# Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'



## snerd

Well, the title is a little misleading. Nonetheless, interesting reading and case. And the mug shot............ Monkeyliscious!!!



> Wikimedia, the non-profit organisation behind Wikipedia, has refused a    photographers repeated requests to stop distributing his most famous shot    for free  because a monkey pressed the shutter button and should own the    copyright



Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it' - Telegraph


----------



## dylan87

yeah, indeed an interesting case! saw it on the news yesterday. And every TV station and every newspaper spread these pics even more, though it's still unclear who has the rights on it.


----------



## astroNikon

One is really interesting is the photographer makes money on ONE of every 10.000 images in his specific genre.

and it won't be long until monkeys will be photographing weddings.  Though by the results some already do.


----------



## Raj_55555

I don't get it. Even if the monkey has the copyrights, don't they need some sort of a legal document from the aforementioned monkey before they are allowed to share the work? :scratch:


----------



## Overread

Eh the thing is the monkey took the shot - and animals don't have copyright rights to their work.

Except I've a feeling that a large number of those Tate Modern "animal artists" do actaully have rights to their work or their owners do. So is Wiki's angle that only "wild" animals have no copyright ownership? My guess is Wiki just doesn't want to pull a popular image so they are scrabbling for answers knowing that they can open up a huge box of legal worms and that the photographer is likely to back down - the resulting publicity is more humour than anything else so it doesn't even tarnish them much (although it does leave wiki looking like the bad guys in this).


----------



## Tinderbox (UK)

The photographer is only angry because the monkey takes a better photo than he does :mrgreen:

John.


----------



## Wizard1500

The photographer has no claim to the image, because he did not take it.  His stance that it was taken with his equipment, has no standing with the copyright laws.....


----------



## KmH

I agree that animals don';t have legal rights such that an animal could own a copyright.

But Slater's situation would be the same if he had found an abandoned camera that had images on it.
He didn't make the photo, so he can't own the copyright either.

What I want to know is - who is Slater getting legal advice from.
Such that Slater thinks he has a monkey's chance of living wild at the North pole to be adjudicated as the copyright owner of the photos the monkey clicked.
It seems Mr. Slater has plenty of money to throw at a lost cause.


----------



## Braineack

Why does it matter who physically pressed the button?


----------



## runnah

Braineack said:


> Why does it matter who physically pressed the button?



Cause it's the same principal as me going over to some famous painters house and whipping up a master piece using his supplies. The artist could claim he owns the painting since it was his paint, brush, canvas and his house.

Either way this story is bananas!


----------



## snowbear

Braineack said:


> Why does it matter who physically pressed the button?



If I borrow your camera and take a shot, who owns the photo - you or me?

. . . . .

The real issue in all of this is how it will affect the Fauxtogs:  1) they can rejoice in knowing even monkeys can take decent photos; or 2) they can be depressed from knowing that even monkeys can take photos better than they.


----------



## Braineack

taking a picture is much different than taking a photo.  to take a photo of an apple, one must have an apple.  to paint one, you can poo on paper, for all I care, and call it an apple.



> If I borrow your camera and take a shot, who owns the photo - you or me?



If I set up and facilitate a shot: the lighting, the pose, the camera, the settings, the frame, etc.  and hand you a wireless trigger to simply press; whose photo is it?

If I set up and facilitate a shot: the lighting, the pose, the camera, the settings, etc., but you then compose your own shot; whose photo is it?


----------



## robbins.photo

snowbear said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter who physically pressed the button?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I borrow your camera and take a shot, who owns the photo - you or me?
> 
> . . . . .
> 
> The real issue in all of this is how it will affect the Fauxtogs:  1) they can rejoice in knowing even monkeys can take decent photos; or 2) they can be depressed from knowing that even monkeys can take photos better than they.
Click to expand...

So the lesson here I guess is if you do loan your expensive dslr to a monkey and he takes a great shot, don't go around bragging about the fact that a monkey took it.

See, yet another great life lesson brought to you by TPF.


----------



## sscarmack

^^^This, Just say you took it. Who's going to know? The monkey? I don't think he's going to tell anyone haha


----------



## Raj_55555

Ok, what if now he says that he was lying and actually he was the one who took it, what then? The photograph is famous already, isn't it? And who'll prove him wrong?


----------



## Braineack

well since the monkey cannot in fact own a copyright, and you facilitated the creation in every way, how is it still not yours just because of the unorthodox method in which it was created.

what about people doing high-speed photography using sound triggers.  Is it not their work because they actually didn't take the photo? the little electronic device that converts sound into a electronic signal to tell your camera to work took the photo, and since you cannot give a copyright to a "little electronic device that converted sound into a electronic signal to tell your camera to work" those images should be public domain?


----------



## astroNikon

sscarmack said:


> ^^^This, Just say you took it. Who's going to know? The monkey? I don't think he's going to tell anyone haha


He probably Tweeted it ...


----------



## Designer

I wonder what would happen if you give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of D4s and allowed them to control the cameras for an infinite length of time, would you get a similar photograph?  

And which one would own the publishing rights?

And would he invite me over to swim in his pool?


----------



## JustJazzie

Good reading over my morning coffee!


----------



## pgriz

So...  what's the case law on how much initiative does the button presser have to have before they "own" the shot?  If all they are are a "voice-activated remote shutter release", then it does not make much sense to attibute the creative right to them.  Braineak brings up a valid point.

Now, if I own the camera, and give it to one of my employees to shoot stuff, as part of their job, then is the employee the copyright holder, or is the business that owns the equipment and pays the salary of the employee?


----------



## Overread

The photographer's making a big deal out of it because that photo is likely contributing to a major part of his current earnings - if suddenly Wiki claims its copyright free that photographer can't profit from its sale (because anyone can just use it). Worse still any paid for use of the photo up till now might also suddenly be contested. 

So not only could the photographer lose future earnings but also past earnings.


----------



## Wizard1500

If the photographer had set up for the monkey to take the pic, then he does own the rights...but, it seems the monkey "stole" the camera, therefore, the images taken by the monkey, cannot be claimed by the photographer, because he DID NOT control the situation......


----------



## tirediron

It's an interesting case.  First, the basics:  Copyright exists because the image was created.  The monkey does not and can not own copyright, so who does own it?  Further, the claimant specifically set out to create these images by virtue of the fact that he provided the animal the tool with which to make it.  I would say his claim would have to hinge on whether any bananas traded hands.  If he did offer the animals food, that would techically be payment, and this would be a 'work for hire' sitution, ergo, he should own copyright.


----------



## Derrel

What happened in the Usain Bolt case, where after winning an Olympic gold medal, he snatched up a pro photographer's big d-slr and shot some shots. I KNOW the camera was later scratch-engraved and autographed by Bolt, and the camera was later auctioned off, but what about the photos Bolt shot? Does anybody know who got copyright to those images? I bring it up because these are instances, the Usain Bolt case and this one, where the photos have some real, SIGNIFICANT marketability and market value, not like me handing my iPhone to snap a pic of me and a grilled cheese sandwich lunch.


----------



## astroNikon

pgriz said:


> So...  what's the case law on how much initiative does the button presser have to have before they "own" the shot?  If all they are are a "voice-activated remote shutter release", then it does not make much sense to attibute the creative right to them.  Braineak brings up a valid point.
> 
> Now, if I own the camera, and give it to one of my employees to shoot stuff, as part of their job, then is the employee the copyright holder, or is the business that owns the equipment and pays the salary of the employee?


That would be relegated to the contract between the corporation/business and the employee.

In automotive land here, and software development, chemicals, drugs, et all.  If you are an employee and create something it is the property of that company.  Otherwise, think of all the nifty inventions "companies" created when in fact it was an employee.  It's all down to the contract / employee hand book /et all that the employee signs.


----------



## Civchic

Derrel said:


> What happened in the Usain Bolt case, where after winning an Olympic gold medal, he snatched up a pro photographer's big d-slr and shot some shots. I KNOW the camera was later scratch-engraved and autographed by Bolt, and the camera was later auctioned off, but what about the photos Bolt shot? Does anybody know who got copyright to those images? I bring it up because these are instances, the Usain Bolt case and this one, where the photos have some real, SIGNIFICANT marketability and market value, not like me handing my iPhone to snap a pic of me and a grilled cheese sandwich lunch.



That's a good question.  I'd say Bolt owns the copyright to those images.  But if the pro had set up the camera and Bolt didn't change the settings before shooting, does the photog own the rights?  I don't think so.  It was still Bolt looking through the viewfinder and pushing the shutter.

My son entered a photo he took in the county fair - he shot it with my equipment, and I set the camera to auto (he's four), but he zoomed, focussed, and took the picture.  So he's entered it under his name.  Nobody could really contest that he shouldn't enter the Under-13 competition because he used a camera he didn't own.


----------



## Braineack

tirediron said:


> It's an interesting case.  First, the basics:  Copyright exists because the image was created.  The monkey does not and can not own copyright, so who does own it?  Further, the claimant specifically set out to create these images by virtue of the fact that he provided the animal the tool with which to make it.  I would say his claim would have to hinge on whether any bananas traded hands.  If he did offer the animals food, that would techically be payment, and this would be a 'work for hire' sitution, ergo, he should own copyright.



I'm willing to bet the monkey couldn't d/l the sensor data and create an image file from it.


----------



## snerd

I'm with Wiki.......... Public Domain. Hee hee...........


----------



## Braineack

rofl.


----------



## Overread

Thankfully avatars on forums  tend to come under personal home use ;P


----------



## robbins.photo

Well the various in's and out's of copyright law do present some fascinating questions to be certain.

But really for me the really big question still remains unanswered, what kind of idiot hands over his dslr to a monkey?


----------



## Braineack

sounds like they were playing with his on, preconfigured camera on a tri-pod, and one of the monkeys hit his cable release. He allowed it, cause that's awesome, and then they kept pressing the cable to make the shutter sound.  The shot only happened because he allowed it to.

in other words, they were his remote shutter activation.


----------



## SoulfulRecover

seems like the sensible ruling would be that the image is not copyrighted and any future earnings can not be had from it. let the guy keep the past contracts and just prevent further income from it.


----------



## KmH

pgriz said:


> So...  what's the case law on how much initiative does the button presser have to have before they "own" the shot?  If all they are are a "voice-activated remote shutter release", then it does not make much sense to attibute the creative right to them.  Braineak brings up a valid point.
> 
> Now, if I own the camera, and give it to one of my employees to shoot stuff, as part of their job, then is the employee the copyright holder, or is the business that owns the equipment and pays the salary of the employee?


In the US, you the employer would own the copyright as long as:



> *a.* a work prepared by an employee (is) within the scope of his or her employment



OR



> b. if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the
> work shall be considered a work made for hire.


http://copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf


----------



## Designer

snerd said:


> I'm with Wiki.......... Public Domain. Hee hee...........



snerd, damn you!  I am SO JEALOUS of your new avatar and slogan!  

Why didn't I think of that before you did?


----------



## snerd

Designer said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with Wiki.......... Public Domain. Hee hee...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snerd, damn you!  I am SO JEALOUS of your new avatar and slogan!
> 
> Why didn't I think of that before you did?
Click to expand...


Years of practice, whippersnapper.   :mrgreen:

Or, you snooze, you lose.


----------



## astroNikon

CNN's take on this --> When a monkey takes a selfie ... - CNN.com


----------



## Trever1t

I didn't read all of the previous comments and not sure if anyone has realized this one KEY fact. 

The camera was stolen, not handed over to the monkeys. Therefore the images belong to the owner of the camera.  A criminal may not profit by sale of property taken in commission of a crime. Statute 12 sec 3 sub 7 (ok I made that last part up) Dude needs to hire me, I would win that case in 11 minutes.


----------



## notgreybeard

This is one of these instances where all commonsense gets thrown out the window and lawyers get richer - A ruling will be made at a cost and no doubt some of the valid arguments raised here will surface and resurface through the courts like a tennis match - be interesting to see the outcome


----------



## astroNikon

I'd like to see the police report on this one if it was truly stolen with criminal intent.


----------



## vintagesnaps

So this means the photographer should have asked the monkey if it wanted to second shoot for him for the day?? or the monkey should have signed its own model release first?? 

I think Wikipedia found something of a loophole in the photo being in the public domain in that the law doesn't specify the 'author' of a work can't be a monkey! 

As Braineac said this was cause and effect, the monkey happened to push the button which caused an interesting noise so it kept pushing it to hear the sound again. The monkey smiling into the camera probably was just it seeing the lens as a shiny object (or maybe a monkey would respond to seeing its reflection in the lens??). I suppose if photographers are going to set up cameras out in the wild and leave them where animals can activate them the copyright law will need to be revised to make it so ownership belongs to whoever set up the camera, if it involves monkeys or other animals that is. Sheesh. 

The moral of the story is don't give a camera to a monkey (or a Robbins or a Snerd!).


----------



## scythefwd

I wonder how different this situation is from a standard game cam (with a better and novel pic of course)


----------



## hamlet

I kind of feel bad for all the cute little monkey habitats we've destroyed. In the grand scheme of things, this little slight against a photographer doesn't really account to much. All profits of this image should go to preserving the well being of the monkeys.


----------



## gplawhorn

scythefwd said:


> I wonder how different this situation is from a standard game cam (with a better and novel pic of course)



I just saw a TED talk by Joel Sartore, who said that National Geographic uses a lot of game camera pictures, with the shutter operated by a motion sensor. I would think this means the free stock pic supply just opened waaay up, not a comforting thought.


----------



## manaheim

Also interesting, look at what the photographer is doing about it on his website.

Wildlife Photography and Workshops - David J Slater


----------



## PixelRabbit

But... What if a rabbit takes a picture???


----------



## robbins.photo

PixelRabbit said:


> But... What if a rabbit takes a picture???



Silly rabbit.  Copyrights are for monkeys.


----------



## robbins.photo

vintagesnaps said:


> The moral of the story is don't give a camera to a monkey (or a Robbins or a Snerd!).



Can't argue with that really.. lol


----------



## chuasam

Braineack said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an interesting case.  First, the basics:  Copyright exists because the image was created.  The monkey does not and can not own copyright, so who does own it?  Further, the claimant specifically set out to create these images by virtue of the fact that he provided the animal the tool with which to make it.  I would say his claim would have to hinge on whether any bananas traded hands.  If he did offer the animals food, that would techically be payment, and this would be a 'work for hire' sitution, ergo, he should own copyright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to bet the monkey couldn't d/l the sensor data and create an image file from it.
Click to expand...


Neither can a large portion of my human clients 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## KmH

Oh! No!
It isn't mine!

MSN Entertainment -


----------



## SoulfulRecover

Monkey?s selfie cannot be copyrighted, US regulators say | Ars Technica


----------



## gordonzed

Here's my take on this: If an image in the public domain is modified (in this case, a derivative work via post-processing), is the derivative work also public domain? I do not believe that's the case. Since nobody but the 'non-photographer' has the original image, the modified image accessible to the public should not be considered public domain. Does US copyright law find color correction, sharpening, or any other form of post-processing that I'm guessing must have been applied, not significant enough to constitute a derivative work?

This just seems too easy to me, and I find it hard to believe it wouldn't have been brought up in the court. This, of course, is all assuming that post-processing was in fact done.

Also, hi; I'm new here. How goes'er?


----------



## shipshooter

snowbear said:


> If I borrow your camera and take a shot, who owns the photo - you or me?
> Your first paragraph is an interesting statement that needs to be discussed for sure. Im going to look into that
> . . . . .
> 
> The real issue in all of this is how it will affect the Fauxtogs:  1) they can rejoice in knowing even monkeys can take decent photos; or 2) they can be depressed from knowing that even monkeys can take photos better than they.


----------



## Bobby Ironsights

Really?

What's more likely here guys, a monkey stole a camera, held it up at arms length, gave a big grin, and took a perfect selfie?

or 

some guy lied.

people are so gullible.


----------



## snerd

....................................


----------



## Overread

Bobby Ironsights said:


> Really?
> 
> What's more likely here guys, a monkey stole a camera, held it up at arms length, gave a big grin, and took a perfect selfie?
> 
> or
> 
> some guy lied.
> 
> people are so gullible.



It's not unbelievable. 
If set to green-box-mode most cameras are idiot proof in terms of basic exposure and focusing - all it needs is a half-depress of the shutter. I've no idea of the make/model/features but heck if it has facial recognition chances are the camera might well even pick out the eyes to focus upon if set to that mode (its similar too a human face). 

So all that is needed is a half and then full depression of the shutter button. 


The "smile" isn't really a smile; we perceive it as such easily, but it might be a very different face in the animal's world. It could indeed be that viewed from another angle it might be a more curious or other look the animal is giving. If you look at the shot it's mostly just looking "at" the camera (ergo its object of focus) and its not so much smiling as just showing its teeth.


----------



## LimePanda

As far as I'm concerned the photographer is the copyright holder as he was the one who took his gear into the jungle.
He was the one who set the camera up.
He may well have set the shutter speed, apeture, iso etc. in which case he "created" what the final product would look like and the monkey just let some light hit the sensor.
Also he may have set the focus to manual as I have a hard time believing the monkey would have pressed the shutter halfway to focus and then fully to take the photo.
Even though he said he had lots of unusable badly focused images was it because the lens was pre focused or the monkey didn't focus the camera before pressing the shutter release because as far as I'm aware the camera wont fire unless it's in focus on auto focus mode.
One more thing... good luck trying to get a monkey to download the photos, choose the good ones, edit them and then share them with the world 

Rant over...


----------



## Josh66

Something for the courts to decide.  I say he owns it though.  (So that settles it.)

The rules on employees taking pictures as a part of their job are pretty well established, and I'm not sure that it would be much of a stretch to extend "employee" to "non-human research subject".


----------



## Josh66

LimePanda said:


> I have a hard time believing the monkey would have pressed the shutter halfway to focus and then fully to take the photo.


Usually, in the auto modes, you don't even have to do the half-press to focus part.  Just press it all the way, then it will try to focus and take the shot when focus is attained.


----------



## LimePanda

Josh66 said:


> Usually, in the auto modes, you don't even have to do the half-press to focus part.  Just press it all the way, then it will try to focus and take the shot when focus is attained.



Really I never knew that. All the dslrs I've ever used require a half press to focus.
Oh well that just means most of the photos should have been in focus and not blurred therefore it must have been manually focused in which case the photographer literally did all the work and shaped how the photo would look and the monkey just pressed the button.


----------



## Josh66

It could have focused on the background or something too, on the out of focus ones.

I don't know how much it varies on different cameras, but on a few of mine, it will try to focus a few times and then take the picture - but it will still take the picture after trying a few times even if it never gets focus locked.  So it would be quite possible to have a ton of out of focus pictures, lol.  There could have also been motion blur or camera shake on a lot of them.


----------



## limr

So no one has read the statement made by the monkey about all of this??

A Statement from the Monkey - The New Yorker

"When Monkey snatch camera from Bad Man and run hooting into tall grass, Monkey see it as liberating act of self-expression, and, yes, perhaps even blow against human cultural hegemony. The fact that Monkey not realize at first that camera was camera and try to eat it, irrelevant."

Please note that the Monkey also enjoys shooting film.


----------



## robbins.photo

limr said:


> So no one has read the statement made by the monkey about all of this??
> 
> A Statement from the Monkey - The New Yorker
> 
> "When Monkey snatch camera from Bad Man and run hooting into tall grass, Monkey see it as liberating act of self-expression, and, yes, perhaps even blow against human cultural hegemony. The fact that Monkey not realize at first that camera was camera and try to eat it, irrelevant."
> 
> Please note that the Monkey also enjoys shooting film.



Ok, the rest makes total sense and is completely believable, but the monkey enjoys shooting film?  That just sounds strange...

rotfl


----------



## limr

Hey, Monkey knows his stuff


----------



## robbins.photo

limr said:


> Hey, Monkey knows his stuff



Ok, well he did use the word hegemony correctly in a sentence.. so ya, I guess I'll just have to give him his props then.  

Lol


----------

