Monkey selfie & Commons

[SB_Johnny]

I had to check to see if that was from the onion or not.

Please tell me it was from The Onion.

[Vigilant]

I had to check to see if that was from the onion or not.

Please tell me it was from The Onion.

That's what I was thinking when I checked.

Adding PETA to this mix of wikipedia's most self righteous jackasses might just spawn a Smug Storm.

[SB_Johnny]

I had to check to see if that was from the onion or not.

Please tell me it was from The Onion.

That's what I was thinking when I checked.

Adding PETA to this mix of wikipedia's most self righteous jackasses might just spawn a Smug Storm.

I've known PETA people over the years, so not really surprised, just disheartened.

[Vigilant]

I had to check to see if that was from the onion or not.

Please tell me it was from The Onion.

That's what I was thinking when I checked.

Adding PETA to this mix of wikipedia's most self righteous jackasses might just spawn a Smug Storm.

I've known PETA people over the years, so not really surprised, just disheartened.

I think the WMF and PETA deserve each other in court.
Which side with SlimVirgin come down on?

[The Joy]

This Selfie May Set a Legal Precedent
http://www.peta.org/blog/this-selfie-ma ... precedent/

[eagle]

Animals deserve recognition of appropriate rights for their own sake, and not in relation to their exploitation by humans.

or taking it one step further:

Wikipedia Volunteers deserve recognition of appropriate rights for their own sake, and not in relation to their exploitation by Jimmy Wales.

PETA has no more legal right to speak for animals in court than does WO have the right to speak for the exploited WP volunteers.

[Randy from Boise]

We all know what hardline Free Media Maaaaaaaan asswipes they are at Commons...

I consequently found this little Commons file to be extremely hilarious:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... a_logo.svg

Only one of the most recognized registered trademarks in the world and the object of a multi-million dollar annual merchandising business...

"English: Wordmark of Coca-Cola, trademarked by The Coca-Cola Company, but because the logo is simply "Coca-Cola", there is no proof as to who originally wrote it. Master Penman Louis Madarasz (1859-1910) was said to have told one of his students that the work was his own. When the work was created, Madarasz had a mail order business, could have illustrated the logo, and the writing style is similar to his. In the book "An Elegant Hand" by William E Henning, it states that Frank Mason Robinson, who was the bookkeeper of the firm, originated the name Coca-Cola and specified that it be written in Spencerian Script. In a 1914 court case, Robinson testified that he was "practically the originator" and that "some engraver here by the name of Frank Ridge was brought into it". Thus the logo itself has no currently copyrightable authorship and its exact creator is unknown. In any case, the trademarked Coca-Cola logo was published numerous times in the United States (its country of origin) before 1923, and so is now ineligible for copyright."

God, they are such copyright and trademark geniuses!!!

RfB

[MMAR]

They don't appear to be convinced at Jimbo Talk. Indeed they don't appear to have a clue what you're on about, and I confess, I am similarly confused. The logo is obviously out of copyright but still a trademark. And unless Wikipedia has a sideline in the soft-drink business which I don't know about, where's the issue?

As for the monkey 'selfie', God knows. Surely if you're on the side of ethics, you just ignore the copyright issue and decide to not be seen as being complete assholes to a guy who trekked into the jungle to take or facilitate these pictures?

[SB_Johnny]

As for the monkey 'selfie', God knows. Surely if you're on the side of ethics, you just ignore the copyright issue and decide to not be seen as being complete assholes to a guy who trekked into the jungle to take or facilitate these pictures?

Yup. Tried by a jury of the chronically unemployed. Monkeys deserve human rights, people less so. C'est la Wikipedia.

[Kelly Martin]

Nice stunt. I wonder if the court will wait for the 12(b)(6) motion to be filed, or will dismiss the case sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction (which it does not have, since the photograph is not a US work).

The lawyer filing the case should be sanctioned.

[thekohser]

Good article by (of course) Andrew Orlowski:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/24 ... ue_selfie/

Slater told us that he'd worked with PETA before, to save wild boar in the Forest of Dean, in Gloucestershire, England, and PETA knows he supports animal rights. But that counts for little now. PETA tipped off the Associated Press last week that it was suing the photographer, and he only found out through the media.

Also, something in ArtNet describing it as a "ridiculous lawsuit".

PETA once again loses what support I would have been naturally inclined to give them.

[The Joy]

Good article by (of course) Andrew Orlowski:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/24 ... ue_selfie/

Slater told us that he'd worked with PETA before, to save wild boar in the Forest of Dean, in Gloucestershire, England, and PETA knows he supports animal rights. But that counts for little now. PETA tipped off the Associated Press last week that it was suing the photographer, and he only found out through the media.

Also, something in ArtNet describing it as a "ridiculous lawsuit".

PETA once again loses what support I would have been naturally inclined to give them.

I lost my respect for PETA's sanity a long time ago.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001 ... couts-fish

[collect]

Nice stunt. I wonder if the court will wait for the 12(b)(6) motion to be filed, or will dismiss the case sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction (which it does not have, since the photograph is not a US work).

The lawyer filing the case should be sanctioned.

Unfortunately, it is more likely he will be aped.

[Triptych]

Nice stunt. I wonder if the court will wait for the 12(b)(6) motion to be filed, or will dismiss the case sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction (which it does not have, since the photograph is not a US work).

The lawyer filing the case should be sanctioned.

I'm pretty sure there is more to the question of jurisdiction than that. By stating it so strongly "lawyer should be sanctioned" I don't think you've explained your assertion enough.

I think there're some novel things about the PETA's lawsuit, one of them is that David Slater is upset but maybe he really shouldn't be. Why? He wants to sue the WMF but couldn't quite get going or decide if he could spend money on the lawyers. Now, the lawsuit exists, but the WMF isn't in it. So he could get a lawyer to try to, heh, A) join the WMF as a defendant, B) countersue PETA for a frivolous filing to cover his legal expenses, and C) sue the WMF for its callous and disingenuous profiteering and handling of the black macaque photos. All in the same lawsuit to resolve these difficult questions of copyright that the court should undertake without prejudgement.

Kelly, without websearching, do you know the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?

[Jim]

without websearching, do you know the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?

One's a slimy scum-sucking bottom-dwelling scavenger; the other is a fish.

What was the point of the "without websearching" thing?
Your search came before ours?

Nice to see you back, though, Trip. I missed you.

[Triptych]

without websearching, do you know the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?

One's a slimy scum-sucking bottom-dwelling scavenger; the other is a fish.

What was the point of the "without websearching" thing?
Your search came before ours?

Nice to see you back, though, Trip. I missed you.

When did your name become Kelly?

[Jim]

When did your name become Kelly?

I don't think it ever did. What an odd question.

I was just trying to welcome you back, but I admit I'm not Kelly.

[Triptych]

Moderators, administrators, trustees, don't just delete the exchange without a sound or private message, leave it. This person has no interest in the thread subject, just shows up to irritate those members that are his or her enemies, or he or she hates, or dislikes, or whatever. There are others like that or kinda like that.

It's one of several negatives that on net tend to make the place a net negative, not only for me, but I think for others.

I agree with the website's mission though, don't get me wrong.

[Jim]

don't get me wrong.

Nobody ever would.
You worry too much.

[thekohser]

An excellent story by a public interest attorney, Sam Wright:

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/09/whats-th ... tographer/

[HRIP7]

Monkey selfie goes to court, The Bison (Harding University student publication)

In 2011, David J. Slater was photographing an endangered monkey species, the Celebes crested macaque, in Indonesia. He deliberately left his camera tripod unattended with an accessible trigger to try to obtain what he calls a “monkey selfie.” Slater was successful, and he started licensing the photographs under the assumption that he was the owner. In the years afterward, internet sites were using the photos, claiming that they were in the public domain, both because animals cannot obtain copyrights and because Slater was not the initial creator of the images.

According to the U.S. Copyright Office, copyrights can cover literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, an expression of an idea and not an idea itself. They give the owner of the work the right to reproduce, distribute or display their work. In December 2014, the U. S. Copyright Office declared that any work created by a non-human party was not eligible to obtain a copyright. In September 2015, however, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the monkeys should own the rights to the photos they took of themselves.

According to Assistant Dean for the College of Business Administration Jim Shelton, the monkeys who took the selfies should not have rights over the photographs. [...]

Heartening to see a report (even if only in a student publication) that abandons the narrative of the monkey that ran away with Slater's camera and then did the photo session, tripod set-up, camera settings etc. all by himself.

[Mason]

Christmas is coming up. If you like Mr. Slater's work, and/or don't like the way he's been treated by Wikipedia and/or PETA, you could always purchase some of his art to show your support and put a little money in his pocket.

I just ordered two from this collection.

[Kevin]

It's going to be interesting seeing the reaction to this news - Monkey selfie case: judge rules animal cannot own his photo copyright.

A federal judge in San Francisco has ruled that a macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs cannot be declared the copyright owner of the photos.

[Vigilant]

It's going to be interesting seeing the reaction to this news - Monkey selfie case: judge rules animal cannot own his photo copyright.

A federal judge in San Francisco has ruled that a macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs cannot be declared the copyright owner of the photos.

I look forward to the sound of sphincters all around wiki-land tearing quarter sized holes out of their underwear.

Good job, wiki-legal!

[greybeard]

Let's be clear: this doesn't settle Slater's case, or even help it very much -- it just doesn't hurt it. The judge has taken the (sensible) position that animals can't hold copyrights. It may be a step on the road to Slater's redemption vis-a-vis Wikipedia, but a small one.

That said, yah-rah for that,

[Kelly Martin]

Let's be clear: this doesn't settle Slater's case, or even help it very much -- it just doesn't hurt it. The judge has taken the (sensible) position that animals can't hold copyrights. It may be a step on the road to Slater's redemption vis-a-vis Wikipedia, but a small one.

That said, yah-rah for that,

Indeed, what it really is is a loss for PETA and other animal rights activists. The lawsuit in SF was always a Hail-Mary toss by animal rights activists to try to establish some form of legal personhood in a monkey. PETA has no interest in the copyright issue or in Slater's claims against the Wikimedia Foundation and others, except insofar as it involved an animal.

[Poetlister]

What on earth gave PETA the idea that they had the right to administer the copyright on behalf of the animal? They are not its owner or in any sense its guardian.

[thekohser]

What on earth gave PETA the idea that they had the right to administer the copyright on behalf of the animal? They are not its owner or in any sense its guardian.

What on earth gave WMF the idea that they had the right to administer the Wikipedia on behalf of the community? They are not its owner or in any sense its guardian.

[Poetlister]

What on earth gave PETA the idea that they had the right to administer the copyright on behalf of the animal? They are not its owner or in any sense its guardian.

What on earth gave WMF the idea that they had the right to administer the Wikipedia on behalf of the community? They are not its owner or in any sense its guardian.

Surely they are its legal owner. They own the name and the servers, although of course each editor has minimal copyright ownership of his or her own contributions.

[Vigilant]

What on earth gave PETA the idea that they had the right to administer the copyright on behalf of the animal? They are not its owner or in any sense its guardian.

What on earth gave WMF the idea that they had the right to administer the Wikipedia on behalf of the community? They are not its owner or in any sense its guardian.

They have the ability to destroy wikipedia, thus they satisfy the definition of owner.

Witness VE, Flow, Superprotect, BoD shenanigans, etc, etc.

[MrWallace]

Photographer plans to sue Wikipedia after judge rules monkey doesn't own the copyright to 'selfie' picture

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... r-10699073

Mr Slater said he was “very angry” at the way his images had been reproduced across the world without his permission and without payment.

He said he now plans to sue Wikipedia.

“I’m especially unhappy with the way Wikipedia has behaved,” he said.

“They took the view that no-one owned the copyright and allowed visitors to download images from their website.

“I’m planning to sue the organisations that have infringed my copyright and top of the list is Wikipedia.

“I want to get them into court over here rather than in America.”

Wikipedia, where the pictures remained visible on Thursday, has been approached for a comment.

[Vigilant]

Photographer plans to sue Wikipedia after judge rules monkey doesn't own the copyright to 'selfie' picture

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... r-10699073

Mr Slater said he was “very angry” at the way his images had been reproduced across the world without his permission and without payment.

He said he now plans to sue Wikipedia.

“I’m especially unhappy with the way Wikipedia has behaved,” he said.

“They took the view that no-one owned the copyright and allowed visitors to download images from their website.

“I’m planning to sue the organisations that have infringed my copyright and top of the list is Wikipedia.

“I want to get them into court over here rather than in America.”

Wikipedia, where the pictures remained visible on Thursday, has been approached for a comment.

Mr Slater needs to sue everyone who violated his copyright but with one caveat: Sue them from poorest to richest.
Oh, you attended wikimania on a 'scholarship'? You get sued for willful infringement and conspiracy to induce infringement.
Oh, you live in your parents' house and plastered my copyrighted work all over commons without my permission? You get sued. And so do your parents.
You wore a teashirt with my work on it without paying? You get sued.

Once you have 10-20 suits going, you turn it around and charge the WMF with RICO violations.

Be sure to name Jimmy in a separate suit and demand his presence for deposition anytime he might have a speaking engagement or a formal party.

[Larkin]

Photographer plans to sue Wikipedia after judge rules monkey doesn't own the copyright to 'selfie' picture

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... r-10699073

Mr Slater said he was “very angry” at the way his images had been reproduced across the world without his permission and without payment.

He said he now plans to sue Wikipedia.

“I’m especially unhappy with the way Wikipedia has behaved,” he said.

“They took the view that no-one owned the copyright and allowed visitors to download images from their website.

“I’m planning to sue the organisations that have infringed my copyright and top of the list is Wikipedia.

“I want to get them into court over here rather than in America.”

Wikipedia, where the pictures remained visible on Thursday, has been approached for a comment.

Isn't the position of the US Copyright Office that no-one owns the copyright, that's in the public domain? That the monkey doesn't own it, doesn't mean Slater owns it.

But my sympathies are indeed with Slater. Many natural history photographs are taken robotically. An animal strays near the apparatus and triggers a photograph. Of course the copyright belongs to the photographer setting up the robotic equipment, and this seems to be pretty well equivalent.

[lilburne]

Isn't the position of the US Copyright Office that no-one owns the copyright, that's in the public domain? That the monkey doesn't own it, doesn't mean Slater owns it.

But my sympathies are indeed with Slater. Many natural history photographs are taken robotically. An animal strays near the apparatus and triggers a photograph. Of course the copyright belongs to the photographer setting up the robotic equipment, and this seems to be pretty well equivalent.

Lets say that what we have is a animal that press a button on a camera. Some one (anyone) comes along picks up that camera and finds that it contains a number of images. They make a selection of those images, process them, and present the result to the public. How is this any different from Cariou v. Prince (T-H-L), why hasn't Slater made a transformative, and copyrightable, use of the animal's button press?

Indeed how is this different from someone that finds pebbles and driftwood on the beach and arranges them in a gallery setting? Or someone that creates a collage from dried leaves and flowers?

[Poetlister]

“I’m planning to sue the organisations that have infringed my copyright and top of the list is Wikipedia.

“I want to get them into court over here rather than in America.”

It would be a little tricky to get the WMF into an English court. However, Jimbo is of course now resident over here, so he can be sued. Can someone send Mr. Slater the pic of Jimbo mocking him?

[Ross McPherson]

Monkeys don’t own copyright? This is consistent with Wikipedia’s philosophy. The animals there don’t own copyright on their work either. They just keep banging away at their innumerable keyboards for the benefit of humanity.

[greybeard]

“I’m planning to sue the organisations that have infringed my copyright and top of the list is Wikipedia.

“I want to get them into court over here rather than in America.”

It would be a little tricky to get the WMF into an English court. However, Jimbo is of course now resident over here, so he can be sued. Can someone send Mr. Slater the pic of Jimbo mocking him?

I'm pretty sure that this has happened. The real question is whether the UK has a legal doctrine of contributory infringement. That would be the way to go after Jimbo.

[tarantino]

Russavia has nominated for deletion all the photos on commons featuring the monkey selfie.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... mania_2014

[Poetlister]

Russavia has nominated for deletion all the photos on commons featuring the monkey selfie.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... mania_2014

Good for him, but it doesn't look as if it will pass. The "we can do what we like nyaa nyaa" brigade are on the job.

[Silent Editor]

“I’m planning to sue the organisations that have infringed my copyright and top of the list is Wikipedia.

“I want to get them into court over here rather than in America.”

It would be a little tricky to get the WMF into an English court. However, Jimbo is of course now resident over here, so he can be sued. Can someone send Mr. Slater the pic of Jimbo mocking him?

WMUK could potentially be a target - as organisers of Wikimania they certainly facilitated the various selfies (I'm pretty sure I read about their efforts to print copies of the photo for Wikimania use).

[Poetlister]

WMUK could potentially be a target - as organisers of Wikimania they certainly facilitated the various selfies (I'm pretty sure I read about their efforts to print copies of the photo for Wikimania use).

Their aims, as submitted to the Charity Commission, include improving Wikipedia content so they might be embarrassed if they have to deny all responsibility.

[thekohser]

Hard to believe, but PETA is still thumping away at their pitiful lawsuit.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Of course they are. PETA doesn't care about the monkey, or the copyright. What they care about is the publicity. So presumably does the judge, who otherwise would have thrown the case out as being, as we say over here, "frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court". Is the judge elected? Perhaps it's all good publicity for the next election.

[Poetlister]

Hard to believe, but PETA is still thumping away at their pitiful lawsuit.

The article includes the infamous picture, the author no doubt assuming that it has no copyright. However, it also includes a picture of David Slater with monkeys. Is that also free of copyright?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I doubt it, but thanks to PETA, Slater is broke and so can't afford to sue anyway.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

More on PETA having ruined Slater from the Telegraph:

In 2014 he asked Wikipedia to take down his picture after they published it without his permission, but the web giant refused and said that the copyright belonged to the monkey.

Not quite correct, I think, but the Telegraph is a Reliable Source, so I confidently expect the Monkey selfie (T-H-L) article to be updated with this new information.

[Bezdomni]

As a former "lifestyle" wedding photographer, I can say that 90% of success is finding the places where the light and foreground / background are right (highlights in the eyes, etc.), luring the subjects there (wine and jokes help), and making them comfortable. The pushing of the actual button -- and shock, gasp, even getting the settings & focus exactly right-- is generally quite accessory to all of that. That's why the Uncle Joe with their 1D mark VI who follows you around to the locations you scout with their pricey glass always annoys the lower-budget photogs. Slater seems to have even gotten the settings spot on.

[Poetlister]

Lewis Carroll notes in his diary how he set up a photograph (which in those days even meant making your own photographic plate) and the let a child press the shutter button, imagining that she'd taken the photo. Although he did 99% of the work, under the current rules she'd have owned the copyright.

[Newyorkbrad]

Of course they are. PETA doesn't care about the monkey, or the copyright. What they care about is the publicity. So presumably does the judge, who otherwise would have thrown the case out as being, as we say over here, "frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court". Is the judge elected? Perhaps it's all good publicity for the next election.

Copyright issues are decided in federal court. Federal judges are appointed and have lifetime tenure.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Thanks for that – so the judge has no excuse for entertaining this utterly frivolous case, then.