Wikimedia Commons and photographer David Slater appear to be headed for court over who owns the rights to a selfie shot by a macaque monkey that grabbed Slater’s camera. The photo went viral last week.
The Telegraph now reports that Wikimedia, a collection of 22 million public domain images, has refused Slater’s demand to remove the photo from its web site. Slater is preparing to sue, the newspaper says.
Wikimedia’s legal defense, effectively outlined in the caption it reportedly posted with the photo, is that the author of a photo owns copyright, not the camera owner; that only people can own copyright, and monkeys aren’t people; therefore, the photo in question is ineligible for copyright by anyone, so it’s in the public domain.
This is the kind of copyright case we were never expecting to see. But now we’re wondering: if corporations have the rights of persons, why not monkeys? Are there any armchair attorneys out there who want to make a copyright argument on the monkey’s behalf?
Copyright dispute, the continuing controversy over for-profit art schools, Richard Prince (again), First Amendment protections and the President-elect: We look back on the stories that attracted the most attention in 2016. 1- The President-Elect Objects to a News Photo Showing his Double Chin Just 59 days before the President-elect will take an oath to “preserve, protect... More ›
Journalists are being stopped at the U.S. border with alarming frequency, prompting the Committee to Project Journalists (CPJ) to issue an advisory outlining steps to prepare journalists for U.S. Customs. According to CPJ, more than seven journalists, including photographers Ed Ou and Kim Badawi, have been detained and questioned, and have had their belongings, including... More ›
Photographer Jana Romanova has sued VICE Media for willful copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for publishing a photo from her “Waiting” series without permission. Romanova’s suit, filed in the Eastern District of New York on November 23, alleges that VICE violated her copyright when it published one of her... More ›