File talk:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg

 

copyright status?

Should EXIF data be modified with correct copyright status, or is that not allowed via WP policy? Could new version just be uploaded with EXIF corrections re: copyright status (so as not to remove EXIF data history)? ~ 67.189.218.11 05:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

no, we need to reflect the copyright claims made, even if we disagree. there are many conflicts where the EXIF camera input is different than the uploader license, even when by the same person. EXIF data is confirmation but not determinative. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

We've already removed the EXIF from the main image (primarily to reduce filesize), removing it from this one would be fine. It doesn't hurt attribution. AJF (留言) 10:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and stripped it. When we removed the EXIF from the main image, we had revdel'd the version that had metadata. Not sure if that needs to be done here. AJF (留言) 10:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is this a separate file?

Surely it should be just uploaded as a new version of the main image? We've done that for previous finds of higher-quality versions. AJF (留言) 10:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

See: File_talk:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg#Replace_with_large_version AJF (留言) 10:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Because this is a different crop with a different white balance. This is not just the same file in higher resolution. Also, I believe that generally the lower quality image is deleted, not the higher quality one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Author

Please change the author of this photo in the metadata from David J. Slater to the macaque.--LL221W (留言) 10:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I previously tried to remove the metadata, like I did for the smaller version, but it was reverted. I might try again. AJF (留言) 12:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The copyright claims are inaccurate

I have read the discussion on the request for deletion, and I think that they are wrong. A lot of the arguments made rest entirely on the declaration by the U.S. Copyright Office that animals cannot create copyright. This is wrong for various reasons.

1. The U.S. Copyright Office is not a court of law, their declaration is part of a guidance booklet that has no legal value whatsoever.

2. The Copyright Office's declaration is only for registration purposes, but registration is not needed in international copyright law. Registration is only needed in the United States for enforcement purposes, but, here is the interesting part, as the picture was taken in Indonesia it is exempt from registration according to § 411 of the US Code because it is not a “United States work” as defined by § 101.

3. U.S. law does not apply to the picture, it was taken in Indonesia, and the photographer is a UK citizen. Furthermore, it was first published in the UK, so it has to be considered as originating in the UK as per the Berne Convention.

4. As it is a UK work of copyright, you need to use UK and European copyright law, where whoever took the picture is irrelevant. European case law is clear that selection and arrangement is enough to warrant copyright.

We cannot claim that this is in the public domain, only a court can do that. I would like to open the discussion on deletion again. --Andres (留言) 17:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, U.S. law does apply here. Wikimedia's servers are in the U.S. and Wikimedia is a U.S. corporation, and the only applicable copyright law there is that of the United States. Copyright law from other countries does not apply in the U.S., rather the U.S. chooses recognise other countries' copyrights under its own law. But of course this means that if it's not considered to be in copyright by U.S. law, we don't have to worry about it. For example, we routinely use images that are still in copyright in other countries, but are considered Public Domain under U.S. law. Similarly, U.S. law considers this image uncopyrightable, so it is for our purposes. AJF (留言) 20:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not how jurisdiction works with regards to subsistence of copyright. Copyright subsists based on the rules of the country where it originates, and according to Art 5 of the Berne Convention, that is where it is first published. If the work has copyright in Europe (and there's a good case to be made there), then Wikimedia could be sued in the UK because it has a presence here. Chapters, agents and similar can be used to establish jurisdiction.

Moreover, it is not clear that the picture has no copyright in the US. As I mentioned, the Copyright Office is not a court, and their declaration has no legal value other than for registration, but foreign works do not need to be registered in order to sue in the United States (see Football Association Premier League v. YouTube (633 F.Supp.2d 159, 162 S.D.N.Y.2009)). So Slater could sue (he already has lawyers in the US due to the PETA case), and a court would have to answer the issue of subsistence of copyright. They would indeed have to consider whether the work is under copyright where it originates. This is a basic principle of copyright jurisdiction. --Andres (留言) 07:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually... yes, that's exactly how jurisdiction works with regards to subsistence of copyright. A country's laws apply within its own borders. Article 5(1) of the Berne Convention makes that clear: Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals. Article 5(2) says: the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed. Authors owning a valid copyright should expect to receive the same rights in another country that that country's own authors get -- no more, and no less. The "country of origin" defined later in Article 5 is mostly used just to determine which country to use in case another country uses the "rule of the shorter term" to determine copyright length (one case where an author might get less protection in a country than native authors). The U.S. might use foreign law to determine who owns a valid copyright (i.e. would consider copyright transfers valid by rules of an external law) but would use U.S. law exclusively to determine if something was infringement or what the damages are, per w:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.. If something is not copyrightable by U.S. rules, there is no copyright in the U.S. and thus no infringement. By the same token, if a work is not copyrightable in the country of origin, but is copyrightable in the U.S., that author would get U.S. protection.

The U.S. Copyright Office is not a court, but by law they are mandated to determine whether something is copyrightable if registration is applied for. Their decisions are not final, like you say, but judges generally do give them a lot of deference. It is possible that a judge could rule the other way, but since the Copyright Office decisions are based on the existing law and decades of past decisions, it is extremely rare. Similarly, a judge's ruling is not final either, as it could be overruled by a higher court -- but we would take the best available evidence. There is some thought (not universally held) that the Copyright Office would have to be judged to have abused its discretion in order to be overruled (which is the standard if one of its rulings is challenged directly, as opposed to a genuine infringement case, where it's less clear). So while they are not a court, saying their ruling has no effect is not correct either -- it is tantamount to a regulation issued by a government agency which is given jurisdiction by the law (and, like federal regulations can be under the w:Administrative Procedure Act, Copyright Office decisions have been directly challenged and thus far upheld -- see Darden v. Peters for one). A court would likely take their opinion under advisement, though could (based on U.S. law only) decide to rule differently -- but that would not be based on UK or other foreign law.

Whether Wikimedia Commons should continue to host the files is more a matter of policy -- if the photos are deemed to have a UK copyright, and that is considered the country of origin, that might be a policy-based decision to delete. The photos appear to be fine for the U.S. part of Commons policy. EU directive says a work must be an author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality to qualify for copyright. The UK has traditionally had a lower threshold, one that also takes into account "skill, judgement, and labor", but that has been eroded lately by some court decisions in favor of the EU definition, which is generally harder to attain. Carl Lindberg (留言) 08:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

German description

{{Edit request}} Who could please add this German description ?

Deutsch: Selfie eines Schopfaffen (Macaca nigra), einer Makakenart, der eine Kamera auf sich selbst gerichtet und den Auslöser betätigt hat.

Thank you. -- Juergen 62.143.196.71 23:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 Fertig. Vielen Dank für die Übersetzung. odder (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Naja, die Uebersetzung war nur aus dem deutschen Selfie geklaut.

Inzwischen hat eine andere IP sie dort wesentlich modifiziert. -- Juergen 62.143.196.71 15:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright, redux.

I know the courts consider it PD, but shouldn't this be copyright the monkey with the engineer as their agent? — 以上未签名的留言是由该用户加入的： Ellenor2000 (留言 • 贡献) 03:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Copy right

This should be classified as the property of David Slater. Wikimedia is loosing their creditably over this. I, for one, will not donate anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.83.136.47 (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I believe strongly in the mission of Wikipedia and have donated for years. To make the claim that the work doesn't belong to the photographer so that you can steal that work is inexcusable. Please remove this photo. You can then fund your own trip, hang out in the jungle and take your own pictures to donate. — 以上未签名的留言是由该用户加入的： Jan11965 (留言 • 贡献) 03:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

👍 Especially since PETA settled with David Slater and dropped the lawsuit. “As a part of the arrangement, Slater has agreed to donate 25 percent of any future revenue derived from using or selling the monkey selfies to charities that protect the habitat of Naruto and other crested macaques in Indonesia.” (from PETA news article) So as of today, Wikimedia is hurting the case more than helping it and should immediately remove all 'monkey-selfie' images (i.e. on Category:Monkey_selfie) Hongaar (留言) 08:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. wikipedia's theft of the photographers work is inexcusable. I will make no further contributions to wikimedia until they pay for the license of this photo AND make redress for the damage caused by their illegal publication. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2607:F388:109C:0:F543:8AAB:17C6:162A (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have emailed and canceled my recurring monthly donation. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 197.91.248.53 (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. JudahH (留言) 15:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Same here. I'm a regular editor and user of Wikimedia projects. Despite this I'll never give any money to the WMF, because of its treatment of David Slater, which has not only been unethical, but blatantly antisocial. Randwicked (留言) 05:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Citing our official guidelines: Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated page. --Achim (留言) 13:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Calling out this file as harmful to the broader aims of the WMF would certainly seem to be on topic. Andy Dingley (留言) 13:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This is exactly what I think needs to be said. Continuing to keep this file around for no other reason than WMF thinks they can, and possibly also because Jimmy Wales thinks it's just a hilarious old jape, when by most accounts Wikimedia's actions contributed to ending its creator's career, is an act unbecoming of an organisation with the ideals it claims for itself. I posted because I'm frankly uncomfortable having contributed original content to this organisation, now I know about how it acted regarding this photo. I'm reconsidering submitting any further maps etc. to be used on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Randwicked (留言) 01:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, let's continue to complain about this one file a half decade later. That seems productive.--Prosfilaes (留言) 07:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

After how many years do unethical actions become ethical? Randwicked (留言) 10:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No longer Public Domain?

This BBC News article seems to say that it is not public domain anymore, following a San Francisco court ruling.198.58.170.90 03:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No, PETA claimed that the monkey owned the copyright, and sued on the "monkey's behalf". The judge denied that, consistent with previous ruling that non-humans cannot create a copyright. Carl Lindberg (留言) 04:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"The law is an ass". You can read the BBC News story and come away with the impression that Wikimedia has royally shafted David Slater and has all the morals of a charging rhino, but based on our copyright policies, there is no grounds to delete the monkey selfie images. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This is also being discussion pretty extensively at the en.wiki article, and has now been raised at WP:AN. Is it maybe just time to open a DR and figure the thing out? Off-Commons discussions are just going to have to be rehashed here anyway. TimothyJosephWood 19:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Definitely agree that we should merge discussion to one point. --Masem (留言) 19:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Note the settlement is asking that the court put aside the previous ruling that non-humans cannot create a copyright. My guess is that PETA paid the photographer a large, confidential sum of money to get a settlement that was publically so advantageous to them. In any case, settlements are binding on nobody but the litigants.--Prosfilaes (留言) 20:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort, on either count.

"The settlement is asking the court..." - I don't even know what that means. As you note yourself, a settlement isn't binding on anyone except those agreeing to it.

PETA has pushed this case repeatedly and firstly been rejected by the court, now given up with a settlement before the court. They clearly do not have a strong case to overturn the previous ruling that animals can't hold copyright - so how would they now credibly be asking the court to overturn it?

There is a broad suspicion that Slater has agreed to PETA's settlement because he has already been driven into penury by Wikipedia's behaviour and the legal costs of defending the PETA actions. Your suggestion that he has profited from this is offensive. Andy Dingley (留言) 21:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The motion is linked below; read it yourself, if you don't what that means. It clearly and explicitly asks the court to overturn the previous court's decision, that it should not be binding in any way on Naruto (by PETA's request, and defendants as part of the settlement do not dispute.)

It is my impression that Slater was close to getting lawyer's fees. Why such an advantageous settlement for a plaintiff who had no case?--Prosfilaes (留言) 05:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The motion to dismiss [1]

Firstly that's a motion (a request to a court), not a judgement by a court. I haven't seen the judge's response to this, only heard that it agreed with the motion. So it's imprecise to take that document as a guide for the court's decision, and any further legal implication it might have.

Secondly, that motions says nothing, and implies nothing for the future, about copyright the matter in which we are concerned. It is instead about Naruto's status within the court, and PETA's status as their legal representative. I can see that these could be important for the future matter of royalties, but not copyright.

Thirdly, and again, this is a notice to the court of a private settlement, not a judgement by a court. So it's simply not binding on any other party.

Overall, legal matters in recent days have raised the media profile of this case, but have not changed the legal status of the media, as it affects WMF. However that is not to say that it would not be a good time for WMF to reconsider its position and the PD claims, or to withdraw them if they are considered unsupportable, either by new legal information or simply by hindsight (my own opinion has always been that the legal has always been so dubious as to fall under COM:PRP). Andy Dingley (留言) 09:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the third time this has been discussed on Commons today to my knowledge, once in a deletion request so there seems no point in having yet another. Cut & paste: The U.S. copyright office's view that this is public domain is unchanged and all reports about the court case and settlement talk about having a share of revenue from sales, and say nothing new about copyright itself. --Fæ (留言) 19:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. Much appreciated. TJW^talk 19:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to beat this dead horse into the ground:

• The settlement is a settlement between two sides of a dispute, PETA on one side and Slater and Blurb on the other. (Interestingly, the parties do not claim that the plaintiff, Naruto himself, is a party to the settlement.)
• Any settlement between the two sides only the settling parties; it has no effect on non-parties.
• As of today, the only thing official is that the parties have filed the notice of settlement in the court, including a joint motion to 1) dismiss the appeal and 2) vacate the judgement in the Northern District.
• As of today, the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on the motion. As of today, the Northern District finding of no copyright is still on the books (albeit sort of in limbo pending the appeal). It's a pretty good bet that the Ninth Circuit will grant the joint motion with respect to both issues: the dismissal of the appeal, as well as the vacatur of the underlying judgment; but it has not yet done so. The only reason not to, really, is that the putative plaintiff, the monkey himself, on whose behalf PETA claims to bring the suit, is not a party to the settlement. But there are sound reasons to ignore that factor, set out in the motion itself.
• Assuming the Ninth Circuit grants the motion with respect to the vacatur, the Northern District judgment holding that the work is not subject to copyright will be wiped out, as if it didn't happen. The photos will have the same copyright status as they did before the suit was filed, and that is:

• There will be no legal finding one way or another as to whether the photos are subject to US copyright. The Copyright Office compendium strongly suggests that they are not, and Wikipedia's practices have always been consistent with that. In sum, there is no basis to remove the photos on copyright grounds.

A copy of the motion is here. TJRC (留言) 23:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"The Copyright Office compendium strongly suggests that they are not [subject to copyright]"

Is that the court's opinion, or yours?

There is no ruling, that I am aware of, regarding Slater's claim of copyright. Nor do I see how the Compendium would exclude him from that. Andy Dingley (留言) 23:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's mine, and most IP attorneys, although there are some who think otherwise. The important point though, is that the vacatur of the Northern District judgement is not a judgement that the work is covered by copyright. It's just back to where we were on September 21, 2015, before the suit was filed and the file was hosted on Commons on the basis of the consensus that it was not subject to copyright.

In other words, although one can still make an argument on either side, nothing in this settlement is of import to those arguments. (And although Judge Orrick's opinion in the Northern District will no longer have an legal status, the fact that a judge so ruled, even if vacated by settlement, is persuasive.) TJRC (留言) 00:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There would be no binding court ruling, but the Copyright Compendium is based on decades of previous case law, plus the copyright law itself. The Compendium is probably analogous to federal regulations, since the Copyright Office is charged with determining copyrightability of works (within bounds of the law, of course). The Compendium I (used for situations covered by the Copyright Act of 1909, through 1977) and Compendium II (since 1978) both had the human author requirement. The Compendium III makes it fairly explicit by stating that a photograph taken by a monkey is not copyrightable (likewise, a mural painted by an elephant). In general, you can't copyright anything created by nature, and animals count as that. Courts would normally give a lot of deference to the Copyright Office's decisions, so they are difficult to overturn. As mentioned, even if no longer binding, the previous ruling can still be a precedent and cited by future courts. Along with the frequent mentions of "person" in copyright law and copyright-related rulings, the rule is probably based on wider precedents (or lack thereof) of animals being given legal person status, so it would be a wider law change than just copyright. In general, most laws just apply to "legal people" and I do not think there is any precedent for an animal to be a legal person with all that entails.

If there was some aspect that Mr. Slater could be considered to have authored himself, then he could get a copyright. It's just that at least most aspects of a photograph which are considered copyrightable (framing, angle, etc.) in this case were chosen by the monkey, not Mr. Slater. You would need to find copyrightable expression beyond the threshold of originality attributable to Mr. Slater himself for there to be a copyright -- just like any other situation -- and I guess thus far, nobody has been able to identify that. If Mr. Slater simply gets a valid U.S. copyright registration on the work, that would end discussion and we would delete it. But failing that, it would seem to be a public domain work by the best available guidance, and since copyright law determines "free" status, that is what we would follow.

Most every copyright case -- and court case really -- involve two parties who deeply feel they are right, but one of them is going to lose in the end (or have a ruling be somewhere in between where both are partially wrong). There are many people who deeply feel they own a copyright but which were denied, often due to their misunderstanding of the nature of copyright law -- for example, see most of these appeals decisions. The U.S. has emphatically struck down the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, where the amount of time and money you have spent has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of a copyright. On the other hand, the UK historically based their copyrightability on "skill, labour, and judgement", which basically does take into account time and money spent. For someone coming from that understanding of copyright, and basing their feelings of right vs wrong on that, the U.S. version can seem rather off. Likewise, people versed in the U.S. concept often feel that UK judgments are "wrong", for similar reasons. The European Union has yet a third standard, that a work must be "author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality", and it seems unlikely a photo taken by a monkey would qualify for that either. However, rulings in in the country of origin can have an effect here, so those are always of interest. Carl Lindberg (留言) 04:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no challenge being made to the Compendium that I am aware of (although there are certainly grounds to do so, as the Compendium makes at least one claim that hasn't been tested in court), here or elsewhere. However to support the WMF claim of PD, it is necessary to show beyond significant doubt that Slater has no claim of copyright. I do not believe that the Compendium (in any part which I have read) goes into that detail.

COM:PRP and COM:L are quite specific: a WMF claim that the images can be hosted on Commons as PD requires that they are PD in both the US and the country of origin, and that this is beyond significant doubt. Perhaps US law is such that Slater has no claim here as an "act of nature" (but the use of camera balloons, CCTV surveillance and animal trap cameras is already both well established and unchallenged as to their copyright). Yet Slater does have a credible claim under UK copyright law, in part due to "sweat of the brow".

Much "discussion" in recent days has consisted of endlessly re-stating that US copyright is unavailable to animals. It matters not. That is not (apart from PETA) a claim being made. That is not why Commons cannot host these. Those claiming to host these (and Common's burden is placed upon the hoster, not the remover) is to show that the significant doubt over their status is unnecessary.

It is not WMF's role, and cannot be, to rule on whether these are definitively PD or not (it has no such power). It is only WMF's role to decide for itself if they are clearly PD beyond doubt. That is an easier task, but yet a higher standard. They might well be PD (as the result of a long and extensive court wrangle), but until such is carried out (and not before), whilst the doubt remains (and it does), then they have to be treated in the precautionary manner.

These have to go. They fail COM:PRP, as evidenced (at least) by significant concerns that Slater has a UK copyright claim to them - that is enough. Significant doubt is there, as anything generating this many ongoing international lawsuits cannot be said to be a clear issue. Andy Dingley (留言) 09:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: There is no "sweat of brow" doctrine in UK Copyright Law, and hasn't been for decades. The test is that the image must at minimum reflect "labour and skill", sufficient to confer "an originality of an artistic character". One would need to establish the "skill" that had been shown by Slater, not just time, money or effort. (There's also some discussion that some recent EU cases might have moved the boundary a little further still, from "originality" towards more "creativity", but that's pretty speculative, with as many authorities saying the speculation is over-done, or based on misunderstood translation). Jheald (留言) 11:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In the US, the law is what the Supreme Court says it is today. If you want to back yourself in a corner, you can argue about the copyrightability of about anything but telephone books, and even then the Supreme Court could change their mind. (List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law shows about one copyright case a year handled by the Supreme Court.) Backing away from that extreme, the Compendium is the internal rule making of the US government administrative body set up to handle copyright registrations, that handles at least a thousand times as many questions about copyrightability as ever make it to court at any level. As a general rule, courts give a certain level of deference to the interpretations of such administrative bodies.

It is not the WMF's role to decide for itself if they are clearly PD beyond doubt. To quote the WMF, "The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit charitable organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual, educational content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge." I'd say that includes challenging the idea that certain things are copyright, in court if necessary.--Prosfilaes (留言) 01:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Think that both Andy Dingley and Newyorkbrad over on WP have eloquently shown that the current laws are not perfect. Following our wikiways let us look outside-the-box for other legal inexactitudes and consider them too. For instance: Category:Photos_taken_with_camera_traps. Non of those selfies were 'intentionally' take by the animals featured (so PETA has no valid argument for creativity as understood in copyright laws) and the owners of the equipment were usually fast asleep in their beds at the time of exposure. Until courts can bring copyright law up-to date – it appears that the owner of the equipment only has moral rights and the animal zilch. Always, when preambling around with my cameras, I leave them on Auto, just in case an opportunity arises when I don't have time to set speed and aperture - (as a poor image is better than non). Yet, would I assume that the camera manufactures owns my copyright because they set it all up for me, were all I had to do was to press the shutter? Put it to you, that Slater has a bucketful of moral right to these images but until courts differentiate between intentional creation by a human deciding the moment of creation and not mere chance and serendipity by that of an animal - then copyright can not exist in Slater' images (and `I would be upset too if I found myself in his position). Don't think it is in our WP/WC remit to press for an update the law but we can point out its failing. Until then, they are PD's as are all photos taken with camera traps – according to current law. P.g.champion (留言) 12:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Note to wild-life photographers using these techniques. Waiting until Wikimedia/Wikipedia has made a PD image famous around the World for you, it is too late for law courts to wind the clock back, and retrospectively changing the copyright laws in your favour. Use the law as it stands for reproduction fees then no problem for recovering a remittance – which is too late now, in the case of this image and the others in this series by Slater as they are all PD. However, if Slater had done so, they may never have come to the public attention had it not been for Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Think, Slater may have been getting poor professional advice (which also proved to be beyond his financial means) of how to move with the flow to that big blue sea of opportunity . Yet, that is for him to judge and not us. Has determination though, so hopefully the World will see more truly great images from his stable. P.g.champion (留言) 13:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

For camera traps, the owner may have been asleep, such that they cannot claim any ownership of the timing (one of the copyrightable aspects of a photograph). However, a person still set up the camera, which means they chose the angle and the framing, plus probably some other aspects, which makes it highly likely that a copyright exists there. I would absolutely vote to delete such photos unless they were licensed. By putting a camera on auto, that means that certain other copyrightable aspects cannot be claimed, but the very important ones of framing and angle still can be. It is not simply the fact that Mr. Slater did not hold the camera -- it is a much more narrow situation than that. There are several aspects of photography which courts have ruled as the basis of a photographic copyright -- in most cases, the subject matter is irrelevant and not part of the copyright -- and in this particular case, Mr. Slater cannot realistically claim most of them, to the point that there is no copyrightable expression fixed in the photograph. The Bridgeman Library also sincerely believed they had authorship in photographs of paintings; that was ruled to not be so (and thus our {{PD-Art}} policy, which we use even if the UK does consider them copyrightable under their law, per consensus here). This strikes me as a similar situation to that, except that the suit was brought by an individual rather than an institution. In this case, the Compendium is explicit, which is much better grounding than many of our copyright decisions -- it is nowhere close to COM:PRP, at least on the U.S. side. The UK is more arguable, but still fairly theoretical -- and COM:PRP is not for theoretical doubts. Skill and labour do enter into it there, at least if Brexit happens (several of their "skill and labour" decisions were overturned by EU courts on the basis of EU law, which has a higher threshold, but Brexit may change that). An author must be a "person" there, as explicitly stated in their copyright law. And a work must be "original", which in London Press v. University Tutorial Press, means that the work must originate from the author (it does not connote any level of creativity, simply that it is not copied). So, is the work really original to Mr. Slater himself? I'm not sure I've seen any real legal analysis on it from a UK perspective, but that would be interesting to see. But it would seem an uphill battle to me, even there. If you hand your camera to another person, and they take a photograph, who owns the copyright -- them or you? I imagine in most cases, the copyright would be purely with the other person, unless you also contributed materially to the specific angle, composition, and framing chosen. Asking a bystander to take a specific type of photo then may be different, since it could be considered co-authorship if you participate in those decisions. But if those were entirely the other person's choices, they would own the copyright -- and in this case, those choices were made by the monkey, and I don't see how those could be transferred back to Mr. Slater. I remain unconvinced there is a substantial UK legal argument either, though it is certainly more possible than the U.S., which is all but decided. Even if the UK does have them as copyrightable though, it's not at all clear that the UK would be the country of origin by the rules of the Berne Convention.

Whether this offends people's sense of right vs. wrong that is another matter -- the community can certainly vote to delete on such grounds, but would need some consensus. I don't have a particular opposition to that, but would oppose deleting on legal grounds alone, or by COM:PRP. Carl Lindberg (留言) 15:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley, why do you think that the UK is the country of origin? According to s:Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works/Articles 1 to 21#Article 5,

(4) The country of origin shall be considered to be:

(a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country; in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection;

(b) in the case of works published simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union, the latter country;

(c) in the case of unpublished works or of works first published in a country outside the Union, without simultaneous publication in a country of the Union, the country of the Union of which the author is a national, provided that: [special rules for cinematographic and architectural works]

• (a): In most (all?) countries, a work is only considered to be 'published' if it was published by or with consent from the copyright holder. In the United States, the work doesn't seem to have a copyright holder, and so no one can give consent for publication. This means, I suppose, that the work is unpublished (at least with respect to United States law), so a country of origin can't be derived from this rule. Other countries may have other definitions of the concepts 'publication' and 'copyright holder', so it is possible that some countries define a 'country of origin' per this rule.
• (b): This is also based on the concept of 'publication', so it's not any different from the above.
• (c): Who is the author? The monkey? Isn't citizenship reserved for humans? The monkey is probably stateless, i.e. not a national of a 'country of the Union'. --Stefan2 (留言) 20:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

So if you hypothesise that there is no copyright holder, there is no publication, and if there is no publication then there is no copyright holder. A marvellously circular piece of reasoning. Andy Dingley (留言) 20:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If there is no copyright, I think publication would still happen and be based on normal criteria. It just doesn't matter as much, because nobody would have the right of first publication really (at least in many countries) so there are no copyright violations in the act. Country of first publication could still matter if there is a country which does grant copyright, and that country uses the rule of the shorter term -- in which case they may only recognize publications done with permission (from their laws' perspective). And it could matter for Commons policy. In this case though, section 4(a) of Berne above could end up with a bizarre result which is nowhere near the UK. Carl Lindberg (留言) 21:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Bern is already 464 miles away from London in the UK, Any further and Bern could end up in Austria. P.g.champion (留言) 21:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If it was simultaneously published in Fiji (picking a country at random; it was likely simultaneously published in many), and they have the shortest terms of the countries it was published in, then that could be the country of origin. It does not have to be the country the author is from, or where it was taken. Carl Lindberg (留言) 22:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fiji is even further from Bern. Anyway, how does one get to frame a camera trap? It might, I grant you, take patients and much perseverance just to strap it to a tree trunk without it falling off. Neither can they can't be programmed to snap when (say) Bigfoot is showing his ‘Good Side’ and little bit off centre to the right and look out of the frame to the left. Which would make for a well framed and composed photo. To any Sasquatch out there reading this. I will provide all the bananas you can eat in a month, in return for such an assignment. Providing of course you're willing to sign a model release form and send in an OTRS to WC to save me having complications over copyright etc. P.g.champion (留言) 22:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are positioning the camera, you are choosing the angle and what is inside the frame. It is not relevant to copyright if you capture an animal, a blurred partial animal, or just some trees -- the subject of the photo is not the copyrightable expression attributable to the author. The photographer would own a copyright on all the photos taken. Those details may matter as to how much the photo is worth in the marketplace, but that has no bearing on copyright. Surveillance cameras probably straddle the line, depending on the details of each specific situation. Cameras set up to capture road traffic conditions would almost certainly qualify, though I could see arguments how certain in-store security cameras may not be. That could come down to who did what during installation, if the choices were so limited that the merger doctrine would apply, etc. Carl Lindberg (留言) 23:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to pont out the obvious: what happened to concensus as a principle? There is obviously no concensus here regarding the copyright status. Numerous Wikipedians argue that the image is PD, numerous argue the other way. 198.58.170.90 16:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright decisions are generally made by admins based on the best evidence / arguments. Deletion request comments are not votes; they should present an argument, per Commons:Deletion requests. As such, these are not consensus situations. A deletion for reasons other than scope, licensing, or privacy may be a bit different, since that may be more of a "technically follow the rules but we feel it is wrong" deletion. If the argument is compelling enough, and that gets some agreement, that would enter into the decision. Carl Lindberg (留言) 19:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Actual copyright holder

The copy of this image on your servers is a copyright notice stripped derivative of the work originally taken by Annette Vandam on 25 September 2008, 13:58:05. The rights to this original image have been assigned onwards. 103.30.142.236 03:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That is a stunningly remarkable claim with respect to this very well-documented image. Are you talking about another image on this website, of which there are (literally) millions?--Prosfilaes (留言) 03:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What is well documented is that the embedded copyright notice was stripped by a Wikimedia Commons sysop to carry out this "piracy". 103.30.143.106 09:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing File:DIScott Monkey Selfie Wikimeetup 2011.JPG which is a rather odd upload to say the least. Especially given File:DIScott Monkey Selfie Wikimania 2014.JPG and File:Wiki-Conference New York 2009 portrait 46.JPG. The first seems an odd mashup of photos and completely invalid EXIF. Someone having a bit of fun I'd guess. Carl Lindberg (留言) 04:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The original photograph was authored in 2008 by the daughter of the Dutch Ambassador to Indonesia who was accompanying Slater on an earlier trip. The copyright has been assigned onwards and is now part of the assets of certain bankruptcy/insolvency proceedings. 103.30.143.106 09:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It is clear from the EXIF stripped by malicious Commons sysop that Slater's derivative image was created 1 year later on 2009:11:07 10:01:29Z diff. Why was the EXIF data stripped by Commons sysop if not to hide that there is an ongoing copyright dispute between Vandam and Slater which preceded the Wikimedia piracy. Let Slater deny that Vandam is the real author. 103.30.143.106 09:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The EXIF was stripped because it had a copyrighted description, among other things. There's no reason we should take the claims of 103.30 on behalf of Annette Vandam more seriously than any of the other claims to this photo.--Prosfilaes (留言) 02:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you aware (perhaps you should be before commenting here) of the extensive emails exchanged between the copyright assignee of the Annette Vandam 2008 version and WMF legal, David Slater and Andrew DHuey (Slater's attorney) ? Since these are already in the public domain, I shall simply quote from an email by WMF's legal counsel Jacob Rogers - "If you wish to request non-public information about a user, we ask that you follow the procedures outlined in our information request procedures and guidelines. Additionally, as I explained previously, the Wikimedia Foundation does not write or edit the content on Wikimedia Commons. The users that you highlight are volunteers who may come from anywhere in the world and are not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation." to which the copyright assignee responded "I further remind you that you have evaded explaining to me why it "seems" to you that the "monkey selfie" is in public domain, and considering that I had clearly communicated the record/s from your own servers evidencing your website Administrators deliberate stripping of EXIF Copyright Management Information containing Mr.David Slater's embedded copyright claim notice, and which copyright notice strangely records the year of creation of this image as 2008, and not 2011 as your website claims. It is thereby abundantly clear that your website administrator who goes by the pseudonym "Odder" knew very well that these images were actually authored by a human person in 2008, ie. not by some monkey 2011 as you falsely proclaim to the world, and that he colluded in this publicity seeking fraud which all of you played out during the WIKIMANIA-2014 event organized by Wikimedia Foundation Inc. in London so as to raise, by cheating, tens of millions of US dollars of donations by misusing Mr.Slaters images. It is also clear that the WMF throughout had knowledge their Annual Transparency Report was a complete and utter fabrication on the point of this purported monkey selfie hoax." and thereafter Slater responded "I am extremely indebted to you for raising the exif data arguments and tackling Wikimedia ... I have experienced the vengefull nature of the middle aged men at Wikipedia, who take it upon themselves to harass and defame and belitle anyone who crosses their path. ... Wikimania was hosted by Wikipedia UK. Someone there infringed my images to promote that event as you know. I have discussed with lawyers suing this organisation too. I am still considering it, and hence why no-one will come forwards to accept responsibility. The conclusion I have is that the US legal system encourages theft of IP. It has allowed large US companies to hide behind safe harbors. ... All the best, David". NB: All these emails were cc'd to WMF Legal who are aware of them, and especially Annette Vandam's claim to be the author (or alternatively co-author along with David Slater) of the original monkey selfie. 103.30.141.33 06:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone contemplating taking these "Vandam" claims seriously would do well to take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:DIScott Monkey Selfie Wikimeetup 2011.JPG

"Marinka van Dam" is one of many angry blocked socks of a WP editor, with a grudge to settle. Andy Dingley (留言) 10:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Including against this file's uploader. Best to be ignored.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

English Summary Incorrect

The summary says: "who had picked up photographer David Slater's camera and photographed herself with it." This statement is false and appears to bolster wikimedia's false assertions about the copyright. The camera was mounted by the photographer on a tripod, the animal did not pick it up. The animal DID push a remote shutter release button to trigger the photograph. The summary should be updated to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2607:F388:109C:0:F543:8AAB:17C6:162A (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Story has several versions and putting one version of the story in Wikimedia's voice is taking a non-neutral point of view. Wording needs to be changed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (留言) 22:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons doesn't have the same rules about NPOV than Wikipedia does. To take Slater at his initial word seems entirely consistent with the goals of Wikimedia here.--Prosfilaes (留言) 05:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"his initial word"? Statement is un-referenced so anything to back that up? Also why are we ignoring the description of the photographer who took the picture? Also "female" does not seem to be part of purported initial descriptions so why are we cherry picking here? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (留言) 15:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "NPOV", COM:NPOV states: "it may not always be possible for file names and related descriptive text to be 'neutral'. However, neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible". It is certainly "possible" for the description to be improved by noting the more recent/detailed description of how the image came about. Because the copyright status of the image may well hinge on this very issue, it seems disingenuous to present only the current description, which Slater strongly denies. - 72.182.55.186 20:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A more informative and neutral worded description would be:

• Portrait of a female Celebes crested macaque (Macaca nigra) in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, who triggered wildlife photographer David Slater's camera. Slater traveled to Indonesia in 2008 to photograph the critically endangered monkeys, following a group of them for three days.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (留言) 17:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

On this upload, you wrote "Maria Barbella (or Barberi) (right) at her second murder trial in 1896. Maria was the second woman sentenced to die in the electric chair. She was convicted of killing her lover in 1895; however, the ruling was overturned in 1896 and she was freed. Illustration also depicts missionary Rebecca Salome Foster (left), given the moniker of the "Tombs Angel" because she attended to female criminals incarcerated at The New York Halls of Justice and House of Detention (otherwise known as "The Tombs"). Haydon Jones (1871-1954) illustration." You barely mentioned the creator of the illustration, how long he may have sat in the courtroom to produce that image, how much effort he spent in illustrating what goes on in the courtroom for the public. In general, we don't go into much detail about creators of files, even if David Slater deserves to be considered such.--Prosfilaes (留言) 18:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I made a minimal-changes edited according to the concerns and proposals here. St.nerol (留言) 19:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

External re-uses:

• http://www.achgut.com/artikel/selfies_hat_dieser_affe_das_recht_an_seinem_bild
• http://www.achgut.com/artikel/affentheater
• https://www.achgut.com/artikel/lasst_euch_nicht_zum_affen_machen
• https://www.achgut.com/artikel/das_planspiel_um_die_affenpocken

So does this mean its now a copy righted image?

https://petapixel.com/2018/04/24/photographer-wins-monkey-selfie-copyright-case-court-slams-peta/.Slatersteven (留言) 13:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

IANAL. I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up before, considering that decision was two years ago. Unless there have been further developments, I don't think this changes the photo's status here on Commons. The court ruled that animals lack the standing under US law to file copyright infringement lawsuits. That effectively means that the animal in question can't hold the rights to the photo (which was the conclusion made by a lower court in 2016). However, the ruling doesn't appear to address if David Slater, the photographer whose camera was used, owns the copyright instead. In the absence of any clarification on that point, Wikimedia's stance that the photo is public domain seems appropriate. clpo13_(talk) 20:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It was mentioned before, see the "No longer Public Domain?" section above, though a slightly earlier stage in the process. It simply upheld the earlier rulings that animals cannot create copyrighted material. PETA was playing a game to try and get courts to recognize animals as having all the same rights as people, etc., which was denied. Once there was a binding ruling to the contrary, they tried to get the court to put aside that ruling as part of a settlement. The final stage above was denying that, and making it a binding ruling at the 9th Circuit level from the looks of it. Carl Lindberg (留言) 01:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

yes it’s actually the other way round. PETA winning is what would out the image out of public domain since in it would have been the legal property of the monkey.--69.157.254.64 03:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)