Talk:Monkey selfie copyright dispute

Monkey selfies and Wiki-ethics

I admit-- I'm one of those people who heard about the copyright dispute on NPR's This American Life last weekend. I trust TAL to tell a fair and balanced story, with proper regard for both sides in a dispute, but I still went and read other sources including this page. I remain disturbed by the logic and the precedent set here-- by Wikimedia and our community, not the courts.

Because something is (arguably) legal does not make it right. Don't we have values as a community, in addition to legal rights? Here we're taking an action-- posting this photo without resolving the dispute with Mr. Slater-- that has a real, tangible, negative effect on a human being. It has no real, tangible effect on the monkey, positive or negative. It has a tangible BENEFIT for Wikipedia, but surely another photo of the crested macaques would deliver the same benefit? (That is, informing and enlightening the page readers.) So what we're left with is a spiteful and legalistic rationale for our actions: you can't technically STOP me from exploiting your work, you can't afford to fight it all the way through the court system, and (worst) your work will be rendered valueless anyway by the fact of my exploitation-- so even if you win, you lose.

I could come up with a dozen parallel situations where the stated legal logic makes no sense:

1. If I'm an artist and I put a canvas on the ground, and paint my cat's feet different colors, and then position the cat in front of the canvas and watch as it walks across the canvas-- you're telling me that becomes the copyright of the cat… and thus public domain?
2. If I'm an architect and I tell my computer to render something, based on certain specifications I put in, and it produces a 3-D drawing-- you're telling me that becomes the copyright of my Macbook… and thus public domain?
3. If I'm a photographer and I set up a camera to take pictures in response to sounds, and I place it in a room of birds, and it takes pictures of the birds in response to their tweets, you're telling me that becomes the copyright of the birds… and thus public domain?

I could go on, but you can see: the logic is absurd. The monkey didn't create the photo; the monkey pushed the button. The artist has a creative intent, and sets conditions by which that intent is expressed in the world. The mere fact of the monkey pushing the button is impossible without the artist purchasing of the camera, delivery of the camera to the location, the lens setting, the film, the battery pack, the socialization, the development, the framing, the promotion. Put another way: Wikimedia would never had access to the photo in question, except through the actions of the artist.

Was there an artist, and did the artist set out to create the conditions to produce a monkey selfie, as a work of art? YES. Is there real and tangible harm to the artist as a result of Wikimedia's actions? YES. Is there real and tangible harm to the monkey? NO. (It has no idea.) Could Wikimedia take reasonable action to avert the harm to the artist and still secure the benefit of a photo? YES.

So what we're left with is a spiteful action by which we're causing harm to someone and their livelihood by cowering behind fine delineations of law. Is it legal? I dunno, maybe. But it's spiteful and petty, and it cuts the knees out from under good people who fuel the information and imagery that power Wikipedia.

(I think this discussion IS relevant to this page topic and to the use of this image on Wikipedia. I'm not going to remove the image myself-- that also wouldn't be consistent with our values-- but please don't shunt this discussion to another page.) Stringbean121 (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Stringbean121: I agree with a lot of what you've said here, but you've really posted it on the wrong page. This page is for discussing the contents of the Wikipedia article itself, not internal Wikipedia/Wikimedia decision-making regarding use of the photograph(s). That being said, if you're curious, my own essay on this subject can be found here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Key to keep in mind is what's done is done. Some editor at commons made a claim the image could not qualify for copyright, the situation got wide notarity, and then the Copyright Office revised its language to specifically note the case. If I were that original editor I probably would have erred on treating them as non-free until we got more details from the Copyright office, which would have avoided everything since, but that is not what happened. We can't "take back" that, particularly since the organization that would have to legal defend WP if there was a suit, the WMF, has agreed with the stance it was non-copyrightable. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The US copyright office ruled that a picture created entirely by a monkey isn't eligible for copyright, but in this case, where the photographer set up the camera, adjusted all the settings, and claims to have been holding the tripod, it has not ruled that this particular picture counts as being created by a monkey. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, except it wasn't really created by the monkey, was it? Surely "a picture created entirely by a monkey" is not possible. How would it know how to retrieve it from the camera? A digital file that resides in the memory of a camera is not "a picture", is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, and no court has actually ruled on that issue, there is just one (potentially soon-to-be-vacated) ruling that a monkey is incapable of holding copyright and a pamphlet indicating that artistic works created by animals cannot register for copyright in the US. Nothing specific to this photo other than a decision by WMF legal. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether something is a "picture" is not a meaningful question of copyright law. For what it's worth, the threshold question on whether a work meets the physical requirement for copyright eligibility in the US is whether it is "fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which [it] can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). Whether the monkey retrieved it from the camera, was capable of retrieving it from the camera, or whether someone else retrieved it from the camera is a red herring, and completely irrelevant. TJRC (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I see. So when exactly does the "act of creation" end? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The "act of creation" ended when the monkey triggered the shutter release. When looking at any additional processing, normal actions that anyone who has photography skills can do (adjusting the color balance, cropping, removing the memory card and uploading the image to a computer) is not an "act of creation". Some kinds of image manipulation require creativity, and thus are generally considered part of the "act of creation". --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

So no intentionality, or even understanding, is required. And what about all that lugging of a camera to Indonesia, taking off the lens cap, and so on? Isn't this "act of creation" at least some kind of joint enterprise? Perhaps the monkey was secretly hoping to cash in on the controversy and so deliberately kept a low profile? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

If the above argument is valid, then Canon owns the copyright. They did a lot more work creating the camera than Slater did lugging it to Indonesia. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Except that cameras don't move themselves around, point themselves at something interesting and release their own shutter. And I'm pretty sure cameras aren't awarded copyright on the pictures taken on them, very often. But you never know. I mean most people, I think, would see that Slater did most of the work? Ok, maybe if the monkey had run off and taken a picture of a nearby waterfall, that would have been a true "artistic creation". I guess the macaque could recognise itself in the lens (possibly?), but it was only looking into it and reacting to the mirrored image? It had (and still has), no idea that it was capturing an image of itself or "creating" anything at all. I'd suggest that an elephant creating a mural would be far more self-aware it had created something. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Background section

Per: this content - 4 July 2011 Telegraph is a mix of out of context Slater quotes and the writers comments. Claim that a specific male stealing the camera made the selfi is not stated there by Slater. I inserted more material, we need to use secondary sources describing this media coverage, we can not compare and contrast historical contemporaneous media reports to throw aspersions at Slater's veracity, that is specifically WP:OR, and note the contemporaneous Daily mail article cited contradicts The Telegraph - saying (the selfie) was shot by a female "known for their intelligence and dexterity"..... "Fascinated by her reflection in the lens". He describes the males actions in that article as well showing the selfi incident and the "male stealing the camera" incident are two different events. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A difficulty is that everything that happened with the photos is going to be based on what Slater is quoted to have said. And that likely means there is going to be a pre-Commons upload version, a post-Commons Upload/pre-WMF response version, a post-WFM/pre-PETA version, and a post-PETA version, and possibly more. And because we're "involved" we should be extremely careful here.

I absolutely agree above we cannot try to take the statements from these different periods to try to compare and contrast. That is 100% OR, and in this very specific case, an unethical practice. My suggestion is that the background should only use Slater's comments pre-Commons Upload, and then use the appropriate versions in the other sections (in where he argued his creative involvement), without trying to apply logic like "he changed his story", barring reliable, secondary sources making that stance. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree, I also noticed that the accounts that are claimed to have varied, Daily Mail, Telegraph, Amateur Photographer, are "pre-copywrite conflict" news articles and therefor not Slater CYA (he didn't have a dispute yet). Also noticed Telegraph is not the first account as claimed, Daily Mail by-line predates it. Need to get these accounts in chronological order with noted variances and maybe some more up to date RS about a veracity dispute, if there is one. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It would be extremely helpful if there was an RS that stated, in their secondary nature "Slater's accounts of the incident have changed over the timeframe of the copyright dispute." when then sets up a means to have a section to try to document the history (without our interpretation of what changed) of Slater's statements in the background. Everything as of early July 2011, pre the copyrigh dispute, however should be presented as is. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

We do have such a source. "[Slater] has since changed his story to make it appear that he had more of a role in the photo, but that was not his original story at all".[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have asked for more input here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Monkey selfie copyright dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

As Techdirt is involved in the story, I wouldn't consider them "independent" here. We'd need a different source. --MASEM (t) 04:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to use Techdirt you need to attribute it, but I am iffy about using a source that uses the Daily Myth as a source and I note it is the DM saying he left it unattended, not Slater).Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

We are not to use The Daily Mail as a source, even for direct quotes. Anything that The Daily Mail says must be assumed to be a lie, and any direct quote published by The Daily Mail must be assumed to be fabricated. This includes using an article in The Daily Mail as a reason to word a Wikipedia article in a certain way, even if no Daily Mail citation is used. See WP:DAILYMAIL to see why this decision was made.

The source for "the crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away" is The Telegraph. No reason other than "The Daily Mail says something else" has been put forth for removing this sourced statement. Slater saying that "He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back" is a direct quote sourced in The Telegraph. No reason other than "The Daily Mail says something else" has been put forth for removing this sourced direct quote. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"We are not to use The Daily Mail as a source, even for direct quotes. "

I don't know where you get that from. Certainly not WP:DAILYMAIL. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There is zero problem in using a cited DM article that is known to have caused an effect (here the popularity of the monkey selfie) as long as other sources point that fact out. We're not using any material from DM, just a pointer for researchers to know specifically which article. That's completely fine under the DM "ban". --MASEM (t) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: "We are not to use The Daily Mail as a source, even for direct quotes", what part of Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. are you having trouble understanding?

Here is an example, from Daily Mail censured for fictional story about Amanda Knox verdict in The Guardian:

• "The Mail's website reported that Knox has lost her appeal against her conviction for murdering Meredith Kercher when, in fact, she had been successful. [...] These included quotes attributed to the prosecutors apparently reacting to the guilty verdict, and the description of the reaction in the courtroom to the news, stating that Knox 'sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears'. It further stated that the family of Meredith Kercher 'remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family'. The newspaper apologised for the mistake. It said that it was standard practice in such high-profile cases for two alternative stories (plus supporting quotes) to be prepared in advance"

So we now know that it is standard practice for The Daily Mail to fabricate direct quotes. Add that to the many examples of photoshopped images and the conclusion is inescapable; we cannot trust anything written in The Daily Mail.

Also, Fountains of Bryn Mawr is not "using a cited DM article that is known to have caused an effect". He is using it as a source to justify deleting material from The Telegraph. Here is where he makes that argument:[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

You really can't have your sources and cherry pick them to. A secondary source says the original news outlets involved were "The Daily Mirror, The Sun and The Daily Mail"[3]. techdirt.com (a source you want to use) gives their "source" showing that Slater "changed his story" as---> the Daily Mail. So the The Daily Mirror, The Sun, The Daily Mail, and The Telegraph[4] all need to be cited/quoted as the origins of the story, that's what other sources tell us. We are not citing them for their reliability, we are citing them as the elements in a historical event (without interpreting them). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There is one point to be aware of with the Daily Mail that Guy's getting at: we should not use any quotes from it for anything said by Slater. (Which when I last read, we aren't.) --MASEM (t) 22:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No but we should not use (to my min d) a source that quotes them either, at least not without attribution. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we make this a featured article?

Who will help me make this a featured article? I can't lie, it cheered me up on a 'down' night...many people should read this article and enjoy the slightly irreverent nature of the whole debacle (Sorry PETA/Jimbo if you're taking it seriously!) AMightierHeart (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well Slater seems to be taking it seriously, as he claims it's ruined him. But then he's only a lowly wildlife photographer, not a Wikipedia editor? Or was. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we not soapbox, and this is about the worst rational I have ever seen for a FA request.12:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Something suggested that Slater was quite an integral part of this story. I don't feel personally responsible for ruining his career. Do you think FA nomination would be just gloating? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea, but "being funny" is not a rational to my mind for FA.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

So long as the article is balanced and provides the arguments for and against, I don't think it can realistically be considered gloating; it's really just the absurdity of the idea of a legal debate over whether or not a monkey can own a copyright (How exactly does one purchase rights from him? If he accepts the outstretched banana, is that indicative of consent? Does he need a legal team appointed to defend the monkey's interests?) AMightierHeart (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Historians may find it remarkable that in this document from a US court, a celebes crested macaque is named as the plaintiff in a court action and it isn't April 1. It's surprising that a US court allowed this, albeit "by and through his Next Friends", ie PETA. The article could use some clarification of why this was allowed. If a monkey can't hold a copyright in the USA, why can it be the plaintiff in a lawsuit in California?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess things are different in Hollywood? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well obviously the big issue that isn't being addressed yet is whether Slater has the right to face and challenge his accuser in court, and if so, will California issue a Summons to Appear to the monkey? :D AMightierHeart (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I was under the impression that in California if you want to file a "by and through his Next Friends" lawsuit you had to hire a process server and serve papers to your "Friend". Are there exceptions for the handicapped (I am thinking of recent lawsuits filed in behalf of someone in a coma or in behalf of a frozen embryo)? If so, who decided that the Plaintiff doesn't need to be notified? I would not be happy if someone decided they are "Attorneys for Plaintiff" and filed a lawsuit on my behalf without my permission. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't give me that "forgot to tell me" legal monkey business. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC) N.B. the copyright of this image is held by leading wildlife photographer Steve Bloom, but is clearly attributed.

I'm not sure whether California has that rule, but if so, it would not be applicable here. This suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; which is a federal court located in California, not a California court. Federal rules, not California rules, apply. TJRC (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "allowed" - the suit was dismissed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Curious about current legal status of image?

Hi, I'm just curious about the current legal status of this image. From what I can see, the last comments on this page appear to be from 2017, and from what I gather, there were some court rulings in 2018.

Or are there some details I'm missing here? I'm just a little confused, and have tried my best to read up on this. Please note that I am generally retired from Wikipedia and no longer making active edits on articles; having followed this story for some time, I was just interested in knowing / clarifying what the official position on this image is today.

Thanks! Sturgeontransformer (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What would an "official" position be? So far there isn't one, because no court has ruled on it. No US court, no UK court. Certainly Wikimedia Commons' decision carries no weight beyond Commons, except that en:Wikipedia seems to have gone along with it too, as did Wikimania. COM:PRP has been ignored completely.

There are several rulings of relevance to some aspects, but none of these have directly addressed Slater's claims that that works are copyrightable, and that he (a human, not a macaque) holds that copyright. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Key is that none of the court rulings have changed the previous decision from the Copyright office - that animals can't hold copyright. So for all purposes, we're going to follow the standing copyright office ruling which is that this is a PD image. --Masem (t) 00:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Why does WP keep repeating that excuse, as if it had any relevance?

Slater is a human, he claims to own the copyright. No court (AFAIK) has ever ruled on that question. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed that a monkey cannot hold rights to the image [5], while the Copyright office specifically says pictures taken by animals cannot be copyrighted. So Slater may claim to own it, but he has to demonstrate to the court that the Copyright office's stance is wrong. That hasn't been done. --Masem (t) 02:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Once again, you mis-represent the court. The court has never ruled that photographs of animals or by animals cannot attract copyright, merely that the animal can't be the one holding it. That has no relevance for Slater's claim.

Also there is no requirement for a court to rule on its copyright before images are assumed to carry it. If you wish to make some legal claim that it does not, then that's the aspect which would have to be tested in court.

Additionally, Commons doesn't work by legal proof of copyright, but by COM:PRP instead. That is a much stricter requirement. Copyright must not only be clear for our free use of the image, but there must be no significant doubt over this. A case such as Slater's, with repeated approaches to a court and still no clear result, can only be described as wrapped in doubts. Commons should not host these, just because of PRP, even without a judgement. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

And actually there's yet a new wrickel, speaking OR-ly and IANAL-ly: The Supreme Court ruled last week in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com that copyright infringement cases cannot start until the Copyright office registers the copyright (that case is here [6]. This means that if Slater is going to take legal action against WMF (for example), he would have to get the Copyright office to accept registration of the photos, which is clearly not going to happen based on their current stance. Meaning that Slater would have to take the Copyright Office to court to challenge that ruling. --Masem (t) 02:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Slater has talked about suing Wikipedia, but since the image is hosted under US law, this looks unlikely to succeed. Some lawyers have said that he would have a better chance under European copyright law. But I think we've seen enough rich lawyers over this. The current status of the image hosted on Wikipedia isn't much different from the one described in the article, as there have been no major developments in the last twelve months.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If Slater has copyright in either country, the US or the country of publication, then Commons is very clear that the images can't be hosted. There is absolutely no wiggle room on Commons for any of "he needs to prove this in US law", "he needs to prove it first", "he won't actually sue us". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that 1) the WMF has said they are going to consider the image to be uncopyrightable, and thus implicitly stating we can host it (footing any bill that a legal issue arises), and 2) this is a similar issue as National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute whhere, again, WMF has backed the use of what one group claimed was copyrighted but the WMF said was not... it should not be our concern what Slater claims. If at the end of this, Slater emerges as the copyright holder to the photos, the WMF will be the organization to satisfy any damages. It's clear that the photos aren't going back into the genie bottle, and Slater would have a hard time on further prosecution, but he certainly can attemtpt to recover monetary damages. But again, at this point, if he wants to claim copyright, he will have to prove it first in court. He has not taken any legal action on his own to prove or disprove this. --Masem (t) 14:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• COM:PRP §1 is quite specific that, "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to." is against Commons' aims. Yet you seem to be advocating just that. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• And the WMF has protactively told use to presume there is no copyright owner, since the photo was taken by the animal and the US Copyright office says this is completely ineligible. That puts the legal onus on the WMF, not us. --Masem (t) 14:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• That's not only unsourced, and right against PRP, it's not even a word. I have no idea what you mean, if you're going to begin some process of, "legal argument by making up words". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• All I am trying to say is that in the past dispute with this image, WMF has proactively (i misspelled before :P) said that they believe the photo can't be copyrighted, regardless of Slater's claims, and supported the decision to keep the file at Commons. WMF is basically telling us "keep the file, there is no copyright owner, under US copyright". That was a long discussion years ago, under the same concerns of "Will Slater sue WMF?" and the image was kept. --Masem (t) 15:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• A proactive decision to pre-empt a legal decision? I did wonder if that was what you meant, but it made even less sense.

It's sometimes said that a plaintiff who acts as their own lawyer "has a fool for a client", but I wonder what the term is for one who thinks they can act as the judge as well?

My point is here, how does any of that sit alongside our supposed policy of COM:PRP? It assumes the law, it claims that the law (whichever way it falls) is clear, and it acts on the basis that Slater will not sue. All of those are against the clear statements of PRP.

Does PRP need to be replaced by, "PRP will not apply, so long as someone makes a vague handwave claim that WMF have decided for themselves that the law of just one country, is both clear and against the complainant, and that the laws of any other host countries will be ignored too." Because that's what implied by that statement. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

First off, the WMF's statement is sourced: [7] (search for the Monkey entry, dated Jan 2014). And if the WMF says so - and they're the ones on the hook for any misassignment, then there's no reason to follow their claim. I would completely agree that if the claim that the photo has no copyright owner cam only from editors and contributors to commons, all other factors the same, then COM:PRP would say we should delete. But with legal experts at WMF making that determination, that changes the subject. --Masem (t) 15:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• That is no sort of source for what you're claiming. We received a takedown request from the photographer, claiming that he owned the copyright to the photographs. We didn't agree, so we denied the request.

That's just a source that WMF rejected Slater's letter, not a claim that WMF has some legal argument that his actual claim was invalid, or the claim Masem is making that WMF have come to some sort of legal judgement (and of course, they simply have no capacity to do so). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Masem is entirely correct. to the above I would add that, despite the WMF having $113 million USD in assets, Slater has never followed through with his threats to sue the WMF. There are many lawyers who would take such a case on a contingency basis if they thought he had a chance of winning, and there is no US law that prevents him from filing a case. A court may very well reject a case once it is filed, and may even sanction the filer if his lawsuit is frivolous, but in the US pretty much any private individual or organization is allowed to file a lawsuit against any other private individual or organization. The "it was thrown out of court" step comes after filing a lawsuit, not after threatening to file a lawsuit. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• You think that Slater's ability to sue is based on the wealth of the target, rather than his personal wealth? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Absolutely. And I am right. Nobody wants to sue an organization that has no money. See Deep pocket. Slater's wealth or lack of wealth is irrelevant. Like I said, in the US if you have a case, multiple lawyers will call you and tell you that they are willing to take your case, charging you nothing if they lose. See Contingent fee. You can still get a lawyer if you don't have a case, but they will require payment up front. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Slater isn't in the US. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Your point being? Are you imagining that a UK court has jurisdiction over a US corporation? Are you fantasizing that any US lawyer who thought there was a case would refrain from suing a fat juicy US target on behalf of a UK citizen? Please. Study the law a bit before offering opinions on how it works. You don't need to be a lawyer, but you should at least read a few webpages about how lawsuits work before you embarrass yourself further. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• And even if Slater could bring the WMF to UK to sue, he has the same problem there as the UK copyright is similar to the US, that the photos would not be copyrightable, according to [8]. --Masem (t) 20:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Again, you're missing the point. British law simply says that animals can't hold copyrights to images taken "without human intervention". No court, in the US or the UK, has ruled that Slater did not provide enough "human intervention" to qualify for the copyright himself. The article you linked to specifically quotes someone from the IPO as saying 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, and cites the example of a cameraman not owning the copyright to a British motion picture despite operating the camera. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: the WMF's statement to the DMCA - do you think they issued their denial without seeking advice of their inhouse lawyers? Yes, lawyers are not judges, so there is a risk those lawyers may be proven wrong, but that only can be done if there's a court case. --Masem (t) 16:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• My point is (still) that PRP requires an absence of any significant doubt, in order to host content. WMF's refusal to Slater doesn't remove such doubt, certainly not when we don't even know what that reply and its basis was. We still don't know that. Your link doesn't give it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Do see what the PRP is. It's not read the way you're saying; its saying those are defenses that are inappropriate to consider as a reason to keep the image as commons (comparable to our WP:ATA). No on is arguing here "Slater is not going to sue WMF so we keep the images", we're saying "WMF has said they recognize that the images are very much likely uncopyrightable" as our reason to keep. No violation against PRP at that level. --Masem (t) 22:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: FWIW, the Fourth Estate case construing § 411 has no bearing here. The § 411(a) pre-litigation registration requirement applies only to US works ("no action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until registration..."). But (slight oversimplification here, but cutting to the essentials) the photo was not first-published in the US and Slater is not a US national; so the work is not a "United States work" within that term's definition in § 101. The registration requirement does not apply here at all.

It would actually be a treaty violation for the U.S. to impose the registration requirement on foreign works of foreign authors. The Berne Convention, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and TRIPS all forbid conditioning enforcement of copyright on formalities such as registration. It's only applicable to US nationals because the US is free to impose that condition on its own nationals without regard to the treaties. TJRC (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, very much on point. --Masem (t) 22:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, also, I forgot: even if this were a US work, you don't actually need a registration to sue; you need either a registration or a refusal. So, even if Slater were an American and the requirement applied, if the Copyright Office refused to register, he could still sue. It's just that, instead of being able to wave the registration certificate to satisfy his burden of showing that he owned a copyright, he'd have to convince the court independently. That's a tough burden, because he really has to argue why the Copyright Office, the agency charged with interpreting the statute for purposes of registration, was wrong. And the Copyright Office would be allowed to join the suit explaining why it was right and why the work is not subject to copyright. Quite an uphill battle for a refused applicant. TJRC (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If this ever went to trial (it won't; clearly Slater doesn't want his claims to be tested) Slater would have to overcome the problem of his changing story. The Guardian was the first to tell the story (The Daily Mail (spit!) stole the story and presented it as if they had written it it shortly after that). According to that article[9] Slater said "it wasn't long before the crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away" and "He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back"

The next day he told Amateur Photographer a slightly different story.[10] He said 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.

Several day later, his story changed again. He told the BBC "I became accepted as part of the troop, they touched me and groomed me... so I thought they could take their own photograph. I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture."[11]

That last bit directly contradicts his earlier "He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back" claim. Did he change his story in order to make his copyright claim stronger? Were his initial statements stretching the truth to better sell the idea of a Monkey Selfie to the press? We will never know. If he did go to court the defense would have access to all of the photos his camera took that day -- all timestaped -- and would be able to come up with some actual evidence concerning what happened when. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

IANAL, But I don't think Slater can sue Wikipedia at this point.

The U.S. Copyright Act imposes a three-year statute of limitations on copyright infringement claims, and requires that any a civil lawsuit be filed within three years after the claim accrued. There is a difference of opinion as to whether "accrued" means when the infringement happened and when the copyright holder discovered it, but in this case those two things both happened more than three years ago.

The images were uploaded to commons in 2011, and Slater started complaining about it within days. The Wikimedia Foundation refused to remove the pictures from Wikimedia Commons in 2014, and Slater threatened to sue in 2014. All of these events happened more than three years ago, and so (if I understand the law correctly) if Slater files a lawsuit tomorrow, it would be thrown out of court because he waited too long. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The upload happened in 2011, and the time period to bring suit for that upload has passed. However, the image is still resident on Wikimedia servers and is still being downloaded and has been downloaded many times in the last three years. Each of those downloads is a successive purported infringement, and the statute of limitations runs from each. Put another way, there is effectively a running three-year window for successive infringements for which the statute of limitations has not run.

Mind you, my take is that this image is not a work of authorship within the meaning of the US copyright statute, and that it is not subject to copyright; so Slater would not prevail in any action he brought. But the § 507 statute of limitations is not the reason. TJRC (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

TJRC's legal theory ("...a successive purported infringement, and the statute of limitations runs from each...") is a rather interesting interpretation of the statute of limitations that would meant that there is no statute of limitation for many alleged infringements. However, most lawyers and most judges have a different interpretation:

"Court Dismisses Copyright Infringement Claim Despite Claim for Continuing Infringement... The 10th Circuit ruled that he should have filed his copyright infringement lawsuit within three years of knowing that his dissertation had been copied for placement in the University’s library, regardless of whether the infringement continued."[12]

"Civil actions for copyright infringement must be 'commenced within three years after the claim accrued.'... Most courts apply the 'discovery rule,' where an infringement claim does not accrue until the copyright holder discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered, the infringement."[13][14]

"The statute of limitations for civil copyright infringement is three years from when the infringement is discovered, or should have been discovered with reasonable diligence. 17 U.S.C. §507(b)."[15]

"Under copyright law, the statute of limitations tolls, or begins running, when the infringement is discovered. So, if someone republished your work as their own six years ago, but you just discovered it, you can still sue for copyright infringement"[16]

"Recently, I received a call from an individual indicating that their copyrighted work had been infringed. My first thought is that Traverse Legal can easily assist with a Copyright Infringement Notice Letter or DMCA Take Down Notice. That is, however, until they tell me that they found out about the infringement four years ago. FOUR years ago?! And you’re just now pursuing it? Unfortunately, this means that the Statute of Limitations had run on a potential copyright infringement claim"[17]

"A cause of action for copyright infringement accrues when one has knowledge of a violation or is chargeable with such knowledge."[18]

"The copyright statute of limitations of three years begins when a copyright holder discovers a violation, not when the last act of copying occurred."[19]

I searched and could not find any case where a court extended the Statute of Limitations because allegedly infringing material remained available on a website. Can anyone find such a case?

Also, whenever this comes up, someone is sure to respond by confusing the Doctrine of Laches with the Statute of Limitations. A statute of limitations is a definitive time limit set by law in which an individual may make a legal claim or a prosecutor may file criminal charges. Statutes of limitations only focus on whether the statutory time period has passed. The Doctrine of Laches is case-specific and relies on the judge's decision as to whether a plaintiff waited too long and the defendant can't put together a reasonable defense because of the plaintiff's inaction. In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., et al. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, so long as copyright infringement claims are made within the statutory period of three years, the Doctrine of Laches cannot bar such claims. It made no ruling regarding any statute of limitations law. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

And if we're talking UK law, I think that's 6 years from the point of the infringing copy if I am reading this right [20]. --Masem (t) 16:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is all very technical. But as Jarndyce and Jarndyce shows, the main driving factor in civil actions is whether the parties involved can afford to pay for lawyers and their interminable fees.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, it's not my theory! In the Petrella case you mention, even though the statute of limitations wasn't at issue, Justice Ginsburg goes into quit a bit of detail on it:

It is widely recognized that the separate-accrual rule attends the copyright statute of limitations.[5] Under that rule, when a defendant commits successive violations, the statute of limitations runs separately from each violation. Each time an infringing work is reproduced or distributed, the infringer commits a new wrong. Each wrong gives rise to a discrete "claim" that "accrue[s]" at the time the wrong occurs.[6] In short, each infringing act starts a new limitations period. See Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043, 1049 (C.A.2 1992) ("Each act of infringement is a distinct harm giving rise to an independent claim for relief.").

Under the Act's three-year provision, an infringement is actionable within three years, and only three years, of its occurrence. And the infringer is insulated from liability for earlier infringements of the same work. See 3 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright § 12.05[B][1][b], p. 12-150.4 (2013) ("If infringement occurred within three years prior to filing, the action will not be barred even if prior infringements by the same party as to the same work are barred because they occurred more than three years previously."). Thus, when a defendant has engaged (or is alleged to have engaged) in a series of discrete infringing acts, the copyright holder's suit ordinarily will be timely under § 507(b) with respect to more recent acts of infringement (i.e., acts within the three-year window), but untimely with respect to prior acts of the same or similar kind.[7]

In sum, Congress provided two controlling time prescriptions: the copyright term, which endures for decades, and may pass from one generation to another; and § 507(b)'s limitations period, which allows plaintiffs during that lengthy term to gain retrospective relief running only three years back from the date the complaint was filed.

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962, 1969-70. TJRC (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

TJRC is correct about current U.S. law in light of the Petrella case. Guy Macon's view was the most widely accepted one prior to Petrella, but isn't any longer in light of that decision. The current status of the copyright as unregistered might be an obstacle to the claim, but timeliness would not. (As I have written several times elsewhere, I find Wikipedia's and Wikimedia's refusal to recognize Slater's rights troubling, but that is a personal opinion rather than a legal one.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Has any court ever ruled that having something continuously available on a webpage is "a series of discrete infringing acts" and thus not covered by the statute of limitations? I could not find such a case. How about an infringing book sitting on the shelf of a public library? Is the fact that the book exists "a series of discrete infringing acts"? What happens if a printed encyclopedia includes some infringing material? printed encyclopedias hang around for many years before a new edition is created. Is the fact that it exists "a series of discrete infringing acts"? If Newyorkbrad is correct (IANAL, so I could be wrong) I am having a hard time figuring out how any copyright infringement can ever go past the statute of limitations. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: You raise an interesting point which is separate from, though related to, the one I was discussing. I'm not aware of any copyright cases discussing the statute of limitations in the context of a static webpage (though I haven't researched the issue extensively), but I can imagine the argument you suggest carrying the day if the images remain only in the places there were originally posted. On the other hand, if the image is used on another wiki page, or perhaps if Wikipedia content including the image is used in another format (e.g. one of those booklet reprintings), that would be a new publication. In the analogous context of a defamation claim, the New York courts hold that posting a statement on a given webpage starts the SOL running, not that it runs anew every day the page is still up; but posting the same statement on a different page is a new publication. Similarly, in the context of a paper encyclopedia, the fact that the books are still sitting on a library shelf today does not mean that the SOL runs anew from today—but if a new set were to be sold to the library, that would be a new publication and re-set the clock. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. If a court ever found that the image was a copyright infringement Wikipedia would of course take it down -- most likely in less than five minutes after the court issued the ruling. WMF legal is of the opinion that the court wouldn't find that the image was a copyright infringement, and Slater clearly has no intention of trying to get a court (US or UK) to rule on it, but let's assume for the sake of argument that he did sue and would have won if the statute of limitations did not apply. Could he win on the related claim of "a series of discrete infringing acts"? That's an interesting question. A bunch of Wikipedia editors use an image again and that is clearly labeled as being free to use, but only because of the decision by WMF legal. I don't know if a court would waive the statute of limitations in that case. I can see good arguments either way.

The only similar case I could find (and it has a bunch of dissimilarities which I am not qualified to judge that importance of) is described here:[21]

"Andrew Diversey, a doctoral candidate at the University of New Mexico, learned in February 2008 that his dissertation had been reproduced for deposit in the University’s library. Despite Diversey’s protest, the University refused to remove the dissertation. The University later listed Diversey’s work in its library catalog, making it available to the public.

"But Diversey didn’t file suit for infringement until June 15, 2012. The district court dismissed the case for being filed after the statute of limitations had expired. So Diversey appealed the ruling and asked the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the matter.

"On appeal, the 10th Circuit agreed that Diversey’s claim for unauthorized reproduction was filed too late. It explained that the majority of courts hold that 'a claim ‘for copyright infringement accrues when one has knowledge of a violation or is chargeable with such knowledge.’ . . . [The Statute of Limitations] does [not] provide for any reach back if an act of infringement occurs within the statutory period.' 'In other words, the majority view rejects the notion that a plaintiff can recover for acts of infringement occurring more than three years before the filing of a complaint merely because some related act of infringement occurs within the limitation period.'"

"When applied to Diversey’s claim, the 10th Circuit ruled that he should have filed his copyright infringement lawsuit within three years of knowing that his dissertation had been copied for placement in the University’s library, regardless of whether the infringement continued." (emphasis added)

"But not all courts agree. A fewer number of courts apply a 'continuing wrong' exception, which means that the limitation period 'does not begin to run on a continuing wrong till the wrong is over and done with.'"

"Fortunately for Diversey, he had another infringement claim for acts that occurred within the three years of filing suit ('each act of infringement is a distinct harm.'). Specifically, Diversey’s exclusive right to distribute his work was allegedly infringed when the University listed his work in its library catalog for public lending. As Diversey didn’t discover the distribution until June 16, 2009, his Complaint was timely filed for that claim. So the Circuit Court remanded the case back to the District for further proceedings."

In Slater's case, the images were uploaded to commons in 2011, Slater learned about it in 2011, and Slater learned that Commons was making the images available for any editor to use in any article in 2011. But what if an editor used that image in an article in 2019? Is that "a discrete infringing act"? Could Slater sue that Wikipedia editor for damages? Or would the courts decide that taking the image down as soon as the ruling about it being infringing was enough? I don't know the answers, and as long as Slater chooses not to file a lawsuit, I don't see how we will ever get definitive answers. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean, this is a huge BLP violation.... and it needs to be dealt with

It's an interesting article, but wow, the images are among the more egregious WP:BLP violations I've seen. This can't really stand, I don't think.

So, quickly to go over WP:BLP, it's been in existence since 2005, and its a core, key rule here. It was written in response to people being unhappy over how they (individual private persons) were being kind of bullied by the Wikipedia (a large organization with millions of readers and linkers whose material spreads basically everywhere and forever). The animating spirit behind the rule was expressed by Jimbo as "We are not here to make people sad" (I think; I can't actually find that quote now). The details of the WP:BLP rule are mostly about reliable sources and avoiding gossip and so on, but as the rule itself states as a principle (and has for more than ten years):

“ [T]he possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment ”

Rules lawyering over "Well, but technically this article is not biography per se" etc. is mediocre. We're supposed to be smart enough to figure out why rules exist (especially when they say so in clear language) and act on that basis.

And yes, I see there's been some other discussions about these photos, but it seems like a lot of it has to to with legal aspects, or Wikimedia Commons. But so what? What a court says or does not say has literally nothing with the WP:BLP issue here.

And what Wikimedia Commons thinks, says, or does has very little to do with us here, either. They have very different mission, attitude, ethics, goals, and needs from us here at the Wikipedia. The do not have a version of WP:BLP and would be appalled and dismissive if anyone suggested that they should. And they're a separate organization. We have no control over what they put in their database. What we do have control over is how we choose to employ data available in sources, whether the New York Times or Wikimedia Commons or anyone else.

So anyway... proportionality is a key point in making these decisions. We don't want to hurt a person's feelings or reputation (and certainly not their livelihood) if we can avoid it. But sometimes we can't avoid it. Lots of times. If material is important for the reader in understanding the article subject, then we have to balance how important it is against how harmful is.

Are these photos peripheral to the subject of the article? Well of course they are. They are pictures of monkeys. This article is about a public and legal dispute.

Many of our articles about public and legal disputes don't have pictures, I suppose because "dispute" is hard to illustrate with a picture. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes for instance, doesn't have any pictures. It could; it could have a picture of a Wal-Mart store, or the Wal-Mart headquarters, or the courthouse where the case was brought, or a portrait of the lead plaintiff (Betty Dukes), for instance. Such images would be pleasant to look at, and they'd help break up the format of the article. However, if (say) we had a free picture of Betty Dukes but using it would put her life in danger, well... it'd not really be key to understanding the issues involved in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, would it. So whether you advocated to use it would be between you and your conscience, I guess.

David Slater's actual life isn't in danger here, but his livelihood is. Ten thousand pounds is a lot of money to some people. (If you're thinking "Well, but the picture is all over the internet anyway", which amounts to "the other kids were going to kill that hobo regardless, so what difference does it make if I helped", this point isn't usually looked on very favorably in WP:BLP discussions.)

Anyway, The photos are peripheral here. They would be non-peripheral in the article Celebes crested macaque, because they illustrate the concept "Celebes crested macaque" much better than they illustrate the concept "copyright dispute". They would be non-trivial in Animal-made art. And so forth. ("Being non-trivial" does not necessarily mean "we must or should use it". It's one point in favor of including (there are other points such as "we have pictures just as good where the person who arranged for the picture to be taken isn't upset about people using it" etc., which data point is not even in play for this article.))

{{Gallery | title = Anyway, if we're in a decorative mood, here are some other images that would be as good or better. As a bonus, all are both indubitably free and publishable without taking bread off anyone's plate. | File:LibraryofCongress MadisonBuilding.JPG | The [[James Madison Memorial Building]], location of the [[United States Copyright Office]], which in August 2014 published its opinion that animals cannot hold copyrights | File:Judge William H. Orrick, III.jpg | Judge [[William Orrick III]], who ruled for the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] (''Naruto et al v. David Slater'') that animals lack statutory standing to bring suit under the Copyright Act | File:Copyright Law of 1790 (United States), first page.jpg | [[Copyright Act of 1790]], the foundation of American Federal copyright law (and the first Federal law to ascribe copyright benefits to "authors" of works), enacted soon after the ratification of the [[Constitution of the United States]], which enabled such law in its [[Copyright Clause]] | File:Wikimedia Foundation office at One Montgomery Tower - work area (4633).jpg | Offices of [[Wikimedia Commons]], the organization that published the "monkey selfies" and declared them to be in the public domain, which Slater averred cost him £10,000 | File:Carlos Bea Circuit Judge.jpg | Judge [[Carlos Bea]], who wrote the opinion for the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] upholding Judge Orrick's decision; the other judges on the panel were [[N. Randy Smith]] and [[Eduardo C. Robreno]] | File: Macaca nigra immature (1).JPG | A Celebes crested macaque, the actual species involved in the copyright dispute | File:Anurag Meena.jpg | A "[[selfie]]" by a different species of [[primate]] in its natural habitat, showing the close-up pose typical of a real-time photographic self-portrait }}

Or whatever. If you feel we must have pictures. Note that a couple of the images also give us opportunity to include, in their captions, the name of the judges involved, so that readers can look them up and see how experienced they are, how they have decided other cases, if they have shown particular biases or idiosyncrasies, and so on. Information that is, you know, actually useful to the reader in learning about the subject of the article.

Since it's WP:BLP issue, the burden is on the editors wanting to include the material to get clear consensus and/or or make clearly superior arguments that the material needs to be included. Absent that, and unless someone wants to run a formal RfC, I propose to remove the offending arguments in a couple of weeks. Herostratus (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

If the photos of the monkey selfies are removed without a WP:CONSENSUS, they will be restored, as has happened in the past. As for David Slater, the real loss to his wallet was defending the dubious lawsuit by Peta.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, what a wall of text, illustrated even. The photos are specifically what the dispute is about, excluding them is ridiculous. --GRuban (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Also; please do not put a picture of a brown skinned person and title it "a simian". I'm deleting that one, and strongly recommend you do not put it back. --GRuban (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. Simians are the lowest level that contains both humans and Celebes crested macaques, is all. I changed it to "primate", OK? Let's get back to the merits.

User:Ianmacm, my take is that Slater genuinely believes he's out the money; it's hard to prove the objective truth of that either way, but how he feels about is the most important factor I think. I'm reluctant to gainsay him. And if you read WP:BLP carefully, you'll note that nowhere does it say "But if the person acted foolishly or otherwise deserves what he got, then do whatever you want. As to consensus re removing the images, we can look at that later. They can stay for now. Herostratus (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the idea here that because Wikipedia continues to display the image of the monkey selfie here on this article, Slater continues to be unable to generate income from the photo, and that as a result, Slater's livlihood (the ability to pay his rent, pay his utility bills, and put food on the table) is imperiled? Is that the argument that is being put forth? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Suppose that the selfie photos were removed from the article. Would this help David Slater? Not really, because the photos are ineligible for copyright under US law anyway. It's unlikely that David Slater would make one penny simply because the photos were removed from the article. It has also been pointed out that if the photos were deemed to be copyrighted, one of them could be uploaded at reduced size with a fair use rationale.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I think a way to look at this is that there was harm done, when the WP editor who believed the photos were in the PD due to how Slater described them being taken uploaded them as commons. But that forced the issue to the appropriate courts and gov't agencies that came down to the rule affirmatively that such pictures are ineligible for copyright , regardless of Slater's argument. A "possible" mistake was made but proven since it was not a mistake. So even if another non-WP site did the same thing, the likely same result would have happened. So at this point, there is definitely no harm being done, until a court ruling tells us differently. --Masem (t) 14:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

So now the appeal, court has found they are his copyright are they now free use, or do we now have to remove them as copyvios?Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Is that a recent ruling? Do you have a link? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The photos are ineligible for copyright under United States law. They would have been removed from the article straight away if they failed this test.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

https://petapixel.com/2018/04/24/photographer-wins-monkey-selfie-copyright-case-court-slams-peta/.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That case appears to be setting the fact that only humans can bring copyright claims to court. Slater sued to stop PETA from filing as a "friend of Naruto" to argue for the copyright of the photos (since Slater could not already). The photos remain ineligible for copyright per past decisions, this suit does not change it. --Masem (t) 13:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this matter can be summed up as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming this 2016 case was conducted with the proper diligence to be upheld; as noted by the 9th district court, this most recent case was aired to establish the legal precedent that neither animals nor next friends of animals (PETA in this instance) can file copyright lawsuits. For the Wikimedia Foundation's purposes, the status quo remains unchanged as the argument that animals cannot hold copyright has never experienced sufficient legal challenge. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so how about best friends of next friends? etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Also if the courts ruled Slater owned they copyright in April 2018 we would have heard about it far sooner than May 2020.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Back in the news

SoftBank Owned Patent Troll, Using Monkey Selfie Law Firm, Sues To Block Covid-19 Testing, Using Theranos Patents. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Very much incidental to this. Would not include. --Masem (t) 19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, WP:TOPIC problems. Apart from the case being handled by Irell & Manella, it doesn't really have anything to do with the monkey selfie saga.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A bit like Anglesey Council reporting the death of Kim Jong-un as "Tyrant whose regime once hacked Anglesey council 'dead', reports suggest"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)