Monkey selfie & Commons

I've always said that Wikipedia is an anti-humanity website, and this sort of proves it. I guess it's nice that they're also a pro-chimpanzee site, but chimps aren't easily click-baited.

Humans are easily click-baited by chimps, though, which suggests a distinct lack of self-awareness on the part of most Wikipedians:

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 11:41 am

I want to know how much the monkey is getting in royalties.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:05 pm

Well this topic hit primetime news now. Its on WTOP http://www.wtop.com/681/3677537/Monkeys ... ht-dispute

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:27 pm

Soon enough, Wikimedia Commons would be indistinguishable from Flickr or Imgur.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:51 pm

Johnny, if the monkey selfie interests you, here are 484 more articles for you to peruse: link

Who do you think is responsible for what happens in this video: the chimpanzee with the loaded AK-47, or the soldier who gave him the weapon?

Textnyymi · Unread post by **Textnyymi** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 9:17 pm

Is the chimpanzee aware of what that weapon can do? If yes, and if the law considers him responsible, then he is responsible.
If the chimpanzee is not aware, then the soldier who gave him the weapon is responsible, if the law considers him responsible.

Perhaps "allowing firearm accessibility to a chimpanzee" is a misdemeanor?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92687

As for Imgur and Flickr: It appears that a lot of people tend to use internet because they're bored. And don't forget pack behavior: a load of people do this, then some more start doing that, even if it's stupid as heck.
And how is it a bad thing, if the Wikimedia projects become less and less trusted by the public as time goes by?

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:01 pm

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. [...]

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:40 pm

The Planet of the Apes is becoming reality, just not with militant apes.

We will inevitably live with apes.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:03 am

Johnny Au wrote:We will inevitably live with apes.

We already live with apes. The issue here is that if governments were actually functional, instead of the travesty they are now after being mostly captured by massively-wealthy corporate and criminal organizations, they might be able to produce rational, workable rulings on the legal status of semi-intelligent primates, including ownership (or non-ownership) of intellectual property they might create, with or without human facilitation. Instead, they have abdicated their responsibility in this and many other areas, leaving a situation where de facto jurisdiction winds up in the hands of anonymous goons on websites like Wikipedia, the internet in general, and the corporate-controlled media. And of course, for those people, the rights, the livelihood, and/or the reputation of any one person who wants something that's contrary to their agenda is of no consequence whatsoever.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:08 am

Wikipedians have been doing "a thing" at Wikimania where they make a derivative work of David Slater's stolen photograph with themselves in it. I will leave it up to you to coin your own captions for this one.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:49 am

Hex wrote:Wikipedians have been doing "a thing" at Wikimania where they make a derivative work of David Slater's stolen photograph with themselves in it. I will leave it up to you to coin your own captions for this one.

That might be a new level of assholery even for them!

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:49 am

Johnny Au wrote:Soon enough, Wikimedia Commons would be indistinguishable from Flickr or Imgur.

It's quite easy to tell the difference from Flickr. Flickr is responsible; it allows you to hide images unsuitable for children so people can only see them if they are logged in. It lets you delete photos you've uploaded if you want to, with no discussion. It allows you to specify NC and ND licences. It even lets you make it harder (though of course not impossible) for others to download your pictures.

AL1 · Unread post by **AL1** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:45 pm

The irony of this whole situation is that this would be a perfect teaching moment for how vengeful Wikipediots can be. However, the sensational aspect of this story has basically confined it to "weird news" status.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:49 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:
Hex wrote:Wikipedians have been doing "a thing" at Wikimania where they make a derivative work of David Slater's stolen photograph with themselves in it. I will leave it up to you to coin your own captions for this one.

That might be a new level of assholery even for them!

That's useful. Some people will cheer and giggle, but there will be enough who see it for the juvenile prank that it is and will feel disgusted. Not very loving and thoughtful, is it?

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:34 pm

HRIP7 wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:
Hex wrote:Wikipedians have been doing "a thing" at Wikimania where they make a derivative work of David Slater's stolen photograph with themselves in it. I will leave it up to you to coin your own captions for this one.

That might be a new level of assholery even for them!
That's useful. Some people will cheer and giggle, but there will be enough who see it for the juvenile prank that it is and will feel disgusted. Not very loving and thoughtful, is it?

No, it's not. Jimbo is a pig.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 3:13 pm

I believe the photographer has a case. If I were his attorney, I would have argued the case like this:

Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, the WMF refuses to delete the images in question and alleges that " U.S. law means that ‘non-human authors’ do not have the right to automatic copyright of any photographs that they take". It is a wrong interpretation of the law.

First we need to respond this question: is a person who takes an image always a copyright holder of this image? No, it is not the case. Here's one example: let's say a human thief steals somebody's camera and takes some pictures. Would that human thief hold copyrights on the pictures he took with a stolen camera? Of course no. Here we have a similar situation. The photographer did not willingly give the camera to the monkey. The monkey stole the camera, which means that the U.S. law that ‘non-human authors’ do not have the right to automatic copyright of any photographs that they take, does not apply in this case. In other words in this particular situation in order to take the pictures the monkey violated the law, and therefore another law cannot be applied to protect his/her copyrights and/or the absence of such. The images were taken with the stolen property (the camera) and therefore belong to the photographer.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 3:22 pm

Everyone, take a selfie making the same smirk, but on your tablet or monitor, instead of a monkey, have Jimbo's divorce papers showing, or... just be creative -- in a thoughtful, loving, gentle way.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 3:42 pm

neved wrote:First we need to respond this question: is a person who takes an image always a copyright holder of this image? No, it is not the case. Here's one example: let's say a human thief steals somebody's camera and takes some pictures. Would that human thief hold copyrights on the pictures he took with a stolen camera? Of course no.

Wikipedians would unquestionably argue the opposite of that, which is to say that the thief would hold the copyright on such images. Is there any precedent in US or UK/Commonwealth case law for this, either way?

Bear in mind that there are three things you have to do to take a photograph - four, if you include owning the camera - you have to position the camera in space, you have to aim it, and you have to trigger the shutter. The monkey only did one of those things - arguably the least important of the three, from the perspective of a nature photographer. (Triggering the shutter might be more important for, say, a sports or celebrity photographer, but only slightly more.)

The photographer could also argue (potentially) that he was using the monkey as a kind of remote control device, so that to argue that the monkey holds copyright would be similar to claiming that if he has used a more generic remote trigger attachment on the camera, the copyright would be owned by the remote trigger attachment itself. He could extend that argument to say that if an assassin used a remote triggering device to shoot a gun that killed someone, he'd be innocent of the crime of murder and the remote device itself should be locked up in a prison instead of him.

AL1 · Unread post by **AL1** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 3:49 pm

neved wrote:I believe the photographer has a case. If I were his attorney, I would have argued the case like this:

Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, the WMF refuses to delete the images in question and alleges that " U.S. law means that ‘non-human authors’ do not have the right to automatic copyright of any photographs that they take". It is a wrong interpretation of the law.

First we need to respond this question: is a person who takes an image always a copyright holder of this image? No, it is not the case. Here's one example: let's say a human thief steals somebody's camera and takes some pictures. Would that human thief hold copyrights on the pictures he took with a stolen camera? Of course no. Here we have a similar situation. The photographer did not willingly give the camera to the monkey. The monkey stole the camera, which means that the U.S. law that ‘non-human authors’ do not have the right to automatic copyright of any photographs that they take, does not apply in this case. In other words in this particular situation in order to take the pictures the monkey violated the law, and therefore another law cannot be applied to protect his/her copyrights and/or the absence of such. The images were taken with the stolen property (the camera) and therefore belong to the photographer.

Of course, if the folks who decided this had any background in copyright and/or IP law (more than just being able to spout random acronyms), this wouldn't even be an issue. Shit, you could even work this out with an art history degree. How is this picture any different from Duchamp's urinal? I don't want to start a debate on that work's merits or anything, but the idea that this picture is anything other than a 'found object' in that sense is off the mark.

AL1 · Unread post by **AL1** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 3:50 pm

thekohser wrote:

"Call for Pricasso...Pricasso, please check your messages..."

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:00 pm

AL1 wrote:How is this picture any different from Duchamp's urinal? I don't want to start a debate on that work's merits or anything, but the idea that this picture is anything other than a 'found object' in that sense is off the mark.

True, you could also argue that context and intent are the key ingredients of an artistic work, which is to say that the monkey wasn't actually trying to take a photograph so much as he was just playing with the camera like any other toy-like object, and it was the photographer's idea (not the monkey's) to treat the resulting photos as creative works in themselves. But I don't think you can simply overlook the fact that the monkey is a living creature with a brain, either - the counterargument (favored by WPers) will always be that the monkey is just as capable of creating an "accident" as the photographer is, and that an accident is just as artistically viable, contextually, as any other means of taking a photograph.

In other words, if I'm the photographer, I'm probably going to avoid any legal argument that might suggest the photos were an accident. Instead I'm going to say that I traveled to where the monkey lived, I put the camera there, I aimed it at the monkey, and I deliberately allowed the monkey to trip the shutter. No accident at all.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:16 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
neved wrote:First we need to respond this question: is a person who takes an image always a copyright holder of this image? No, it is not the case. Here's one example: let's say a human thief steals somebody's camera and takes some pictures. Would that human thief hold copyrights on the pictures he took with a stolen camera? Of course no.
Wikipedians would unquestionably argue the opposite of that, which is to say that the thief would hold the copyright on such images. Is there any precedent in US or UK/Commonwealth case law for this, either way?

Well,there are laws about stolen property. It is reasonable to assume that, if it is illegal to receive stolen property (and it is), it is also illegal to receive goods (images in this case) that were made by means of stolen property.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 6:23 pm

Wikipedia Defends the Monkey Selfie
By Jay Caspian Kang
The New Yorker, 8 August 2014 link

In the nineteen-twenties, F. W. Champion, a British photographer, adventurer, and officer in the Imperial Forestry Service, developed a novel way to photograph India’s wildlife population. With the help of a tame elephant named Balmati, Champion roved the forests of India. When he found a well-travelled tiger route, he would set up a camera rigged up with trip wires, and leave it there overnight. (As Champion wrote in his book “With a Camera in Tiger-Land,” “pictures of tigers by daylight are not truly representative of such nocturnal beasts.”) When an unsuspecting beast would duff the line, the camera’s shutter and a flash bulb would go off, creating what might today be called an animal selfie. [...] In 2011, Slater was visiting a park in Indonesia when a crested black macaque got a hold of one of his cameras. “They were quite mischievous, jumping all over my equipment,” Slater told the Telegraph, “and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button.” The result was hundreds of macaque selfies. The best of the images—a female macaque grinning toothily into the lens—went viral shortly thereafter, inspiring hundreds of memes and online jokes before the monkey, sadly, went the way of the Dramatic Squirrel.

This week, the grinning monkey selfie returned to the news when Wikimedia, the nonprofit organization behind Wikipedia, refused Slater’s request to take the photos down from Wikimedia Commons, an online repository of free images. According to Wikimedia’s Web site, anyone who downloads the monkey selfie, or any of the millions of images on the site, can “copy, use and modify any files here freely as long as they follow the terms specified by the author; this often means crediting the source and author(s) appropriately and releasing copies/improvements under the same freedom to others.” If Slater, as the photographer, had said that he wanted the photos taken down, Wikimedia most likely would have complied. The question that arose was whether Slater, who had not held the camera, set up the shot, or pressed the shutter, could be considered the photographer at all. Wikimedia’s position on this was clear: in the licensing conditions found at the bottom of the grinning monkey selfie, they write, “This file is in the public domain because (and the rest is in bold) as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested.” [...] In the most basic and, perhaps, most outdated reading of United States copyright law, whoever pushes the button on the camera owns the copyright to the image produced, which means that if tourists ask you take a photo of them at the Hoover Dam, and you happen to hit the shutter button at the exact moment that Kanye West goes flying by strapped to a jet pack, you, as the photographer, would get to sell that image to TMZ. The tourists do not get credit for asking you to take the photo, or for owning the camera on which it was taken. [...]

All this has been complicated by the advent of surveillance cameras, smart phones, and, perhaps most relevantly, large-scale photography projects for which assistants often press the shutter button on work that will be attributed to their boss. Slater seems to be thinking along those lines. He claims that buying the cameras, spending thousands of pounds to transport himself to Indonesia, and performing the act of neglect that allowed the monkeys to steal his cameras entitles him to full authorship of the image, regardless of who pushed the button. “In law, if I have an assistant then I still own the copyright,” he told the “Today” show. “I believe there’s a case to be had that the monkey was my assistant.” [...] In the introduction to “With a Camera in Tiger-Land,” Champion thanks his elephant, who carried him and his cameras through the forest and kept him company while he set up his shots. “What merit there may be in the pictures illustrating this book is largely due to two factors,” he writes. “The help of that splendid cow elephant, Balmati, who is frequently mentioned in the text, and to the excellent flashlight apparatus invented by Mr. Nesbit, of New York.” [...] In the case of Mr. Slater and the macaques, the roles of the human and the beast have been reversed. [...]

I used to think The New Yorker was a serious publication. Now, when I pick up a copy in some physician's waiting room, I find it full of thoughtless fluff like the above.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:07 pm

Mancunium wrote:
Who do you think is responsible for what happens in this video: the chimpanzee with the loaded AK-47, or the soldier who gave him the weapon?

I do believe we have discovered the dumbest person in the world.

Remember: automatic rifles with full clips and their safeties off don't kill people — chimpanzees do!

RfB

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Aug 09, 2014 4:32 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Mancunium wrote:
Who do you think is responsible for what happens in this video: the chimpanzee with the loaded AK-47, or the soldier who gave him the weapon?

I do believe we have discovered the dumbest person in the world.

Remember: automatic rifles with full clips and their safeties off don't kill people — chimpanzees do!

RfB

*cough*
This was a viral fake promotional video for the movie Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:40 am

Zoloft wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Mancunium wrote:
Who do you think is responsible for what happens in this video: the chimpanzee with the loaded AK-47, or the soldier who gave him the weapon?

I do believe we have discovered the dumbest person in the world.

Remember: automatic rifles with full clips and their safeties off don't kill people — chimpanzees do!

RfB
*cough*
This was a viral fake promotional video for the movie Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Awww, I was gonna go with a Planet of the Apes joke, too...

t

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sat Aug 09, 2014 8:38 pm

Admin Y (T-C-L), who is also Assistant General Counsel at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, added the image to his user page, so his apparent legal opinion is that David Slater doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Sat Aug 09, 2014 8:44 pm

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.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Sat Aug 09, 2014 9:10 pm

Here's an archival link from Marxisthistory.org (and kudos to whomever directly linked it in the other thread) that is a broader view of Jimbo at the moment he took the selfie with the Macaque photo, in which I really think he is taunting Mr. Slater the photographer.

https://archive.today/9lCoQ

May it be presented as evidence of malice should Slater actually bring his case to trial.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:16 am

Triptych wrote:Here's an archival link from Marxisthistory.org (and kudos to whomever directly linked it in the other thread) that is a broader view of Jimbo at the moment he took the selfie with the Macaque photo, in which I really think he is taunting Mr. Slater the photographer.

https://archive.today/9lCoQ

May it be presented as evidence of malice should Slater actually bring his case to trial.

I think it is even worse than just taunting Mr. Slater.
I listened mr. wales speech at the opening, in which he stated:
"Let's not forget that we are really powerful" and then "we have an enormous amount of power" (BTW why encyclopedia should be "powerful" anyway), and then mr. wales stated "we could influence policies" (why encyclopedia should even consider "influencing policies"?)
And then while still talking about the power mr. wales presented the slide about "Monkey's 'selfie" coverage.

Like all hard core wikipedians mr. wales cannot care less about well being of a person (Mr. Slater in this case), and I read that Mr. Slater stated he is in debt.
Mr.wales only cares about keeping his power.

I am afraid Mr. Slater does not stay a chance to win over that all-powerful, so called encyclopedia. It is sad...

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:31 am

Anyone care to take bets on when David Slater (photographer) will get a Wikipedia article? (When you type in David Slater (T-H-L), you get a semi-obscure country singer.)

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:42 am

Photographer David Slater Explains Why He’s Going After Wikimedia Over Monkey Selfie
DL Cade, August 8, 2014
PetaPixel: link

David Slater, the photographer who is currently embroiled in an argument (and quite possibly, soon to be embroiled in a lawsuit) with Wikimedia over the famous ‘monkey selfie’ images, recently spoke to ITN to clarify his position on the whole ‘who owns the copyright’ argument.

After receiving “a lot of free advice,” it looks like he’s leaning more and more towards taking Wikimedia to court over the controversy.
[...]

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 4:51 am

EricBarbour wrote:Anyone care to take bets on when David Slater (photographer) will get a Wikipedia article? (When you type in David Slater (T-H-L), you get a semi-obscure country singer.)

Once the geek army returns home from London in a few days.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 5:41 am

thekohser wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:Anyone care to take bets on when David Slater (photographer) will get a Wikipedia article? (When you type in David Slater (T-H-L), you get a semi-obscure country singer.)
Once the geek army returns home from London in a few days.

I suspect it depends on whether he wins his case. If he does, there will ceertainly be an awful article; if he loses, he will be of no importance.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 6:06 am

Poetlister wrote:I suspect it depends on whether he wins his case. If he does, there will ceertainly be an awful article; if he loses, he will be of no importance.

I suspect the WMF will settle out of court if they're sued over this. This is not the case they want to go to trial with - it's going to make them look pretty bad, and they'll probably lose, too. My guess is they'll pay the guy something in the mid-five figures, one or two of the photos will remain in the public domain, and there will be an agreement between the parties that no wrongdoing occurred.

What they don't want is for people to think about the ramifications of this being allowed to stand, because the more people think about them, the less they're going to like them.

Coat of Many Colours · Unread post by **Coat of Many Colours** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 3:54 pm

Poetlister wrote:I want to know how much the monkey is getting in royalties.

Peanuts I expect, maybe a few of me if he gets lucky ...

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 4:00 pm

Poetlister wrote:I want to know how much the monkey is getting in royalties.

I know, right...
What do you think innocent animals, people, or even inanimate objects should get in terms of compensation if people use their pictures online without permission?
It seems to be being asked more and more these days, when folks can just copy/paste images so easily without regards to rights.

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:21 pm

This has to be one of the dumbest things Wikipedia has done. A monkey has no legal standing, it can't sign contracts and is not capable of owning copyright. So what, do they then think the photo is public domain? Wikipedia's copyright understanding is completely bugfu**.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 1:43 am

Several articles in Amateur Photographer:

Chris Cheesman, PHOTOGRAPHER GOES APE OVER MONKEY SELFIE: WHO OWNS THE COPYRIGHT?

[...] However, copyright law may be on Slater's side if, as he claims, he set up the shoot, even though he didn't physically fire the shutter, according to one copyright expert.

Slater says that, at one stage, a monkey did steal the camera and run away with it, but he claims the picture in question was taken after he had set it up on his tripod.

Legal argument

Whether or not he set up the shoot could be key to any ensuing legal battle, says photography rights lawyer Charles Swan.

Swan told Amateur Photographer (AP): ‘European copyright law requires a photograph to be the author's "own intellectual creation".

‘In simple terms, the author has to leave his "mark" on the image.

‘If a photographer sets up a shot, selecting the background etc, with some mechanism (eg. infrared or shutter release) for an animal to trigger the photograph, that is more likely to be considered an original artistic work with the photographer as the author.

‘If he has set up the picture and the monkey has just clicked the shutter, then that could be his copyright, if the resulting picture is what he set up.

‘Who releases the shutter is neither here nor there in that scenario.

‘It's all down to whether it's your picture, or a random picture taken by a monkey - which means there's no copyright at all.'

Monkey 'played' with shutter release

In 2011, Slater revealed to AP that the shot (one of a series) was - contrary to recent media reports - taken three years before the story hit the headlines that year.

He had been using a Canon EOS 5D DSLR camera with a wideangle zoom lens, set on aperture priority mode (at an aperture of f/8).

Speaking last night, Slater told AP: ‘I wanted a close-up image but I couldn't do it. They were too nervous so I had to get them [the monkeys] to come to the camera without me being there and get them to play with the release, which they did.

‘They were looking at the reflection in the lens which they found amusing...'

Asked whether he gave the remote shutter release to the monkey in the hope it would eventually take a picture, Slater replied, ‘Yeah, I could see that potential.'

In 2011, Slater said the primates had begun playing around with the remote shutter release as he was trying to fend off other monkeys.

This is what Slater was quoted as saying in that article, published 5 July 2011, i.e. two days before the copyright spat with Techdirt began:

A photographer who says he witnessed monkeys taking pictures of themselves, tells Amateur Photographer (AP) that much of the media coverage has been exaggerated.

Wildlife photographer David Slater today played down newspaper reports that suggest a bunch of Indonesian monkeys grabbed his camera and began taking self-portraits.

And he revealed that the shots, featuring the endangered crested black macaque monkey, were taken three years ago.

Speaking to AP, David explained that his camera had been mounted on a tripod when the primates began playing around with a remote ‘cable release’ as he was trying to fend off other monkeys.

The photographer is keen to stress that the monkeys ‘didn’t run off with the camera or anything like that’.

Commenting on today’s media coverage of the pictures David said: ‘There has been a slight exaggeration.’ Though he added: ‘They haven’t been Photoshopped or anything like that… The monkeys were grabbing the camera. They accidentally took the shots.’

David, from Gloucestershire, explained that he had been using a Canon EOS 5D DSLR camera with a wideangle zoom lens.

The 5D was set on aperture priority mode (at an aperture of f/8).

David, 46, said the story emerged only recently when a news agency stumbled across images from a trip he had made to Sulawesi, an island in Indonesia.

Chris Cheesman, Amateur Photographer, PHOTOGRAPHER STRIKES CASH DEAL OVER MONKEY ‘SELFIE’ (UPDATE)

Photographer David Slater, who says he lost thousands after Wikipedia allowed free access to the monkey photo, is set to earn money from the image that will also go towards conservation of the animal.

Amateur Photographer has learned that the Gloucestershire photographer has struck a deal with Picanova, a German printing company that plans to give away a canvas print of the monkey, worth £27.40, to anyone visiting its website.

Slater says a ‘significant percentage' of what he receives from Picanova will go towards the animal's conservation.

Picanova has pledged to donate £1 to a Sulawesi black macaques conservation project for every print ordered.

Picanova benefits by increasing its potential customer base through visits to the site.

The money will go to Selamatkan Yaki (Indonesian for 'Save the Sulawesi crested black macaques'), according to Picanova.

Meanwhile, Slater continues to be embroiled in a copyright battle with Wikipedia.

‘We are trying to support what [Slater] is trying to do,' said Phil Norris, head of international sales at Picanova.

'Solidarity'

Norris said Picanova wants to ‘show solidarity with photographers around the world' over the issue, which may end up in court.

‘As a canvas print company, we work with thousands of photographers and purchase licensed photographs for our business.

'Therefore, this legal spat completely resonates with us. We appreciate how far-reaching the ripples of this legal battle will be, as well as the effect on the livelihoods of our friends in the photography community.'

Last week Slater said he had lost thousands of pounds in potential sales of the image, as a direct result of Wikipedia's actions, adding that it was 'hard to put a figure on'.

In the year after the image was publicised, in 2011, Slater says he earned £1,000 from the agency that ran the story, and £1,000 through print sales.

‘In the past two years I've made about £50. Nobody is interested because it is free...' he told AP. [...]

Note that the 4 July 2011 article in The Guardian, the first quality newspaper to cover the story (which they did interview Slater for) also mentioned the tripod set-up, and that Slater observed the monkeys engaging with the camera for some time.

It seems to me the Foundation's Legal Department based its legal reasoning on tabloid reports that embellished the story (which would make it about as clever as its Engineering and Product Development department), and may well find themselves in a bit of bother if the case does go to court.

They think otherwise. Their best hope is probably Slater's use of the word "accidentally" in the 2011 Amateur Photographer interview. If the matter goes to court, they will claim that Slater is changing his story. His lawyers will probably say that "accidentally" here refers to the monkey's intentions, who pressed the release for its own reasons (perhaps for the sound, or because it was fascinated by the shutter movement in the camera), and could have had no inkling that it was taking a photograph of itself.

But there is no doubt that Slater set the camera up, using a tripod, and that he purposely allowed the monkeys to play with his equipment, resulting in hundreds of pictures taken over a prolonged period of time during which he was intently observing the animals. Sources predating the entire dispute clearly state so.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:58 am

This picture is going to be very lucrative for the photographer, let there be no mistake. He just needs to play his cards carefully and correctly.

WMF will pay him a small pile of cash to settle, but that's only part of it. If he's gracious in victory, David Slater's gonna end up a "name."

WMF does need to have this one shoved up their ass sideways — their legal argument is asinine and they've given the world a dictionary-perfect definition of hubris with their arrogant bullying.

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 3:00 am

Randy from Boise wrote:This picture is going to be very lucrative for the photographer, let there be no mistake. He just needs to play his cards carefully and correctly.

WMF will pay him a small pile of cash to settle, but that's only part of it. If he's gracious in victory, David Slater's gonna end up a "name."

WMF does need to have this one shoved up their ass sideways — their legal argument is asinine and they've given the word a dictionary-perfect definition of hubris with their arrogant bullying.

RfB

Anyone wanna bet that individuals get subpoenaed?

Unread post by **tarantino** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 3:55 am

Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:This picture is going to be very lucrative for the photographer, let there be no mistake. He just needs to play his cards carefully and correctly.

WMF will pay him a small pile of cash to settle, but that's only part of it. If he's gracious in victory, David Slater's gonna end up a "name."

WMF does need to have this one shoved up their ass sideways — their legal argument is asinine and they've given the word a dictionary-perfect definition of hubris with their arrogant bullying.

RfB
Anyone wanna bet that individuals get subpoenaed?

Alexander Kerdman, Assistant General Counsel at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, AKA adminstrator Y (T-C-L), Crzrussian (T-C-L) and NYC_JD (T-C-L), misappropriated the image to decorate his user page.

It's also misappropriated by the administrators Michel Aaij AKA Drmies (T-C-L) and Lukas Pietch AKA Future Perfect at Sunrise (T-C-L).

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 3:06 pm

tarantino wrote:Alexander Kerdman, Assistant General Counsel at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, AKA adminstrator Y (T-C-L), Crzrussian (T-C-L) and NYC_JD (T-C-L), misappropriated the image to decorate his user page.

It's also misappropriated by the administrators Michel Aaij AKA Drmies (T-C-L) and Lukas Pietch AKA Future Perfect at Sunrise (T-C-L).

I cached those three links at Archive.today just in case things start disappearing. Here're Y (https://archive.today/bEfxK), Drmies (oops, I actually don't see it there) and the annoyingly long-named "Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise" (https://archive.today/JTPDU).

Kerdman's "Crazy Russian" account (Crzrussian) has an interesting block history. He was blocked for a measly hour for "spamming" by Cyde who then about-faced in one minute because he realized Czrussian was an administrator. Double-standard much? And then when blocked a single day by Fred Bauder for "nasty personal attack" he unblocks *himself* within five minutes. Here's his block log under the Crzrussian account.

* 03:59, 22 February 2007 Redux (talk | contribs) blocked Crzrussian (talk | contribs) (anon. only, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (Per user request. Abandoning account.)
* 04:33, 7 August 2006 Crzrussian (talk | contribs) unblocked Crzrussian (talk | contribs)
* 04:28, 7 August 2006 Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) blocked Crzrussian (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attack (rather nasty one))
* 19:59, 25 June 2006 Cyde (talk | contribs) unblocked Crzrussian (talk | contribs) (I didn't realize you were a sysop .. .but please stop the spamming :-()
* 19:58, 25 June 2006 Cyde (talk | contribs) blocked Crzrussian (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 hour (Stop talk page spamming)

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 3:37 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:This picture is going to be very lucrative for the photographer, let there be no mistake. He just needs to play his cards carefully and correctly.

WMF will pay him a small pile of cash to settle, but that's only part of it. If he's gracious in victory, David Slater's gonna end up a "name."

WMF does need to have this one shoved up their ass sideways — their legal argument is asinine and they've given the world a dictionary-perfect definition of hubris with their arrogant bullying.

It's his life and his livelihood and his lawyers but if he realizes his lawsuit is winnable and particularly if he can punitive in addition to actual damages, I hope he doesn't settle for a small pile of cash. I think he has a case that could perhaps win over a jury: "struggling photographer pushed around and laughed at by megabucks charity." Punitive damages are generally set by the jury (they can be modified by the judge) and are based on how much punishment needs to be applied to the defendant to change its behavior. WMF will laugh at a $30,000 settlement or so and fork it over from the coffee tin in the office, and go right back to pushing around the next little guy or gal whose property they misappropriate. It would take millions to make the WMF even blink. They are rich.

Punitive damages come into play when the plaintiff can make the case that the defendant(s) actions have been especially egregious. So like you said Randy some of the official statements by the WMF regarding the photo have been carefully-parsed and an argumentatively simplified and erroneous portrayal of what Slater actually did on his expedition to Indonesia. I've read it claimed in some reports that WMF has based its portrayal on sensationalist early reports by The Daily Mail. The egregious behavior is demonstrated I think by the behavior of the Wikimania participants snapping selfies with the professional-quality placards with the black macaque's grinning image. Consider the timing and all the news stories going on and the WMF's dismissive responses to Slater's pleas. What these Wikimania participants are doing is laughing at Slater. "We've taken your property, now watch us mock you by flaunting it."

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?