Wikipedia refuse to remove a picture because 'monkey owns it'

[Ratatapa]

Maybe not worth a thread but still funny

MONKEY SELFIE

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...0_1937620b.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...y-owns-it.html

[Tyrath]

Thats pretty fantastic. I don't know or care to speak to the legality of an animal owning copyrights, but I love that its an argument that can be made.

[BaneTheBrawler]

except the actual argument is that since the monkey took it, and non-humans can't own copyrights, it's public domain.

[Stromgarde]

I don't feel too great about this one. The photographer in question is just trying to make a living, and attempting to place this in the public domain is actively depriving the guy of the ability to pay the rent.

[Not Kuno]

Photography is more than who pressed the shutter button.

[Stumblingdrunk]

Maybe, but copyright law isn't

[NynJa]

Photography is more than who pressed the shutter button.

Quite possibly, but if the photographer dropped his camera, a monkey picked it up and started mashing the shutter button, is that really the work of the owner of the camera?

nvm, article says he got robbed by monkeys. LOL THATS SO MUCH WORSE!!

[Melena]

Quite possibly, but if the photographer dropped his camera, a monkey picked it up and started mashing the shutter button, is that really the work of the owner of the camera?

nvm, article says he got robbed by monkeys. LOL THATS SO MUCH WORSE!!

http://www.thethemeparkguy.com/park/...cruise-big.jpg

[NynJa]

I was thinking more of


Cant find a clip where he admits he got mugged by a monkey

[hey]

I don't feel too great about this one. The photographer in question is just trying to make a living, and attempting to place this in the public domain is actively depriving the guy of the ability to pay the rent.

He's free to try to earn a living, but he didn't take the picture. Trying to claim copyright on a picture he didn't take is bullshit.

[Acevalefor]

I don't feel too great about this one. The photographer in question is just trying to make a living, and attempting to place this in the public domain is actively depriving the guy of the ability to pay the rent.

What? The guy did not take the pictures. They are not his pictures to make money off of.

Hmm...I wonder how timelapse cameras and motion activated cameras work as far as copyright law.

[Stromgarde]

Photos would not exist without the photographer in question or his equipment as I see it. I wonder what the court is going to do about this, esp. regarding damages. Does Wikimedia indemnify its users against copyright violation royalties should something later turn out to be not theirs to give out for free?

[archibaldcrane]

Hmm...I wonder how timelapse cameras and motion activated cameras work as far as copyright law.

I'm sure whoever set up the camera to take the photos is the copyright holder.

[quannum]

Photos would not exist without the photographer in question or his equipment as I see it. I wonder what the court is going to do about this, esp. regarding damages. Does Wikimedia indemnify its users against copyright violation royalties should something later turn out to be not theirs to give out for free?

to create a photograph, one must first create the universe. sorry monkey, god owns the copyright.

[Tyrath]

except the actual argument is that since the monkey took it, and non-humans can't own copyrights, it's public domain.

I blame Rata. I skimmed it and went off his title.

[BaneTheBrawler]

in this case it's actually not rata's fault. his title is based on their title.

[Ratatapa]

It's never my fault
Exept when it is

[hey]

Photos would not exist without the photographer in question or his equipment as I see it. I wonder what the court is going to do about this, esp. regarding damages. Does Wikimedia indemnify its users against copyright violation royalties should something later turn out to be not theirs to give out for free?

Owning the equipment does not mean anything taken with it belongs to him.

Hmm...I wonder how timelapse cameras and motion activated cameras work as far as copyright law.

The person who took the photo. It doesn't matter if you physically push a button, or if you set a timer, or if it reads your brain waves to take a picture when you think of a picture. In this case, the monkey took the photo, therefore the monkey owns the copyright in jurisdictions where a monkey is able to own a copyright, and in others where it cannot, then it is public domain. In the previous case, the monkey is free to file suit, but not this guy.

[Qalbert]

this whole case is bananas

[Stromgarde]

Having looked into the law a bit further, you guys seem to be right. Even a photo taken with a stolen camera is property of the photographer.