Monkey selfie sparks copyright row

[LazyLion]

The Wikimedia Foundation insisted Thursday it would not remove from its website a "selfie" taken by a mischievous monkey, despite claims from the British photographer whose camera was used that it breached his copyright.

David Slater says he is the owner of the photo of the grinning black crested macaque that went viral when he posted it online in 2011, and is threatening to sue Wikimedia for lost earnings of up to $30,000 (22,500 euros).

But the not-for-profit foundation, which oversees Wikipedia among other online resources, refuses to remove the picture from its bank of royalty-free photographs.

"Under US laws, the copyright cannot be owned by a non-human," Wikimedia spokeswomen Katherine Maher told AFP.

"It doesn't belong to the monkey, but it doesn't belong to the photographer either," she added.

Slater was with a party of Dutch researchers on a small group of Indonesian islands when the curious primates began rummaging through his possessions.

He described how one snatched his camera and began pressing the shutter button, in the process taking a perfectly composed selfie.

Slater argues that Wikimedia's defence is based on a technicality, and that there is "a lot more to copyright than who pushes the trigger on the camera".

"I own the photo but because the monkey pressed the trigger and took the photo, they're claiming that the monkey owns the copyright," he said.

The dispute came to light on Wednesday when Wikimedia published its transparency report, which revealed that it granted none of the 304 requests to remove or alter content on its platforms over the last two years.


Source : Sapa-AFP /ma
Date : 07 Aug 2014 15:09

 

[ToxicBunny]

I tend to side with Wikimedia on this...

Another article on this : http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-at-center-of-copyright-brouhaha/

An English nature photographer is going ape over Wikipedia's refusal to remove pictures of a monkey from the online encyclopedia that he says are being displayed without his permission.

Wikimedia, the operation that runs Wikipedia, says that the public, not photojournalist David Slater, maintains the rights to the works. That's because the black macaca nigra monkey swiped the camera from Slater during a 2011 shoot in Indonesia and snapped tons of pictures, including the selfie and others at issue.

"We received a takedown request from the photographer, claiming that he owned the copyright to the photographs. We didn't agree. So we denied the request," Wikimedia said Wednesday in its transparency report.

The picture is among the thousands the site makes available for free under its Wikimedia Commons, a fact that Slater says is costing him royalties. The picture went viral in 2011 when the media reported on the selfie. "He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet," Slater told The Telegraph in July 2011 as he described the monkey hijacking his gear.

The image has at times been removed from the Wikimedia Commons by various site editors.

"If the monkey took it, it owns copyright, not me—that’s their basic argument. What they don’t realize is that it needs a court to decide that," Slater told the Telegraph Wednesday.

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.

But Wikimedia countered, saying, "To claim copyright, the photographer would have had to make substantial contributions to the final image, and even then, they'd only have copyright for those alterations, not the underlying image. This means that there was no one on whom to bestow copyright, so the image falls into the public domain."

The bolded bit is a right laugh in my opinion. He is making a claim to the copyright, yet wants Wikimedia to go to court to refute his claim. If he was so sure of it, and could make money off the photo he would have gone to court himself to prove the copyright.

 

[DreamKing]

stupid copyright laws .......

 

[akescpt]

he didn't take the pic. why is he claiming copyright??

 

[bwana]

Under SA copyright laws he could have claimed he had commissioned the monkey to take the photograph and copyright would have automatically been his.

 

[OGroteKoning]

stupid money-whore people .......

 

[LaraC]

I think he is more upset that the monkey took a better picture of itself than he was able too.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Pro selfie taker that monkey!

 

[ToxicBunny]

I think he is more upset that the monkey took a better picture of itself than he was able too.

In that you are probably right.... and he's pissed that Wikimedia are going to ruin his ability to make vast sums of money off the photo, cos it is a cool picture.
For those who haven't clicked on any of the links this is the image

 

[Lycanthrope]

David Slater says he is the owner of the photo of the grinning black crested macaque that went viral when he posted it online in 2011, and is threatening to sue Wikimedia for lost earnings of up to $30,000 (22,500 euros).

So... he posts the picture online, it goes viral, it ends up on Wikipedia (a non-profit) and then wants to sue the non-profit for using a picture that he, himself, allowed to go viral (read: become widely spread), claiming that he's lost earnings, depsite his own failure to protect his financial interests from the start?

I don't see how he has a leg to stand on.

 

[bgotapen]

It was the photographers camera and the photographer uploaded the picture not the monkey. I can kinda see that the photographer was the integral part of the picture so I can also see why it is his property to do with as he pleases.

I like wikimedia but lets be honest both parties are colossal twats about it.

 

[bwana]

So... he posts the picture online, it goes viral, it ends up on Wikipedia (a non-profit) and then wants to sue the non-profit for using a picture that he, himself, allowed to go viral (read: become widely spread), claiming that he's lost earnings, depsite his own failure to protect his financial interests from the start?

I don't see how he has a leg to stand on.

Does being non-profit give them the right to use what they want when they want to?

 

[Lycanthrope]

Does being non-profit give them the right to use what they want when they want to?

Are they using it for commercial gain? No? Then I don't see a problem.

Credit the photographer or something if that grants him the recognition he craves. It is unlikely that the argument that a non-profit is causing him a "loss of earnings" after he'd put the image in the public domain will hold water.

At least if it was a profit-driven company or a company that was trying to sell/earn royalties on the image, I could sympathise with the "loss of earnings" argument.

Again, the photographer failed to protect his financial interests. Consider it "school fees."

Edit: In hindsight, he might be able to argue removal of the image on Wikipedia simply based on not having given his permission. But the argument of "loss of earnings" is, in my honest opinion, doomed for failure.

 

[bgotapen]

Are they using it for commercial gain? No? Then I don't see a problem.

Credit the photographer or something if that grants him the recognition he craves. It is unlikely that the argument that a non-profit is causing him a "loss of earnings" after he'd put the image in the public domain will hold water.

At least if it was a profit-driven company or a company that was trying to sell/earn royalties on the image, I could sympathise with the "loss of earnings" argument.

Again, the photographer failed to protect his financial interests. Consider it "school fees."

Edit: In hindsight, he might be able to argue removal of the image on Wikipedia simply based on not having given his permission. But the argument of "loss of earnings" is, in my honest opinion, doomed for failure.

How do you earn a living? Photographers put their photo's online for show but to use it you need to pay for the rights. I am not a photographer but I have used images and trust me they would be pissed off if someone started putting their photo's irrespective of source on a non profit website.

They would lose their incomes

you can see where I am going with this?

 

[Lycanthrope]

How do you earn a living? Photographers put their photo's online for show but to use it you need to pay for the rights. I am not a photographer but I have used images and trust me they would be pissed off if someone started putting their photo's irrespective of source on a non profit website.

They would lose their incomes

you can see where I am going with this?

There's an image of the monkey on this website (and likely a number of other forums, websites, blogs, etc as well). There's one in pretty much every news article about this story. I can pretty much guarantee it's on all sorts of image sharing sites such as Imgur, Photobucket, Flickr, etc.

The newspapers make money off of it but it's "news" so that's okay. Image sharing sites make money off it because of the ads their users trigger when they upload to those sites.

Wikipedia, shockingly, does not. But Wikipedia is the problem? :wtf:

This image is now public domain because the photographer threw it into the public domain. That tends to happen when you don't protect your financial interests. He could've put a small sample into the public domain and exclusively traded the rights of the higher resolutions.

How do you stop a flood once the dam's burst its banks? You prevent it from happening in the first place.

 

[bwana]

Edit: In hindsight, he might be able to argue removal of the image on Wikipedia simply based on not having given his permission. But the argument of "loss of earnings" is, in my honest opinion, doomed for failure.

As far as I can see that's the easy argument to make. Wiki is distributing these images, in fairly high quality, and are telling people that the images are not copyrighted, because Wiki's lawyers have determined it to be so, and so people assume that they are free to do what they please with that image. As far as I know courts determine these sort of things, not a company's lawyers.

Was he foolish in publishing these images on the internet in the first place? Possibly but many photographers rely on this business model.

 

[bgotapen]

It is not how it works... If you want a photo for a website you need to get rights for the photo from the photographer. You pay him a fee for it. The sample isn't free it is a "sample" and works similarly to songs.

wikimedia circumvents this fee because they offer it for free. The photographer has no chance to charge the fee on his photo if they give away his property.

Technically he can claim damages to sites hosting the photo if it is his property.

 

[Lycanthrope]

As far as I can see that's the easy argument to make. Wiki is distributing these images, in fairly high quality, and are telling people that the images are not copyrighted, because Wiki's lawyers have determined it to be so, and so people assume that they are free to do what they please with that image. As far as I know courts determine these sort of things, not a company's lawyers.

I can only hope that it works out in the best interests of everyone involved. I believe the "right" thing to do would be that the photographer allows Wikipedia to maintain a low-resolution sample of the image and that Wikipedia credit the photographer.

Was he foolish in publishing these images on the internet in the first place? Possibly but many photographers rely on this business model.

Foolish for publishing the high-resolution/unwatermarked versions of these images in the public domain, yes, very foolish

I just can't help but feel that it's important to protect your IP from the start and that doing so is your responsibility. Once you've let it loose into something as vast and all-consuming as the internet, you no longer have control over it and Wikipedia cannot be held responsible for that fault.

 

[bwana]

One interesting thing to note is that the exif of the images on Wiki still retain the original description, creator, and copyright notice…

Headline : Monkey takes photos on camera
Credit : Caters News Agency
Source : Caters News Agency
Transmission Reference : 517366
Date Created : 2011:07:04
Marked : False
Creator : David J Slater
Description : PIC BY A WILD MONKEY / DAVID SLATER / CATERS NEWS - (PICTURED: One of the photos that the monkey took with Davids camera. 1 of 2: This photo was the original photo the monkey took) - These are the chimp-ly marvellous images captured by a cheeky monkey after turning the tables on a photographer who left his camera unmanned. The inquisitive scamp playfully went to investigate the equipment before becoming fascinated with his own reflection in the lens. And it wasnt long before the crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away sending award-winning photographer David Slater bananas. David, from Coleford, Gloucestershire, was on a trip to a small national park north of the Indonesian island of Sulawesi when he met the incredibly friendly bunch. SEE CATERS COPY.
Rights : Caters News Agency Ltd
Title : Monkey takes photos on camera
Subject : monkey, wildlife, amazing, camera, photo, photographer, park

 

[Lycanthrope]

One interesting thing to note is that the exif of the images on Wiki still retain the original description, creator, and copyright notice…

Linky? I don't see that on the two images at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebes_crested_macaque#Copyright_test_case

That copyright tag would help the photographer's case, methinks.

I don't think Wikipedia's argument (that the monkey took the shot, ergo, cannot be copyrighted) will hold water either. Most folks would agree that the photographer owns the content on their camera(s).

Should be fun watching this play out.