Wikipedia dismissed the photographer's appeal as "photography copyright is in monkey"

A photographer appealed to stop posting as "there is copyright of the photograph of the monkey posted on Wikipedia in myself", the Wikimedia Foundation says, "The copyright of the photograph is the monkey who pushed the shutter and photographed self photos It was revealed that he was dismissing the appeal as "he is in the principal."

Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it' - Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html

What caused the complaint was the photographer who is engaged in activities to keep pictures of the ecology of wild animalsDavid SlaterMr. It is a type of endangered species staying in Indonesia in 2011ClozarAs I was photographing the ecology of one, a female clozal female approached the camera with an interest in the camera. While tinkering with the hand as it is, the shutter was pushed, and it seems that several pictures of "Self-portrait" shooting with the lens facing to you were taken. One of such photos is the following photos uploaded to Wikipedia.

File: Macaca nigra self-portrait (rotated and cropped) .jpg - Wikimedia Commons


Apparently Clozar liked the feel of the shutter while touching the camera, he said he took several hundred photographs in total. Many of them seem to have been only out of focus because they are out of focus or things that are not usable, but Mr. Slater tells us that some photos contained miracles. When I announced such a photograph, Mr. Slater became famous by becoming attracting people's attention in the blink of an eye in a blink of an eye.

Mr. SlaterInterview at the time of publication"When I left the camera for a while, the flock of monkey came close to my camera and was tinkering, first at the beginning I was scared of the sound but gradually got used to it, I saw that I was posing according to someone pushing the shutter. "However, this remark is to become a pitfall later. Photographs are to be introduced on web media, newspapers, magazines and television around the world, but now two years have passed, Mr. Slater is said to raise a case against the Wikipedia Foundation that runs Wikipedia It is in a situation.

It is managed by the Wikimedia FoundationWikimedia · CommonsIs saved for the purpose that anyone can freely use more than 20 million images, sounds, and movie files. The image taken by Mr. Slater was also uploaded to this Wikimedia Commons by the editor of Wikipedia, but "It was not Mr. Slater himself who pushed the shutter of the camera, but one clozal" The copyright claimed by Mr. Slater is not accepted for reasons, and anyone can freely use it free of chargePublic domainIt was decided to be converted.

Mr. Slater said about the decision "It is to allow secondary use of photographs freely by anyone without the permission of the photographer and without paying royalties, threatening the income source as a photographer" We filed a complaint against the Foundation, but the Foundation rejected the complaint. We announced the decision through the transparency report published by the foundation.

Wikimedia Foundation: Transparency Report
https://transparency.wikimedia.org/content.html


Following this, Mr. Slater decided to take legal action in court spending the cost of 10,000 pounds (about 1.7 million yen). "The Foundation's saying is that if the monkey pushes the shutter it is the monkey's." The foundation does not seem to know, but it is the court to make the conclusion, "Slater said . It is an image that was temporarily deleted due to Mr. Slater's appeal, but it is now restored to a state that can be browsed as another editor uploaded it later.

Mr. Slater said, "That picture was taken thanks to my preparations, 2000 pounds (about 350,000 yen) for travel expenses to Indonesia, 5000 pounds (about 880,000 yen) for camera equipment, Besides that, it costs the insurance and all kinds of equipment.The professional cameraman is a costly work.The correspondence of the Wikimedia Foundation threatens our income source, "the protest voice is raised.

In the published report, the Wikimedia Foundation stated that Mr. Slater did not agree with the copyright belonging to it, but in the law of the United States, "Written by a non-human author" We will not be given the right "is stated. "In order to claim copyright, Mr. Slater needs to have a remarkable contribution to the final production, even then, he can possess as a" remarkable contribution " It is a right about the change and does not own the copyright to the photograph itself, that is, there is no person who holds the copyright for this case, so the picture will be classified as public domain I explained the decision about this decision.

However, regarding this decision, it seems that there are various opinions among Wikipedia editors. As a disagreement, "This decision blurs the photographer who created the situation to shoot." Although legislation exists that gives copyright as a producer of monkeys, monkeys exist, but actual legal measures I think that it is best to refrain from such acts on a precautionary basis in principle, rather than going out to acts that acquire rights in a self-righteous manner in the present situation where there are no legal opinions or ... "

There are some jurisdictions where even the monkey could be imbued with the copyright as its creator. Regardless, in absence of actual case law, Legal opinion, or even an informed one, it would seem the precautionary principle would be the best approach instead of participating in a self-serving rights grab.

"In photographs taken of wild animals, there are not many things that were taken with shutters activated by animals crossing in front of the camera. In such cases, many useless photographs are taken, I do not know what kind of contribution the photographer actually made but unless this photographer was there I would not have seen this picture morally Whatever opinion is legally made, I think that this photographer (or the person who possessed the equipment and developed it) has the copyright. "

It is not uncommon to have nature photographs triggered by the animal passing some light beam. These presumably giving loads of duff shots and some person chooses the decent ones and I would really have no idea what we do have the raw shots. We would not have this photograph if it was not for that photographer. Morally, I think the photographer (the person who Owned the camera and "developed the film") has some rights to it, regardless of which law has anything to say on the issue.

· Continued
"The copyright does not exist in the photograph by the monkey", the cameraman is in a dilemma - GIGAZINE