses to Take Down Monkey Selfie

14 points by AshFurrow 12y ago

drivingmenuts 12y ago
Can a monkey, which normally has no rights under the law, hold copyright without it being assigned by someone who does have rights under law? I would argue NO, from a common sense standpoint, but the law isn't really about common sense.
- jdechko 12y ago
  Reading the article and others, Wikipedia is not saying that the monkey owns the copyright, but that the photographer does not own the copyright. They are saying that under the circumstances in which the photo was taken, the image falls under public domain.
chrisbennet 12y ago
By that reasoning, if the photographer had "set up the shot" for a murder machine instead of a camera, the monkey who inadvertently pressed the button would be the murderer (or suicide victim if it was a "selfie").
- lazzlazzlazz 12y ago
  That's not quite right - he left the camera out by accident. The monkey's taking photos was not his intention. If he had accidentally constructed a situation where the monkey's pressing a button killed someone, we would consider it some kind of negligence or manslaughter (a much weaker claim) on his part, and the monkey would probably not be blamed. You're also assuming that the ability to be held liable for murder and the ability to hold copyright are satisfied by the same criteria.
  - chrisbennet 12y ago
    “I’ve told them it’s not 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.”
FireBeyond 12y ago
There's the largely undiscussed issue that WMF has a large bias in defending the "information wants to be free" angle, not to mention the hits they get from hosting what is an extremely popular image. However, the photographer isn't his best defender - he goes on about the expense of the camera and lenses "he used for his trip" - when in reality, as a professional photographer, it's highly unlikely he purchased those tools to create this specific image (because of course he didn't have that intention), and it's disingenuous to act like he's out the cost of the photography equipment by not being able to claim royalties on this one image.

14 points by AshFurrow 12y ago

Can a monkey, which normally has no rights under the law, hold copyright without it being assigned by someone who does have rights under law? I would argue NO, from a common sense standpoint, but the law isn't really about common sense.

jdechko 12y ago
Reading the article and others, Wikipedia is not saying that the monkey owns the copyright, but that the photographer does not own the copyright. They are saying that under the circumstances in which the photo was taken, the image falls under public domain.

chrisbennet 12y ago

By that reasoning, if the photographer had "set up the shot" for a murder machine instead of a camera, the monkey who inadvertently pressed the button would be the murderer (or suicide victim if it was a "selfie").

lazzlazzlazz 12y ago
That's not quite right - he left the camera out by accident. The monkey's taking photos was not his intention. If he had accidentally constructed a situation where the monkey's pressing a button killed someone, we would consider it some kind of negligence or manslaughter (a much weaker claim) on his part, and the monkey would probably not be blamed. You're also assuming that the ability to be held liable for murder and the ability to hold copyright are satisfied by the same criteria.
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  “I’ve told them it’s not 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.”

FireBeyond 12y ago

There's the largely undiscussed issue that WMF has a large bias in defending the "information wants to be free" angle, not to mention the hits they get from hosting what is an extremely popular image. However, the photographer isn't his best defender - he goes on about the expense of the camera and lenses "he used for his trip" - when in reality, as a professional photographer, it's highly unlikely he purchased those tools to create this specific image (because of course he didn't have that intention), and it's disingenuous to act like he's out the cost of the photography equipment by not being able to claim royalties on this one image.