Monkey selfie & Commons

[Triptych]

Two more selfies with the black macaque placard from Wikimania participants:

1) http://instagram.com/p/rg5I_sO6yK/ (cache: https://archive.today/CAvtl).
2) https://twitter.com/herahussain/status/ ... 48/photo/1 (cache: https://archive.today/gO52p).

[mac]

That's why I've been wondering where the placards came from. They were by reports I've read positioned invitingly here and there at Wikimania. So did the WMF print the placards? Who printed the placards?

They're not even sure, if Wikimania-l is to be believed: link

Here's a Wikipedian thoughtfully and lovingly expressing their opinion: link

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 11:24:25PM +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
> But being dicks about winning is surely not the sort of attitude we
> want to display? Hardly helps support our stance as serious, rather
> than trollish.

That photographer who took copyright way too seriously didn't deserve
respect. It's really silly that when he is actually dragging people
into court, we hesitate to use a simple social defense such as this
one.

(emphasis added)

Others were more cautious: link

Ten copies of the photo were printed out and stuck on to boards. As of the
end of yesterday 3 had been found among the stuff that made it back to
WIkimedia UK (although not all the boxes have been opened yet) suggesting
that the monkey selfie may appear in other locations yet.

The photos were printed out by Wikimania staff/volunteers, but who had the
idea to do so I don't know.

In the event of a lawsuit, I wonder whether these Wikimania "staff/volunteers" could be considered agents of the WMF.

[Triptych]

Mac, nice work catching that thread. There were also a few in there that claimed the printing of these placards (and they surely look like placards to me, stiff white backs, nicely done) to be "spontaneous." But they don't look like something that could've been done by a guest with a standard printer at whatever hotel's visitor business office. They look to me like one would have to go out and buy the backs and spend some time working on it, or to pay a copies shop to do them.

Here's (you quoted in part and linked it) the best clue so far:

[Wikimania-l] Category for monkey selfie of Wikimedians!
Chris McKenna <email prefix clipped> at wikimedia.org.uk
Tue Aug 12 07:15:26 UTC 2014

>From everything I've read the only post-processing claimed is rotating and
cropping.

Ten copies of the photo were printed out and stuck on to boards. As of the
end of yesterday 3 had been found among the stuff that made it back to
WIkimedia UK (although not all the boxes have been opened yet) suggesting
that the monkey selfie may appear in other locations yet.

The photos were printed out by Wikimania staff/volunteers, but who had the
idea to do so I don't know.

On 12 August 2014 08:01, Pine W <email clipped> wrote:

I'm not clear on what Mr. McKenna means by "volunteers?" I mean every Wikipedia editor is referred to elsewhere often as a volunteer. By "Wikimania staff/volunteers" he could be referring to official, paid staff as well as those that actually did some work functions at Wikimania. As opposed to the mere guests who attended seminars and presentations.

Here's a cache (https://archive.today/9Hq3O). I don't think it's likely at all here, but sometimes awkward comments online can start disappearing.

[Vigilant]

Smells like something will need extensive discovery and deposition.

[Zoloft]

Smells like something will need extensive discovery and deposition.

Best for the WMUK to slip those placards into a plastic bag and have it signed and dated by who found them.

They will be evidence soon.

[Mason]

The way Mr. Slater has been treated is pretty despicable. I think what pisses me off the most about it is how he was repeatedly accused of "copyfraud" on Commons for claiming copyright on the photos he'd staged.

[mac]

Mac, nice work catching that thread. There were also a few in there that claimed the printing of these placards (and they surely look like placards to me, stiff white backs, nicely done) to be "spontaneous." But they don't look like something that could've been done by a guest with a standard printer at whatever hotel's visitor business office. They look to me like one would have to go out and buy the backs and spend some time working on it, or to pay a copies shop to do them.

Here's (you quoted in part and linked it) the best clue so far:

[Wikimania-l] Category for monkey selfie of Wikimedians!
Chris McKenna <email prefix clipped> at wikimedia.org.uk
Tue Aug 12 07:15:26 UTC 2014

>From everything I've read the only post-processing claimed is rotating and
cropping.

Ten copies of the photo were printed out and stuck on to boards. As of the
end of yesterday 3 had been found among the stuff that made it back to
WIkimedia UK (although not all the boxes have been opened yet) suggesting
that the monkey selfie may appear in other locations yet.

The photos were printed out by Wikimania staff/volunteers, but who had the
idea to do so I don't know.

On 12 August 2014 08:01, Pine W <email clipped> wrote:

I'm not clear on what Mr. McKenna means by "volunteers?" I mean every Wikipedia editor is referred to elsewhere often as a volunteer. By "Wikimania staff/volunteers" he could be referring to official, paid staff as well as those that actually did some work functions at Wikimania. As opposed to the mere guests who attended seminars and presentations.

Here's a cache (https://archive.today/9Hq3O). I don't think it's likely at all here, but sometimes awkward comments online can start disappearing.

Clue? I do love a good mystery! If I were Ms Marple, this would catch my eye: link

Manuel Schneider REDACTED at wikimedia.ch
Fri Aug 8 08:29:36 UTC 2014

Previous message: [Wikimania-l] Category for monkey selfie of Wikimedians!
Next message: [Wikimania-l] Bunch of keys missing

Dear all,

I found my keys in the Crew Office at the laminating station where I made signs on Wednesday evening.

Thanks everyone for helping, re-tweeting, sharing etc.!

/Manuel


Manuel Schneider <REDACTED at wikimedia.ch> schrieb:


-------- Originalnachricht --------
Betreff: Bunch of keys missing
Von: Manuel Schneider <REDACTADOODLEDOO at wikimedia.ch>
An: wikimania at lists.wikimedia.org
Cc:

Hi,
my keys got lost. Last time I used them was at Wednesday when I needed my swiss army knife at the Garden Room (Hackathon are).
I thought I may have left it in the hotel this morning but appearantly I didn't.
Maybe it fell out of my pocket while I was sitting at Old Ivy House Pub, on the sofa near the toilets.
If anyone has seen it please let me know, otherwise I am happy if you forward the info to other people, like Lost & Found of the Barbican or similar, if existing.
Thanks,
/Manuel
_______________________________________________
Wikimania-l mailing list
Wikimania-l at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

There was some talk of a "social media team" on one of the lists, I wonder who was on that team.

(edited only to prevent URL contraction)

[Vigilant]

I'm looking forward to the WMF legal eagles answering, "How is this different than a game camera?"

[Poetlister]

That photographer who took copyright way too seriously didn't deserve respect.

What an idiot, taking something worth many thousands of dollars seriously.

[mac]

I'm looking forward to the WMF legal eagles answering, "How is this different than a game camera?"

Or Google Earth/Google Maps screencaps?

[Triptych]

Here's the black macaque serving as the official mascot of Wikimania 2014. I've also seen a tweet now of some guy's "monkey selfie" that the placards were there waiting on the first day of Wikimania. It'll be difficult for WMF to portray this as the spontaneous act of a volunteer in the jubilant Wikimania atmosphere, if it takes that stance.

[Triptych]

That photographer who took copyright way too seriously didn't deserve respect.

What an idiot, taking something worth many thousands of dollars seriously.

I am not any publisher of licensed images, nor a working photographer, but I've seen this picture here and there for the past few years, since long before the Wikipedia kerfluffle this month or last, and the massive amounts of press coverage it has received. It seems to me a famous image now even fairly described as iconic whose value shouldn't be estimated in the thousands or even the tens of thousands, but rather at some higher valuation to be determined by expert witnesses in a court of law.

[mac]

Here's the black macaque serving as the official mascot of Wikimania 2014. I've also seen a tweet now of some guy's "monkey selfie" that the placards were there waiting on the first day of Wikimania. It'll be difficult for WMF to portray this as the spontaneous act of a volunteer in the jubilant Wikimania atmosphere, if it takes that stance.

Nice find! It is from the Twitter of Jens Ohlig: link (archive.today link)

The image is probably still here: link, but just in case, I've taken the liberty of uploading it here:

Wikimania Helpdesk monkeyselfie.jpg

Godspeed, Mr Slater.

[Mason]

Godspeed, Mr Slater.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

[Triptych]

Godspeed, Mr Slater.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

I went ahead and emailed Slater a link to this discussion thread, with brief explanation and disclaimer that none of us are lawyers but there might be some evidence here.

His website is here: http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/.

He seems really well-spoken and smart in an online video I saw, sorry I misplaced that link.

[mac]

Godspeed, Mr Slater.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

I went ahead and emailed Slater a link to this discussion thread, with brief explanation and disclaimer that none of us are lawyers but there might be some evidence here.

His website is here: http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/.

He seems really well-spoken and smart in an online video I saw, sorry I misplaced that link.

Well done.

Do you mean this video from the PetaPixel article? (edited)

[tarantino]

I went ahead and emailed Slater a link to this discussion thread, with brief explanation and disclaimer that none of us are lawyers but there might be some evidence here.

I know of at least four people, from here and elsewhere, who are already it touch with him.

[HRIP7]

Just noticed that The Register covered this a couple of weeks ago:

Gavin Clarke, Simian selfie stupidity: Macaque snap sparks Wikipedia copyright row. Jimbo Wales versus the little guy

[Mancunium]

Just noticed that The Register covered this a couple of weeks ago:

Gavin Clarke, Simian selfie stupidity: Macaque snap sparks Wikipedia copyright row. Jimbo Wales versus the little guy

Posted 7 August 2014: link

If animals had the same legal rights as humans it would be illegal to enslave them as beasts of burden, to imprison them in zoos, to torture them for research, and to murder them for food. I tend to think so. I think that bringing dogs to war zones as mine sniffers is a criminal abuse of their trust.

I also think that the humans who own, and those who work for, Google and Wikipedia are common thieves.

Simian selfie stupidity: Macaque snap sparks Wikipedia copyright row
Jimbo Wales versus the little guy
The Register, 7 August 2014 link

[...] The open rights crowd, predictably, have taken up arms on behalf of the monkey, belittling the photographer’s claims and making legal pronouncements on the basis that the image is in the “public domain". We’ve been here before with the open rights mob – that crowd we’re supposed to believe is so wise it will steer us no wrong – whose interests just happened to be aligned with those of massive organisations. They marched to defend Google, too, when the content-free ad network tried to hoover up the world’s books for itself. Nine years ago, Google started scanning 20 million library books for its Library Project just because it could. Defenders saw this as some massive work of public good – a public service, digitising precious works and making them available to the masses.

But the Association of American Publishers and the American Society of Media Photographers took exception, as Google had started scanning works that were still under copyright. They took Google to court in separate legal disputes. In its final settlement, Google was forced to let copyright owners of books scanned by Google opt out of the programme. Yet Google was also given the unique right to digitise and make money from "orphan works," titles whose rights are controlled by authors and publishers who have yet to come forward. Here’s how Google’s director of content partnerships Tom Turvey justified the scanning: “If a work is truly orphaned, by definition it has no copyright owner to ‘opt out’ of the database.” There’s plenty to disagree with in that sentence and to be said about transfer of ownership. But the biggest issue is Google – a massive commercial operation that’s answerable to shareholders – distributing orphaned works for which it need not pay. The Google library project achieves three things: search traffic, ads against returns of search sold for money, and ads against the book. [...]

Also, posted 9 August 2014: link

Monkey selfie photographer on why he is taking on Wikimedia over picture
posted by ITN, 7 August 2014

A wildlife photographer says he will take on Wikimedia, the company behind Wikipedia, in a copyright row over a monkey "selfie." David Slater says he spent three days in Indonesia with monkeys so that they would get used to him. He then set up his camera so that the endangered Macaca nigra could self-operate it. One did creating a number of images, one of which showed the animal smiling into the camera. The images were published and paid for but a row has broken out once it appeared on the web encyclopaedia's site to illustrate the endangered crested black macaque species. Mr Slater asked Wikipedia either paid for the use of the image or remove. But their argument was and remains that as the monkey pressed the button to take the picture, and because the image is now on the internet in the public domain that it is free to use. Report by Ashley Fudge.

[mac]

I hadn't seen that one before.

Also, posted 9 August 2014:

Monkey selfie photographer on why he is taking on Wikimedia over picture
posted by ITN, 7 August 2014

A wildlife photographer says he will take on Wikimedia, the company behind Wikipedia, in a copyright row over a monkey "selfie." David Slater says he spent three days in Indonesia with monkeys so that they would get used to him. He then set up his camera so that the endangered Macaca nigra could self-operate it. One did creating a number of images, one of which showed the animal smiling into the camera. The images were published and paid for but a row has broken out once it appeared on the web encyclopaedia's site to illustrate the endangered crested black macaque species. Mr Slater asked Wikipedia either paid for the use of the image or remove. But their argument was and remains that as the monkey pressed the button to take the picture, and because the image is now on the internet in the public domain that it is free to use. Report by Ashley Fudge.

Thanks, I caught the error after it was too late to edit my PetaPixel post. :/

[Triptych]

[
Do you mean this video from the PetaPixel article? (edited)

Yah, that looks like it (my laptop sound is out right now for some reason). I think Mancunium also posted it. Slater is well-spoken but I also saw somewhere where he criticized all the administrative little deciders on Wikipedia purporting to adjudicate by "consensus" the copyright status of his black macacque photos and he was less measured there. He faulted their anonymity and their expertise to make such a determination, and further said something like "who knows who they are, there might be some little Hitlers in there," a sort of reference he ought refrain from, because it's too easy to get called out on.

[Triptych]

I went ahead and emailed Slater a link to this discussion thread, with brief explanation and disclaimer that none of us are lawyers but there might be some evidence here.

I know of at least four people, from here and elsewhere, who are already it touch with him.

Yah, good then. I just didn't want him to miss the results of our searching. I do hope he lights up WMF with a lawsuit. Surely there're lawyers willing and able to represent him and get his case going. Those laypersons on the talkpages purporting so forcefully that Slater has no copyrights should be regarded as babbling idiots, and it's amusing to see that WMF Legal basically endorsed their position. If you'll forgive the pun, I hope he makes monkeys of all of them.

[Triptych]

More funky monkey selfies from the hoopy happy crowd at Wikimania 2014. Sorry if these are too large or whatever and make your browser or connection grind gears. I don't really know where your technology is and this is just the way I have them.

[See links in later post]

[neved]

Forget about the monkey for a moment. Generally speaking, do not upload your images to Commons and/or to any wikipedia.
I do not even say that by uploading your work to that site you'd help to promote its free porn, its antisemitic cartoons,
its admins as Mattbuck who apologizes to the aforementioned sex offender and still keeps his tools, and so on, and so on,
but your own images would be mishandled in every way possible.
For example I uploaded an image, another user edited it, and guess what , now that user is listed as a copyright holder for my image! Really?
I found this image by an accident, and it is not the first one like that.
Even, if one adds each and every image he uploads to his watch list (and I have no watch list on any of wikipedia site), it is no use.
Besides imagine what is going to be done with your work after you'd die.

[Triptych]

Neved, oh I didn't make use of Commons for those. It's Anonimg.com, which is great donation-based hosting of images. It was terribly inconsiderate of me though, not least to Anonimg.com, to set those to display anytime someone opens the thread, because they are large files. Here is how I should have done it.

https://www.anonimg.com/img/82bab045f7a ... e635a9.png
https://www.anonimg.com/img/2cc7249ef2f ... 3658ac.png
https://www.anonimg.com/img/6d5c1aa8aa3 ... a08fe1.png
https://www.anonimg.com/img/5a0a5b50b9f ... 6f80bb.png

EDIT: If a passing moderator or trustee could just wipe out the image links in my comment just above Neved's just above, I would be grateful. It's the same exact links right here, except one clicks on them.

[HRIP7]

Kevin Collier, The Daily Dot, U.S. Copyright Office clarifies guidelines on monkey selfies

[...] This is according to the U.S. Copyright Office's third edition of Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, a draft of which was released Tuesday. Those guidelines don't come out often: The previous ones were published in 1973 and 1984. And while it's long been the office's opinion that "'authorship' implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being," only now does it clarify the role of a monkey-taken photo.

Specifically, "a photo taken by a monkey," "a mural painted by an elephant," and "driftwood that has been shaped and smoothed by the ocean" are all created by natural elements, and thus can't be copyrighted, according to the new, 1,200-page guidelines.

That is unfortunate for photographer David Slater, who says he spent days in Indonesia letting macaques play with his cameras before one snapped a selfie for the ages, which quickly went viral. [...]

[eppur si muove]

Kevin Collier, The Daily Dot, U.S. Copyright Office clarifies guidelines on monkey selfies

[...]
That is unfortunate for photographer David Slater, who says he spent days in Indonesia letting macaques play with his cameras before one snapped a selfie for the ages, which quickly went viral. [...]

But, of course, various antics were going on at Wikimania in the UK where monkey Jimbo happens to live. What the UK copyright law may be something altogether different.

[Vigilant]

Kevin Collier, The Daily Dot, U.S. Copyright Office clarifies guidelines on monkey selfies

[...] This is according to the U.S. Copyright Office's third edition of Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, a draft of which was released Tuesday. Those guidelines don't come out often: The previous ones were published in 1973 and 1984. And while it's long been the office's opinion that "'authorship' implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being," only now does it clarify the role of a monkey-taken photo.

Specifically, "a photo taken by a monkey," "a mural painted by an elephant," and "driftwood that has been shaped and smoothed by the ocean" are all created by natural elements, and thus can't be copyrighted, according to the new, 1,200-page guidelines.

That is unfortunate for photographer David Slater, who says he spent days in Indonesia letting macaques play with his cameras before one snapped a selfie for the ages, which quickly went viral. [...]

Win ... Lose ... Who the fuck cares??

Deposition is what fucks most people in the ass.

[HRIP7]

Kevin Collier, The Daily Dot, U.S. Copyright Office clarifies guidelines on monkey selfies

[...]
That is unfortunate for photographer David Slater, who says he spent days in Indonesia letting macaques play with his cameras before one snapped a selfie for the ages, which quickly went viral. [...]

But, of course, various antics were going on at Wikimania in the UK where monkey Jimbo happens to live. What the UK copyright law may be something altogether different.

Quite. According to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing

Wikimedia Commons only accepts media
that are explicitly freely licensed, or
that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.

I wonder what copyright law is like in Indonesia ...

[Mancunium]

Monkey business: macaque selfie can't be copyrighted, say US and UK
Copyright unlikely to lie with photographer unless he can prove he made significant arrangements for the photo
The Guardian, 22 August 2014 linkhttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... -us-and-uk[/link]

Because copyright law is limited to ‘original intellectual conceptions of the author,’ the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work,” said the US Copyright Office in its latest compendium of practices published Tuesday. “The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants.” The compendium specifically highlights “a photograph taken by a monkey” as an example of something that cannot be copyrighted. Don’t hope for divine intervention either: “Likewise, the office cannot register a work purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings, although the office may register a work where the application or the deposit copy states that the work was inspired by a divine spirit.” While there is some homogenisation and understanding under the Berne Convention in copyright law between countries, not all copyright law is the same across countries. In the UK, the law around animals producing copyrightable works is similar to the US. [...] “The IPO indicates that under UK law animals cannot own copyright,” Bianca D’Orsi, spokeswoman for Intellectual Property Office told the Guardian. “However the question as to whether the photographer owns copyright is more complex. It depends on whether the photographer has made a creative contribution to the work and this is a decision which must be made by the courts,” she said. [...]

Iain Connor a partner in the intellectual property department of Pinsent Masons, said: “Based on first principles, if you give a monkey a camera, and you don’t exercise any control over the monkey, if it then presses the button the monkey is the author.” However, the law in the UK is not quite as straightforward, as the author doesn’t necessarily own the copyright. For instance, in the film industry the cameraman filming the actors on screen, despite being the “author” of the recording, does not own the copyright of the film. It comes down to who provided the creative effort or significant arrangements. In the case of movies it would be the director or the producer, although often it is ultimately the people who put the money into the project. It is the amount of effort, arrangement or creative input that is made, which determines copyright. [...] “My view as to what a sensible approach to this would be if you own the camera, you’ve effectively made the arrangements for that picture,” said Connor. “If it’s an animal that presses the button it should be the owner of the camera that owns the copyright to that photo.”

[Triptych]

Monkey business: macaque selfie can't be copyrighted, say US and UK
Copyright unlikely to lie with photographer unless he can prove he made significant arrangements for the photo
The Guardian, 22 August 2014 linkhttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... -us-and-uk[/link]

Because copyright law is limited to ‘original intellectual conceptions of the author,’ the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work,” said the US Copyright Office in its latest compendium of practices published Tuesday. “The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants.”

It seems unseemly to me if the Copyright Office added the "monkey took the photo" example into its draft in response to recent news coverage of the matter of David Slater's black macaque photos. They should make their official guidelines based on overarching principles and not choose sides by oversimplifying complex legal questions.

In case any of you haven't seen, the "elephant paints mural" example is also a reaction to some I think fairly recent news coverage of elephants that have indeed painted some impressive paintings with brushes held by their trunks. There's compelling video of this, no doubt on the dominant video sharing service, that you can find by searching as easily as I can link it. The elephant I watched painted I thought a really nice painting.

I think that, this matter of this draft of the copyright office's manual, is not going to be any key determinant in a court battle if Slater can get it that far. The court is going to go by laws and precedent if it can sort out some, not the copyright office's guidelines.

[Hex]

I wonder what copyright law is like in Indonesia ...

Oh, the copyright law of Indonesia (T-H-L)? Well, thanks to Wikisource, we can find out.

Article 1
1. Copyright shall mean an exclusive right for an Author or the recipient of the right to publish or reproduce his Work or to grant permission for said purposes, without decreasing the limits according to the prevailing laws and regulations.
2. Author shall mean a person or several persons jointly upon whose inspiration a Work is produced, based on the intellectual ability, imagination, dexterity, skill or expertise manifested in a distinctive form and is of a personal nature.
3. Work shall mean any result of works of an Author, which shows originality in the field of science, arts and literature.

...

Article 5
1. Unless proven otherwise, the person deemed to be the Author is:
a. the person whose name is registered in the General Register of Works at the Directorate General; or
b. the person whose name is mentioned in a Work or published as the Author of a Work.

There's nothing in there about non-humans creating works. But does the above 5.1.b imply that Slater is the author as he published it under his name? I don't know, ask an Indonesian lawyer.

[EricBarbour]

Like Mancunium's thread on medical content, this thread is never going to end, is it?

[Mancunium]

Like Mancunium's thread on medical content, this thread is never going to end, is it?

I would hope that the 'Dr Wikipedia' thread will come to an end when WikiProject Medicine takes responsibility for its 32,122 articles, locks them against non-expert users, and places a prominent disclaimer on every one of them.

There is no need to go to an Indonesian lawyer for an opinion. The spokesperson for the UK's Intellectual Property Office states: "However, the question as to whether the photographer owns copyright is more complex. It depends on whether the photographer has made a creative contribution to the work and this is a decision which must be made by the courts."

A partner in the intellectual property department of Pinsent_Masons (T-H-L) has explained that the "author" of a property doesn’t necessarily own the copyright, and has stated for publication: “My view as to what a sensible approach to this would be: if you own the camera, you’ve effectively made the arrangements for that picture. If it’s an animal that presses the button it should be the owner of the camera that owns the copyright to that photo.”

I would hope that this thread ends with the report of a UK court directing Wikimedia UK (which organised the most egregious violations of Mr Slater's copyright) to pay him substantial compensatory and punitive damages.

An overview of civil proceedings in England and Wales
Out-Law.com, Legal news and guidence from Pinsent Masons: linkhttp://www.out-law.com/topics/dispute-r ... and-wales/[/link]

[HRIP7]

It depends on whether the photographer has made a creative contribution to the work

I think travelling to Indonesia, spending three days befriending a group of macaques (including letting them groom you and hit you over the head), and then setting the camera up on a tripod with an attached cable release and various other settings so they can take pictures of themselves qualifies as a "creative contribution".

That's just me, of course. Other people may think it is no more creative than pressing Ctrl-C Ctrl-V.

I would be equally happy to see the eventual outcome you describe, Mancunium.

[Mancunium]

Thus is Iain Connor, the lawyer who told The Guardian: “My view as to what a sensible approach to this would be: if you own the camera, you’ve effectively made the arrangements for that picture. If it’s an animal that presses the button it should be the owner of the camera that owns the copyright to that photo.”


Iain Connor, partner: linkhttp://www.pinsentmasons.com/en/people/ ... in-connor/[/link]

Iain heads Pinsent Masons' contentious intellectual property practice having prosecuted many of the UK’s most high profile pieces of IP litigation through the UK courts and then on to the Court of Justice of the European Union. His European Court highlights include Interflora -v- Marks & Spencer - a trade mark infringement case relating to the use of Interflora as an AdWord in the Google advertising programme – for which Pinsent Masons was awarded “Winners of Managing IP Awards UK Trade Mark Litigation Team of the Year 2014 “; Football DataCo -v- Livescore - a Database Rights case relating the to re-use of football match data; Specsavers -v- Asda Stores - a parody advertising case relating to the slogan "Be a real spec saver at Asda"; L'Oreal -v- Bellure - the first “unfair advantage” trade mark case before the CJEU; and British Horseracing Board -v- William Hill - the first Database Rights case to be heard before the CJEU.

He advises on advertising matters including BCAP, CAP and Clearcast clearance issues as well as comparative advertising, marketing and sponsorship issues. He advises companies across a range of sectors from media and entertainment to FMCG and financial services. Having been previously seconded to Ericsson, his IT and telecommunications practice focuses on issues arising out of the use and exploitation of software and related infringement matters. Legal 500 states he gives "no-nonsense advice, and is an individual with integrity’, ranking him for both intellectual property and media and entertainment. Chambers and Partners UK guide says he is 'a very good presenter and can condense issues into clear, easily understandable language' while its Global Guide states Iain is 'noted for providing clear and concise advice to clients'.

Cracking copyright law: How a simian selfie stunt could make a monkey out of Wikipedia
Creativity can't start and end at the push of a button
by Andrew Orlowski, The Regisiter, 24 August 2014 linkhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/24 ... _backfire/[/link]

That so-called Macaca nigra monkey selfie isn’t in the public domain, no matter what Wikipedia wants you to think. In fact, the encyclopedia's stance on the matter could backfire and hit it in the pocket. A photo sold by British snapper David Slater since 2011 hit the headlines again this month when Wikipedia refused to acknowledge Slater's claim that he owned the pic's rights. Nobody had challenged Slater's ownership until now, but because a monkey pressed the shutter button and snapped the photo, Wikipedia reckons Slater has no claim of ownership. This interpretation of the law coincided with Wikipedia’s annual gathering, Wikimania – the website has a long history of grandstanding on digital property rights. The prank was popular with attendees.


Funny guy: Wikipedia supremo Jimmy Wales (left) takes the piss

Slater has been obliged to hire legal help costing thousands of pounds to defend his work, arguing that Wikipedia’s continuing publication harms his livelihood. The law isn’t hard to understand. Unlike trademarks, which have to be registered to get protection, copyright is an automatic right. As the creator, you’re the owner. The Berne Convention – which the UK, US and many others have signed up to – enshrines this. You don’t even have to include a © squiggle. It's automatic. The question is whether Slater fulfills the necessary criteria required to be protected by the law as the creator of the Macaca nigra snap. Serena Tierney, who heads the Intellectual Property practice at London law firm BDB, explains how it looks in the UK.

[... some case law for the unfunny Wikipedia supremo to consider ...]

Tierney explains: "If he checked the angle of the shot, set up the equipment to produce a picture with specific light and shade effects, set the exposure or used filters or other special settings, light and that everything required is in the shot, and all the monkey contributed was to press the button, then he would seem to have a passable claim that copyright subsists in the photo in the UK and that he is the author and so first owner,” she says.

Whether you're on Team Slater or Team Jimbo, it's going to court

So what’s all this fuss about the US Copyright Office, then? This week it refused to register the copyright of monkey selfies. One of the American quango’s statutory duties is to act as a deposit library, and to fulfill this, it needs to identify an owner. This has caused some confusion. But two things must be kept in mind: under Berne, copyright is automatic, and doesn't require registration. And secondly, disputes are settled in court. Like the UK Intellectual Property Office, the US Copyright Office cannot settle private disputes. Hence why Slater must make an infringement claim against Wikipedia for using the pic on its website. [...] The US law has similar criteria to the UK. Some intellectual input is required in terms of composition – but not so much. Only a “modicum of creativity” is required for the human to gain copyright protection. Slater made choices such as choosing the location, the equipment, where it was placed – in front of the monkeys – and choosing what to keep and discard. Even before the USCO update this week, it’s doubtful how any ownership arguments on behalf of the monkey could have been advanced. Did it see and recognize the camera? Did it know what a camera was? Did it exert its own intentionality – did it think: “That’s handy. I fancy taking a picture right now.” Did it know how to operate it? No to all.


Someone's not happy with Wikipedia's selfie decision

Declaring the image public domain could backfire badly on Wikipedia; it looks mean-spirited by suggesting creativity starts when a button is pressed and ends when it's let go – something so mechanical, a monkey can do it. Who needs artists, anyway? This is a deeply misanthropic argument, but one which some Wikipedians seem to be reveling in making. As veteran Wikipedia contributor Andreas Kolbe reported: “The Wikimedia Foundation has turned [the monkey selfie] into a symbol of its determination to retain content on Wikimedia servers ... it had also been used as a sort of conference mascot, with prints of the image displayed in numerous places around [London's] Barbican conference space. Even at the registration desk there was a copy of it, inviting attendees to take a selfie of themselves next to the image. As followers of the Wikimania Twitter stream could observe, Jimmy Wales led by example – and was rightly called out by some users on Twitter and, indeed, Wikipedia, for what appeared like tactless gloating."

The power relationship seems clear: using the image cost Wikipedians nothing, but an individual may have to dip into his savings to protect his livelihood. Perhaps the threat of withholding donations may make Wikipedians reconsider their actions. [...] Berne, which enshrined copyright as a right for the individual, is as relevant today as it was then. It was devised to protect creators from unscrupulous publishers who wanted to use and none want to pay. The simian photo prank strongly gives the impression that Wikipedia has chosen which side it’s on: it’s against the little guy, it’s against the creator, and it’s got a $50m war chest to bankroll any legal battles. It has the riches an individual can’t muster. Slater says he made a mere £2,000 in licensing the image – which, we're told, only just covered his travel expenses to Indonesia to obtain the photo. By putting the image on one of the most popular websites in the world, Wikipedia has endangered his chance of making any more cash from a world-famous photo. [...]

[Triptych]

Great article from The Register just above, thanks for the link Mancunium. Newsweek magazine also had an informative one, in which expert copyright lawyers said things like:

“We don’t think that Wikipedia’s rationale makes sense under U.S. copyright law,” says Maurice Harmon of Harmon & Seidman LLC, a Colorado-based practice limited to copyright infringement.

James Lorin Silverberg, the director of litigation and founder of the Intellectual Property Group, a boutique firm with offices in Manhattan and Washington, D.C., called Wikimedia’s stance “a very shortsighted view to take.” ... The attorney adds, “Had Mr. Slater not done what he had done with the camera…the monkey would not have that picture.”

Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association, sees it, Wikimedia is “taking someone’s work without permission, or credit, or compensation,” and its “whole argument is not only disingenuous but also self-serving.”

Newsweek appears to have contacted these experts based on their credentials, it didn't cherrypick critical viewpoints in other words. The striking thing is that the experts are consistently critical of the "har har, the monkey took the picture, so it's public domain" position articulated and repeated by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The article also points out the reality that it's costly to bring such a lawsuit. Check it out: http://www.newsweek.com/lawyers-dispute ... ght-265961.

[neved]

Funny guy: Wikipedia supremo Jimmy Wales (left) takes the piss

So Jimbo is at the left? I used to have some doubts Happy somebody explained what I'm looking at.

[thekohser]

I think another "Jim" could be added now to the article Macaca_(term) (T-H-L).

[Mancunium]

Another free legal opinion:

Letter from Europe - cheeky monkey: Wikipedia claims copyright comes down to the press of a button
by Paul A. Harris, Lexology, 21 August 2014 linkhttp://www.lexology.com/library/detail. ... 4e43599905[/link]

[...] By now you’ve likely heard the tale: British nature photographer David Slater was following and shooting a tribe of crested black macaque monkeys in Indonesia. At one point, one of the monkeys helped herself to his camera and took a few selfies. One of these was a particularly good shot. When Mr. Slater saw the photo on the Wikimedia Commons site, which features free-to-use images and video files, he asked Wikimedia to take the image down. Wikimedia refused, and now there’s a fight over who owns the copyright: Mr. Slater or the monkey? Yes, everyone, Wikimedia appears to consider that the monkey has the better right to claim title to copyright and the photos. Or possibly they consider them to belong to a category of copyright called ‘orphan works’, where the true owner of the copyright can’t be established. In either case, they get to publish them, and Mr. Slater gets no royalties. I’m not sure where Mr. Slater put the photos online originally, but on the basis he’s a Brit, I am going to lean towards English copyright law as being the relevant law in this case: unless Indonesia, where the monkey pulled the trigger, so to speak, actually allows animals to own copyright works. I doubt it somehow.

Under the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), it is clear that the owner of copyright has to be a legal person—so an individual, or body corporate, partnership, etc. only. The problem arising for Mr. Slater is that he did not physically take the photos. However, the earlier news stories back in 2011 explained what happened. [...] The relevant section in the CDPA relating to ‘authorship’ is section 9, and there is a sub-section dealing with literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works (the latter category is the one in which a photograph would fall) where the work is ‘computer-generated’. Being a digital camera, the image created when the button is pushed is actually computer-generated. No longer is a roll of film required, carefully shielded from the light so as not to expose it. It all depends on that all-pervading microchip. In that sub-section, the author is taken to be the person who makes the arrangements for the creation of the work. [...] a digital camera creates a computer-generated work (the image in front of it), and the author is, in most cases, the person who switches the camera on (i.e. makes the arrangements for), and the computer-generated image is created by the pressing of the shutter button. In which case Mr. Slater, good news; you’re the author and you do own the copyright! [...]

Paul A. Harris
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP: linkhttp://www.pillsburylaw.com/paul-harris[/link]

Paul Harris is an Intellectual Property Litigation Partner in the firm’s London office with over 25 years of experience in intellectual property cases. He has worked in contentious matters relating to patents, covering a wide variety of technologies including complex chemical cases, electronics and mechanical patents. Most notably, he has handled the successful defence of Black & Decker in an action brought by Electrolux, the outcome of which led to the Patents Court guidelines on experiments and expert’s reports. He was also involved in the erythropoietin litigation (Kirin Amgen) and stent litigation (Boston Scientific). Mr. Harris is particularly noted in trade mark matters (registered and unregistered), having successfully litigated the first case under the Trade Marks Act 1994 (Wagamama Ltd v City Centre Restaurants plc). More recently, he was involved (with James Tumbridge) in the latest extended passing off case: Fage v Chobani. Mr. Harris is also known for his confidential information practice and handled the Dyson v Strutt litigation, relating to misuse of confidential information, and the same litigation on important issues of costs. He also led the successful team in the First Conference v Bracchi case, which included executing an interlocutory search and seizure order against the defendant.

In addition to his litigation practice, Mr. Harris’ skill and experience in analysing and solving strategic IP matters is called upon by many international clients. It ranges from trade mark problems and licensing strategies, to patent analysis and assessment. He has also been instrumental in the negotiation and preparation of international licensing arrangements for patents and trademarks, and been involved in many non-contentious dealings including in relation to sales and licensing of businesses, preparation of multi-national licensing and cross-licensing arrangements (including co-existence agreements), as well as overseeing programmes for the registration of trademarks in many overseas jurisdictions. He also deals with the copyright and design right field, and has acted for a management buy-out team in relation to computer software and computer hardware. Mr. Harris has lectured on both patents and trademarks, as well as confidential information. He is well-known internationally and has been invited to speak at international conferences as far afield as Bulgaria and Egypt. He also teaches trade mark law on the Intellectual Property Diploma Course at the University of Oxford. He has written many articles over the years on both patents and trade mark issues. [...]

[Mancunium]

Selfie and the simian
Why we can’t copyright what exists in nature.
by Ananth Padmanabhan, Indian Express, 2 September 2014 linkhttp://indianexpress.com/article/opinio ... he-simian/[/link]

[...] Wikipedia asserted that the selfies have no human “author” in whom copyright could be vested. Slater objected, contending that the copyright vested in him. Wikipedia countered this by holding that the monkey, and not Slater, owns the copyright. It is one thing to contend that a particular work is part of the public domain and quite another to argue that the copyright belongs to someone else. The latter response assumes copyrightability while the former discounts it. Wikipedia should have stuck to the public domain strand of reasoning. This would have been not only a better justification but also a great service to the entire user community. [...] The selfie is as much a work of nature, an outcome of natural, as opposed to creative, processes as the sounds produced by birds and animals. The US Copyright Office has used this an opportunity to give the public domain doctrine a much-needed fillip. Late last month, it affirmed that works produced by nature, animals or plants would not be registered, thus responding to the problem using the language of copyrightability rather than a technical distinction between human and non-human authorship. In addition to the monkey selfie, the office lists mural paintings by an elephant and driftwood shaped and smoothed by the ocean as examples of non-copyrightable public domain material. This is hopefully the starting point of a rejuvenation of the currently toneless public domain doctrine.

Padmanabhan is author of ‘Intellectual Property Rights: Infringement and Remedies’

If I understand this person's argument, Mr Slater's photographs were produced by "nature", and are therefore in the public domain. Ananth Padmanabhan says: "we can’t copyright what exists in nature". A photograph of a tiger, a rose, a bolt of lighting, or a sunset would all be in the public domain, and uncopyrightable: they have all been produced by, and exist in, nature. So are the subjects of human portraits. Photographers, of whatever species -- including humans -- are also products of nature, as is therefore the "creative process" itself. To follow his line of thought: all creativity exists in nature, and has no author.

[thekohser]

The Indian Express is really slipping, journalistically.

[HRIP7]

The Indian Express is really slipping, journalistically.

The writer bought the "a monkey ran off with the camera" story, which by now has been debunked. And he bought the other false story that the WMF argued the monkey owned the copyright. Both these stories went viral simply because they were funnier than the truth.

I guess you could run another forum like this on how newspapers get stuff wrong, and how the errors propagate endlessly (with or without Wikipedia's help).

[Mancunium]

#MonkeySelfie — copyright dispute between Wikipedia and David Slater is not new
by Bob Tarantino, The Lawyer, 2 September 2014 linkhttp://www.thelawyer.com/briefings/monk ... 05.article[/link]

The dispute between Wikipedia and the British photographer David Slater recently reported in various news outlets is not new. It is actually the continuation of a dispute that began in July 2011 between the UK-based Caters News Agency, who had hired Slater to do a nature shoot in Indonesia, and the blog Techdirt. According to reports at that time, the monkey picked up Slater’s camera while unattended and snapped a number of images while it looked at its own image in the lens. Slater later discovered the images and submitted them to the Daily Mail to be published — giving credit to Caters. Soon after, the question was raised whether Caters was capable of claiming copyright as Slater had reportedly acknowledged that he was not involved in creating the images. The photographs were reproduced on the Techdirt blog, which commented on the issue. Caters subsequently requested that the blog remove them for violation of copyright. It declined and the debate commenced. Techdirt considered Caters’ capacity to claim copyright under the various copyright legislation of the US, the UK and Indonesia, arriving at the conclusion that regardless of the regime only a photograph created by a human is capable of receiving copyright. So what about in Canada? …

Click on the link below to read the rest of the Dentons briefing.

#MonkeySelfie (PDF, 202.62 kB) linkhttp://www.thelawyer.com/briefings/monk ... 05.article[/link]

Register for free, quick access to this premium content.

You may wish to subscribe to, or register with, this publication. Personally, I don't care to learn more about Techdirt's lawyerly credentials, or Dentons' interpretation of Canadian copyright law.

[Mancunium]

Who gives a monkey’s? Ownership of copyright in the UAE
Lexology, 3 September 2014 link

[...] In the UAE, the position regarding copyright ownership is not what many expect. Harriet Balloch explains further. [...] According to the Copyright Law (UAE Federal Law No. 7 of 2002), copyright in a photograph is owned by the “author”. [...] In most circumstances, it will be a straightforward task to determine the person who created the photograph; it will be the person who operated the camera (ie the photographer). However, sometimes more than one person may be involved in the creation of a photograph. Specifically, one person might be responsible for the composition of the photograph (ie arranging the subjects, props and lighting) and another person might operate the camera. In these circumstances, the photograph may have a single author (the individual who was responsible for the overall creation of the photograph). Alternatively, depending on the circumstances, the photograph may have joint authors. [...] In any event, Mr Slater may be able to argue that he was the person that created the photograph and, therefore, he should be considered the author of the ‘selfie’. Specifically, Mr Slater spent a significant amount of time with the monkeys, building up their trust, showing them how to use the camera and setting up the camera ready for the monkeys to interact with. According to his website, Mr Slater said that he:

“… put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play …. I duly moved away and bingo, they moved in … pressing the buttons and … I was then to witness one of the funniest things ever as they grinned, grimaced and bared teeth at themselves in the reflection of the large glassy lens. …They played with the camera until of course some images were inevitably taken! I had one hand on the tripod when this was going on …”

Although Mr Slater did not take the ‘selfie’, the courts in the UAE may be sympathetic that, without him, none of this ‘monkey business’ would have happened and, therefore, he should be considered to be the “person that created” the photograph. Specifically, his aim was to create fantastic photographs of these critically endangered monkeys and, through his efforts, he achieved this. If the reports in the press are accurate, Mr Slater will be asking the Courts in the UK to determine whether he is the owner of copyright in the photograph. The success of Mr Slater’s claim is likely to depend on his ability to demonstrate a sufficient level of input into the creation of this ‘selfie’ and, specifically, whether he can persuade the Court that he was the “person that created” the photograph. Whether or not Mr Slater will succeed with a claim for copyright infringement against Wikimedia is yet to be seen. However, as this situation demonstrates, with increased access to easy-to-use technology, the boundaries of traditional IP laws will continue to be pushed.

Monkeying around with copyright laws – who can own a copyright?
Lexology, 3 September 2014 link

[...] Slater argued that since he owned the camera that took the photo of the macaque, he therefore owned the copyright in the photograph produced by the camera. Thus ensued a debate over who owned the photo – Slater or the macaque. The arguments can be summed up below:

Slater’s argument – His camera. His photograph. He has the right to control how it is used as the owner/author.
Wikimedia’s argument – Ownership of a camera used to create a photo does not give the camera owner rights to the photo. The Macaque created the photo. Slater could not own the rights to the photograph. The macaque is not human and not capable of owning property (intellectual or otherwise) and therefore the photo belongs to the public domain.

[...] Copyrights are a form of protection provided by United States laws for “original works of authorship.” [...] In light of the definition and the rights associated with the ownership of a copyright, both Slater and the macaque potentially held a great deal of control over the use of the photo of the macaque. [...] U.S. Copyright Office recently updated its manual, the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. [...] Chapter 300 of the Compendium’s 1,222 pages explains what the office calls “the Human Authorship Requirement,” in which it notes that “copyright law only protects ‘the fruits of intellectual labor’ that ‘are founded in the creative powers of the mind.’” When determining whether a work can be registered, the Compendium now specifically asks whether the work was created by a human author. So when it comes to copyrights, he who creates it owns it – so long as you’re a human being.

[Triptych]

Mr. Slater says he has a legal team and that he is determined. Go get 'em Dave!

I have been instructed, by my legal team, to remain tight lipped and not to discuss details of any law suit, however rest assured I have only just started and this case is not going to go away,” said Slater. (http://www.news9.com/story/26405953/mon ... misleading.)

He's also emphasizing that you can get a free (after significant shipping and handling fee) framed print of the famous black macaque shot, authorized and lawful in all respects, from here: http://www.picanova.com/monkeyselfie. With 1 GBP about $1.70 donation going to a conservation program for the macaques at Sulawesi islands,

[Vigilant]

Mr. Slater says he has a legal team and that he is determined. Go get 'em Dave!

I have been instructed, by my legal team, to remain tight lipped and not to discuss details of any law suit, however rest assured I have only just started and this case is not going to go away,” said Slater. (http://www.news9.com/story/26405953/mon ... misleading.)

He's also emphasizing that you can get a free (after significant shipping and handling fee) framed print of the famous black macaque shot, authorized and lawful in all respects, from here: http://www.picanova.com/monkeyselfie. With 1 GBP about $1.70 donation going to a conservation program for the macaques at Sulawesi islands,

I don't see the WMF prevailing here.

Willful copyright infringement.
Completely unsympathetic Jimbo gloating will be presented to the court as an unmitigated ass.
David vs Goliath.

Any lawyer worth his salt would have told them they were idiots for doing this in such an obvious and puerile manner.

If the author has the funds to sustain a prolonged campaign, or worse for the WMF, the law firm takes the case contingent, the WMF is going to get a major bloody nose.

Just imagine the stream of photos being shown to a jury wherein multimillionaire Jimbo Wales mocks a hardworking, poor photographer, stealing the fruits of an arduous journey. It writes itself.

Imagine what happens if broad discovery is allowed.
Subpoenas for all and sundry who posted the pic on their page or elsewhere.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

Pretty sure most wikipediots don't have 150 large lying about.

[thekohser]

PETA sues to give monkey the copyright of selfie photos
BY DAVID CRARY, AP NATIONAL WRITER
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22ND 2015

A macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs should be declared the copyright owner of the photos, rather than the nature photographer who positioned the camera, animal-rights activists contend in a novel lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The suit was filed in federal court in San Francisco by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

[Vigilant]

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

[greybeard]

PETA sues to give monkey the copyright of selfie photos
BY DAVID CRARY, AP NATIONAL WRITER
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22ND 2015

A macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs should be declared the copyright owner of the photos, rather than the nature photographer who positioned the camera, animal-rights activists contend in a novel lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The suit was filed in federal court in San Francisco by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

No doubt we'll see an amicus brief from SlimVirgin. Yeesh.