Wikipedia battle to go to court for a selfie ownership

Zangetsu

I am the master of my Fate.
Wikipedia is currently embroiled in a unique legal battle with British Photographer David Slater

Source: Who owns a selfie taken by a monkey? Wikipedia battle to go to court - Tech2

Smile please!!!
Monkey_NEW-624x351.jpg
 

Desmond

Destroy Erase Improve
Staff member
Admin
WTF did I just read.

Technically, the monkey cannot own the picture. The monkey does not even understand the concept of money, let alone the concept of owning things. But since the camera that took the picture was owned by the cameraman, the pic should technically be owned by the cameraman. It should not be public domain until the cameraman puts it willingly to the public domain.
 

RCuber

The Mighty Unkel!!!
Staff member
WTF did I just read.

Technically, the monkey cannot own the picture. The monkey does not even understand the concept of money, let alone the concept of owning things. But since the camera that took the picture was owned by the cameraman, the pic should technically be owned by the cameraman. It should not be public domain until the cameraman puts it willingly to the public domain.

err
 

snap

Lurker
WTF did I just read.

Technically, the monkey cannot own the picture. The monkey does not even understand the concept of money, let alone the concept of owning things. But since the camera that took the picture was owned by the cameraman, the pic should technically be owned by the cameraman. It should not be public domain until the cameraman puts it willingly to the public domain.

yea i read that non-humans cannot own copyrights so it is in public domain :D
 

paroh

Padawan
Wikipedia is currently embroiled in a unique legal battle with British Photographer David Slater

Source: Who owns a selfie taken by a monkey? Wikipedia battle to go to court - Tech2

Smile please!!!
Monkey_NEW-624x351.jpg

This is the first time i see a really very unique picture of a handsome monkey ............................. actually which camera this monkey use to take his snap Chinese or japanese as he can became the brand ambassador for that camera company :lol: & i also appreciate the skill of this monkey.
Actually the photographer should appreciate the monkey and leave the battle with the Wikipedia .
 

Vyom

The Power of x480
Staff member
Admin
I think Monkey should have a testimony in the court. Monkey should have a say if he wants to be the owner of the selfie. The monkey should plead for his rights and demand a bunch of bananas as royalty.
 

snap

Lurker
^^ yea i think it was on some cracked.com article or something :D they pay in bananas it seems :lol:
 

rijinpk1

Aspiring Novelist
it belongs to the photographer
the monkey did not buy the equipment
this is terribly unfair to the photographer

selfie
a photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically one taken with a smartphone or webcam
 

anirbandd

Conversation Architect
So you mean to say, you take my cam/mobile and take a selfie so you will have the rights to that image?? Even though you used equipment i bought? Even when you didnt rent them out? Even when you didnt take my consent??

And the monkey didnt even know what shitstorm it was arousing...
 

anirbandd

Conversation Architect
So.

There are multiple imagea of tigers or lions which were taken by camera traps. The photo was triggered by the tiger or lion or by any other animal for that matter.

Whom do the photos belong to??
 

Anorion

Sith Lord
Staff member
Admin
the forest department, the stock photo agency, or whoever the trap was set up for

If I borrow your cam and take a photo with my other friend, and the "trigger" is the smile detection, and ask you to send it to me, the photo belongs to me first, the person who smiled next (because he triggered the camera), and you last, if at all, even though you own the equipment.

it becomes tricky when any other animal is a human. Those photographers who know and care about copyright, do share credit or attribute if there is human involvement in exactly this scenario, where the photographer does not trigger the shot himself (say trap is triggered by a human in a vehicle).
so if it is published, and it is a respectable publication, the guy who triggered the trap gets credit in the byline along with the photographer.
 

anirbandd

Conversation Architect
Getting mentioned is one thing and making some money out of it whole different thing. The photographer has mentioned that he makes a living out of this. So whereas I'd agree that the monkey gets mentioned in the caption, its highly unethical that Wikipedia has used his roziroti without his permission.

At the end of the day it was the photographer who set up his equipment so that the monkey could take a selfie. And ii highly doubt it was meant to be a selfie. IMO it was an accidental shot. Butit gravitated into this mess.
 
Top Bottom