Wikipedia battle to go to court for a selfie ownership

[Anorion]

yep. I actually agree with you, and respect artists and creative people, and believe they should get the returns for their investment.

but the thing is, if it were a human instead of a monkey, the selfie would have belonged to the human, despite whatever cost of travel and equipment that was borne by the photographer. But I agree that Wikipedia editors are no body to take such decisions.

 

[anirbandd]

yes.. that it was a monkey made an ocean of difference. Wikipedia editors did an unethical thing by hastily uploading it on wikimedia.

 

[Anorion]

they fought among themselves, and constantly switched between keeping it up and taking it down

some photos just get into the wild, and belong to everybody, despite efforts by the creators to take control of the situation

some recent examples - the dog on top of himalayas, OP forgot to watermark it, and it just escaped into the net. philosoraptor was designed by a small 2 guy t-shirt company.

 

[Inceptionist]

This whole thing is hilarious. I hope someone makes a movie about it.

 

[anirbandd]

they fought among themselves, and constantly switched between keeping it up and taking it down

some photos just get into the wild, and belong to everybody, despite efforts by the creators to take control of the situation

some recent examples - the dog on top of himalayas, OP forgot to watermark it, and it just escaped into the net. philosoraptor was designed by a small 2 guy t-shirt company.

eh? link please!!

wanna see it.

 

[Anorion]

story of the Himalayan Dog picture going viral, documents the frustration of the photographer not putting the watermark > Sebastian Wahlhuetter Photoblog

the story of the copyrighted philosoraptor image, that became a meme, and is used as a public domain image > 403 Forbidden

home page of the shirt with the original design > Philosoraptor Shirt - Funny Shirts By Lonely Dinosaur – Lonely Dinosaur Organic T-Shirts

 

[Vyom]

The US copyright regulators have confirmed Wikipedia's conclusion that a picture taken by a monkey or any other animal cant be copyrighted by the photographer who owns the camera.

Monkey selfie cannot be copyrighted, says US regulator | Digit.in

Monkey won. Now.. as I said...

The monkey should plead for his rights and demand a bunch of bananas as royalty.

 

[singleindian]

these copyright laws should be changed.Poor Photographer

 

[Anorion]

agree, but the photographer, should have watermarked the image from his side, forget wikipedia, it could have been used anywhere in the wild. As a professional, he should have known this. That is what I have come to believe after the US regulator judgment, and learning from the previous examples where this has happened.

 

[singleindian]

agree, but the photographer, should have watermarked the image from his side, forget wikipedia, it could have been used anywhere in the wild. As a professional, he should have known this. That is what I have come to believe after the US regulator judgement, and learning from the previous examples where this has happened.

this photo got famous because the monkey took it.and copyright laws says it only applies to humans taking photos.so how can watermarking it makes a difference.the photo still cant be copyrighted right?

 

[TechnoBOY]

+1 to [MENTION=56202]Anorion[/MENTION] and Its Wikimedia not Wikipedia[not sure]

 

[anirbandd]

Its the wiki group.,. Media or pedia. Lol

 

[Anorion]

this photo got famous because the monkey took it.and copyright laws says it only applies to humans taking photos.so how can watermarking it makes a difference.the photo still cant be copyrighted right?

this is about control over the photo by the photographer. the photographer was in possession of the photo even though copyright is owned by nobody/the monkey. Yep, the photograph cannot be copyrighted, but the photographer could have ensured that credit to him is permanently attached by never releasing a copy without a watermark. Additionally, wikimedia would not have used the watermarked image.

 

[TechnoBOY]

Its the wiki group.,. Media or pedia. Lol

Wikipedia is like encyclopedia,but Wikimedia is as a whole *www.wikimedia.org/

 

[anirbandd]

Wikipedia is like encyclopedia,but Wikimedia is as a whole *www.wikimedia.org/

Wiki wiki.. What are you pointing at?

 

[Anorion]

wiki is a software for mass collaborative edits, was there for years before wikipedia
wikipedia is an encyclopedia is a web site that uses that software
wikimedia commons is a resource pool for creative commons licensed media, used in various web sites, only one of which is wikipedia

yes, the fight is between wikimedia commons and the photographer, not wikipedia.

 

[singleindian]

this is about control over the photo by the photographer. the photographer was in possession of the photo even though copyright is owned by nobody/the monkey. Yep, the photograph cannot be copyrighted, but the photographer could have ensured that credit to him is permanently attached by never releasing a copy without a watermark. Additionally, wikimedia would not have used the watermarked image.

Ok,but can he make money by selling it?

 

[Anorion]

hmm tricky question.. but answer is yes, only no one would be willing to buy it now because it's already in the wild without a watermark
just to be clear, the image cannot be copyrighted under US copyright laws (even by the monkey), it may be different for the country the photographer stays in, or wants to sell the image in, and watermarking is a way of exerting control over the photo irrespective of the status of the copyright, or despite the copyright clearly being held by nobody

 

[Anorion]

uhh... so discovered that this has happened.

*i.imgur.com/S1YTrLU.jpg

The credit for that photo is given to the monkey (Koko)

 

[Desmond]

All's well that ends well.