Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
Discussion
Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it'
Wikimedia, the organisation behind Wikipedia, has refused a photographer’s repeated requests to delete his most famous shot as it is jeopardising his livelihood – because a monkey pressed the shutter button and "owns the copyright"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/1101567...
Seems rather an odd stance. What does everyone else think?
Edit:
I'd say that a monkey is unable to own copyright, any more than a motion sensor can own it (in the case of a remote camera). Plus if it weren't for the photographer's equipment, his post-processing, and him publishing it, it would never have been seen.
But as he says in the article, he's going to need expensive lawyers to establish that.
Wikimedia, the organisation behind Wikipedia, has refused a photographer’s repeated requests to delete his most famous shot as it is jeopardising his livelihood – because a monkey pressed the shutter button and "owns the copyright"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/1101567...
Seems rather an odd stance. What does everyone else think?
Edit:
I'd say that a monkey is unable to own copyright, any more than a motion sensor can own it (in the case of a remote camera). Plus if it weren't for the photographer's equipment, his post-processing, and him publishing it, it would never have been seen.
But as he says in the article, he's going to need expensive lawyers to establish that.
Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 6th August 13:24
Has the monkey granted them copyright? Of course not. The whole arguement from Wiki's side is daft.
The only logic they can sit on is "we'll upload what we like, and it's up to the copyright owner to tell us to take it down". Why don't they try hosting Star Wars for a week, see how they get on?
The only logic they can sit on is "we'll upload what we like, and it's up to the copyright owner to tell us to take it down". Why don't they try hosting Star Wars for a week, see how they get on?
Some Gump said:
Has the monkey granted them copyright? Of course not. The whole arguement from Wiki's side is daft.
The only logic they can sit on is "we'll upload what we like, and it's up to the copyright owner to tell us to take it down". Why don't they try hosting Star Wars for a week, see how they get on?
LOL! The only logic they can sit on is "we'll upload what we like, and it's up to the copyright owner to tell us to take it down". Why don't they try hosting Star Wars for a week, see how they get on?
Sorry Mr Lucas but you didnt actually press the button on the film camera so its not your property. It belongs to Dave the cameraman.
Clarification: Seems that Wikimedia are saying that a monkey cannot own copyright (contrary to what was originally reported) and therefore the picture is Public Domain, and thus they won't remove it from Wikimedia Commons.
That argument is slightly less stupid, but I still disagree with it - I think David Slater owns copyright on the image that he caused it to be captured (even if he didn't press the button on his camera).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/1101787...
That argument is slightly less stupid, but I still disagree with it - I think David Slater owns copyright on the image that he caused it to be captured (even if he didn't press the button on his camera).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/1101787...
Edited by JonRB on Thursday 7th August 08:30
It'll be operatedc by someone, I dont know nowadays, local police?
In the case of the film maker, I'm sure they'll have a clause in their contract saying whatever they capture or invent is the property of whoever they're commissioned by. I have an IT sales job, and it's in my contract that anything I invent automatically becomes the IP of the company. So i dont think it'd be out of the question. I'm sure that some wedding photographers find the same clauses
In the case of the film maker, I'm sure they'll have a clause in their contract saying whatever they capture or invent is the property of whoever they're commissioned by. I have an IT sales job, and it's in my contract that anything I invent automatically becomes the IP of the company. So i dont think it'd be out of the question. I'm sure that some wedding photographers find the same clauses
I dont think it is. I think that going after the money has only come about after the fame. It's a great picture series, something that people will look at and say Wow (I did)
Imagine that you're the photographer and you're meeting a potential new client. Let's say the New York Times, whatever
-NYT- "You're the guy who got that monkey series that went viral arent you? f
k me, what a portfolio of other work you've got too. When can you start?"
vs
-NYT- "You're the guy who got that monkey series that went viral and tried to sue everyone to get some money arent you? fk me, I'm not going anywhere near you!"
Sometimes, for the greater good, you gotta let your photography do more talking than your gob and the lawyers
Imagine that you're the photographer and you're meeting a potential new client. Let's say the New York Times, whatever
-NYT- "You're the guy who got that monkey series that went viral arent you? f
k me, what a portfolio of other work you've got too. When can you start?"vs
-NYT- "You're the guy who got that monkey series that went viral and tried to sue everyone to get some money arent you? f
k me, I'm not going anywhere near you!"Sometimes, for the greater good, you gotta let your photography do more talking than your gob and the lawyers
Xr, why does the concept of someone being paid for his work upset you so much?
A professional photographer went to the jungle, took lots of expensive kits - post processed it then wants paid for the furits of his labour.
How would you like it if your work was suddenly free on the interweb, and your income was removed?
A professional photographer went to the jungle, took lots of expensive kits - post processed it then wants paid for the furits of his labour.
How would you like it if your work was suddenly free on the interweb, and your income was removed?
It's not that bit that I'm arguing about. I've also had the offers of 'great exposure' because the potential client fancied something for nowt. I did a bit of paid ad-hoc work, but it's not my income.
What I'm getting at here is that the photo has gotten so big that it's pointless challenging it and expecting a reasonable outcome, getting revenue from it is short sighted, and it can be used in a lot of better ways. Had it been set out from the start differently, then yes I'd agree, but it hasnt, and the photographer will come off badly in this. Gotta know when to hold em and when to fold em
What I'm getting at here is that the photo has gotten so big that it's pointless challenging it and expecting a reasonable outcome, getting revenue from it is short sighted, and it can be used in a lot of better ways. Had it been set out from the start differently, then yes I'd agree, but it hasnt, and the photographer will come off badly in this. Gotta know when to hold em and when to fold em
He's already earned from it, its been cover photo on some magazines.
But still, regardless, its his photo , he arranged the photoshoot , set up the whole thing and purposely tried to get this to happen.
Sets a rather alarming precedent if you have to physically push the button on the camera.
But still, regardless, its his photo , he arranged the photoshoot , set up the whole thing and purposely tried to get this to happen.
Sets a rather alarming precedent if you have to physically push the button on the camera.
Excuse my ignorance on copyright and these matters, but what would happen if the photographer were to turn around and say that he lied about the monkey taking the selfie in order to drum up more interest in the shot, and in fact it was he who captured it?
Wikimedia cannot prove that the monkey took the photograph, and presumably there aren't other shots of the monkey taking the selfie, so would that mean that the copyright reverts back to the photographer and Wikimedia would be forced to remove it?
Or is it a case that this can't happen now due to the previous claims of 'the monkey done it'?
Wikimedia cannot prove that the monkey took the photograph, and presumably there aren't other shots of the monkey taking the selfie, so would that mean that the copyright reverts back to the photographer and Wikimedia would be forced to remove it?
Or is it a case that this can't happen now due to the previous claims of 'the monkey done it'?
Edited by ChipsAndCheese on Friday 8th August 11:48
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff