Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/08/06

A {{Delete}} tag was added, but no deletion request was created. See this diff. I'm creating this page to complete the deletion request. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per authors request Raymond 19:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk copyvio upload nominated here due to volume. (File:Jl26.jpg is here; File:Jl24.jpg is here; etc.)

• File:Jl31.jpg
• File:Jl30.png
• File:Jl28.jpg
• File:Jl29.jpg
• File:Jl27.jpg
• File:Jl26.jpg
• File:Jl25.jpg
• File:Jl24.jpg
• File:Jl21.jpg
• File:Jl23.jpg
• File:Jl22.jpg
• File:Jl20.jpg
• File:Jl19.jpg
• File:Jl17.jpg
• File:Jl16.jpg
• File:Jl15.jpg
• File:Jl14.jpg
• File:Jl9.jpg
• File:Jl13.jpg
• File:Jl12.jpg
• File:Jl11.jpg
• File:Jl10.jpg
• File:Jl8.jpg
• File:Jl7.jpg
• File:Jl6.jpg
• File:Jl4.jpg
• File:Jl5.jpg
• File:Jl3.jpg
• File:Jl1.jpg

Эlcobbola _talk 14:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Speedy delete please: All of these files, additional to be copyvio, has been uploaded for vandalical purposes. Also I recommend to do a interwiki-block to this user. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Speedy delete per copyvio. --Taichi (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image was shot by a monkey who picked up a camera that a photographer had dropped. The photographer later published the image, and it garnered some press attention. I uploaded it to Commons on the basis that the image was not created by a human and that therefore nobody holds copyright in it. Recently, User:Geni deleted it for the following reason: "Copyright violation: enough post processing was done on the image that there is a reasonable chance that it qualifies for copyright see OTRS:2012120510006092". (See also further discussion at User talk:Geni#File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg.)

I disagree with this assertion. Any routine post-processing of the digital image, such as filtering, rotating or cropping, is not (in my opinion) a creative act that on its own is sufficient to make the image a copyrighted work. (This argument has, incidentally, found the support of the legal blogger David Post at [1], and the technology publication Techdirt has also refused to honor a takedown request of the image for the same reason.) As concerns Commons in particular, if we were to accept the argument that acts such as cropping suffice to establish copyright, we'd need to delete many files we now use per COM:ART, because I assume that many of these photographs of old paintings etc. have been similarly processed.

Because I think that this issue merits a broader discussion, I've undeleted the image and am making it the subject of a deletion discussion. For the foregoing reasons, I'm of the opinion that we should keep the image. Sandstein (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping improves framing, which is an artistic choice. Depending on what the original photo shows, of course, the person who edited it may have artistically decided to include specific parts of the photo and exclude other specific and substantial parts. This person may even have rotated the image a creatively specific degree to give it that quirky, off-center look. What kind of camera took this photo? Was it a point-and-shoot, or were there lens settings that someone creatively chose? Were those creatively chosen lens settings then changed by the subject before its shot was snapped? Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per nom, implausible that the processing would have resulted in a defensible copyright claim. (Side note, it's common practice here on Commons that a user would crop an image or adjust the color levels of a public domain image, without adding a license tag. I think we routinely behave according to the principle that such minor acts do not add significant creativity.) -Pete F (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Unless and until the monkey or its duly appointed legal representative come forth with a claim of copyright. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; rotation and cropping aren't creative enough to attract new copyright. We should probably replace the current PD-because with the {{PD-animal}} template; it's already used on all of the non-elephant images in Category:Animal art (the elephant stuff is photos of elephants), except for the two versions of this ape's photograph of herself. Nyttend (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, Sandstein explains it well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Morning ☼ (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section is a fresh nomination made in August 2014. This is not the discussion above in the blue box which ended January 2013.

• File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg
• File:Macaca nigra self-portrait (rotated and cropped).jpg
• File:One-of-the-photos-taken-b-013.jpg
• File:Macaca nigra self-portrait full body.jpg

This photograph is copyright to David Slater. Wikimedia is displaying it unlawfully. SeraphinaWinsham (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Slater has not released copyright on this image: it is therefore not in the public domain. I have read the previous discussions on nomination for deletion and the arguments to keep the image seem very thin. David Slater had brought the cameras and set up the photography session. Under those circumstances, even if a human being had pressed the button to take an image with one of David Slater's cameras in David Slater's photography session, all paid for and organised by David Slater, that human being would not own the copyright of the photograph: it would belong to the person who owned the camera and had paid for the photography, and that would be David Slater in this instance. To quibble that the photo is in the public domain because the macaque pressed the button and an animal can't own copyright makes Wikipedia look absurd. SeraphinaWinsham (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, pending outcome of trial - The matter is currently being disputed in court. The outcome of this deletion should reflect the outcomes of the trial(s). It's a very unusual case with merits on both sides. Let's not jump to conclusions just yet. YuMaNuMa (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to waiting is fairly obvious: the photograph is clearly not in the public domain. It either belongs to David Salter, or - according to some editors on Wikimedia - to a monkey. Either way, it's in copyright, and therefore not eligible for Wikimedia. SeraphinaWinsham 18:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not David Salter that owns the copyright then the picture is in the public domain. There is not a nation on earth that allows non-human animals to hold copyright, and so any creative works are de facto public domain, as is Wikimedia's current assumption. We should wait until he has proven that he holds the copyright before deletion so as not to set a precedent where any file gets deleted upon unfounded claim of copyright. Newbornstranger 04:10, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Maybe Slater and the monkey both own the copyright. It seems possible to argue it either way. But yeah, let's wait for the trial. Cathfolant (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• We don't need to wait for the trial. There are two possibilities. The first is that the monkey is acting as a device (this is the photographer's argument). He owns the photo even if a creature pushed the shutter. In that case, the copyright is his and it is emphatically not in the public domain. The second is that the monkey took the photograph and "owns" it. If we're willing to attribute sufficient creative action to the monkey to decide it owns the copyright, then it is also not in the public domain. It's the sole copyright of the monkey until such time as it develops sapience and gets a lawyer to release it. It is clever but self-serving and unfair to claim that the monkey can both own the photo but be unable to license it, especially when the default expectation is that works are copyrighted by the author automatically. The latter explanation leaves us with the amusing outcome that Slater doesn't own the copyright and is in fact infringing upon the monkey's right, but that's not our problem. Protonk (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  {{PD-animal}} seems to imply that animals cannot own a copyright. Cathfolant (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Animals certainly cannot under US law have automatic copyright. So if the monkey did take the photo then its in public domain. His argument is that he set the camera up so he owns copyright, i don't bye that setting the camera up does not constitute placing the camera for the photo and capturing the image, there is no argument that the monkey did this part of it. By Slater's reckoning all photographers assistants would have right to copyright. I feel sorry for Slater greatly but feel this is clearly one for the foundations legal team to deal with. Blethering Scot 17:30, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  David Salter didn't merely "set the camera up": he paid for and organised the entire event which led to a macaque monkey happening to press the button. He's not the "photographic assistant": even if you ignore his copyright as photographer, he has IP rights as the person who paid for the event. If I organise an event, take my camera to the event, and in the course of the event someone picks my camera up without permission and takes a photo with it, they don't own the copyright: I do. SeraphinaWinsham 18:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they do own it. But only because they are human. But a monkey isn't human. In terms of law, it's a machine to help the photographer make the photo. So in this case the photographer retains the copyright, if it exists. --rtc (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The law in the US is very clear; unless something is a work for hire, which generally means the person is an employee of yours and not merely a contractor, who supplied the money and equipment is irrelevant; the person who does the creative work is the copyright holder.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Discussion in one place is more convenient. Jee 16:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment If a human infant had taken a photo by pressing a button on its parent's camera, does that photo belong to the parent, the infant, or to no one? This strikes me as a similar situation. Aside from the mass-media-friendly novelty aspect of this issue, the copyright is clearly David Slater's. Blacksun1942 (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really the same.Blethering Scot 17:30, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  Much closer than the claim that a macaque pressing a button because it made an interesting noise is somehow a photographer. SeraphinaWinsham (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For first: It never matters who owns a camera. While it is true that Mr. Slater would own the copyrigh if he setup everything and someone other just pressed the trigger, that is not the case here. Because Mr. Slater didn’t chose the motive, the animal did. So we can keep the image. --DaB. (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Slater has on many occasions stated hat he did not take the image. He is by his own admission not the creator of the image in question. The Macaca cannot own copyrights, hence its valid classification as a public domain image. The debate about the deletion of this image might come up again once Slater changes his story about the circumstances of the creation of this image. -- 2A02:8109:1700:D9C:78F6:361B:5646:C788 15:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why besmirch his character in this way? Did he do anything other than express his belief the image was his? That doesn't make him a bad person. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Who own the camera and spend the money may not relevant; but the degree of control the person exercised over the final product is. So we need to consider who preset the settings as little chances that the Macaca did it. Jee 15:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • He didn't however place the setting for the image or capture the image. If he placed the image then its an extremely valid point, but we no he actually didn't because the monkey took hundreds of pictures some just of the ground.Blethering Scot 17:36, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Delete We need not only to consider copyright, but in many countries, additional related rights exist for photos, like German Leistungsschutzrecht. We need to take this into account because commons is an international project. Such related rights grant you exclusive rights regardless of the amount of creativity you put into a photo, as long as you contributed a minimum of skill and effort. This is given by the fact that Mr. Slater set up the camera in such a way that the macaque took it and made pictures. With respect to US law, as far as I understood it, if you press the button accidentally, it's still copyrighted. This case is essentially the same, but just a little more elaborate. The photographer was in fact creative. He intended to make photos of that monkey which were basically pretty similar to the outcome. He set up the camera for it. Then the setup actually produced the intended photos, though not quite as planned. That's the monkey taking away the camera and pressing the button. Animals are not humasn according to law, but objects. A monkey with a camera is legally not different from a drone flying randomly generated paths and takes pictures at random points in time. The setup here is basically the same, except for that randomness not being intended, but being an unintended consequence of the setup, but this is, again, apparently not necessary given copyrightability of photos made by accidentally pressing the button. Of course, one can argue in the opposite way, as DaB. did. It is a legally grey area. There's a risk of losing a costly legal battle, which I don't think outweights the benefits of keeping this picture. Without prejudice, delete this picture. --rtc (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

name the specific right in question that might prevent usage of this image. -- 2A02:8109:1700:D9C:78F6:361B:5646:C788 15:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did and won't repeat myself. --rtc (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete See my comments here. Basically either Slater owns the photo and it's therefore not PD or the animal owns it and it still isn't PD. Protonk (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Animals can't own copyright. If the monkey owns it, then it's PD. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but Mr. Slater holds related rights, which exist for photographies, but not for paintings. --rtc (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, David Slater does say he's the photographer responsible for the image and that he holds the copyright. If Wikimedia editors wish to claim that the monkey who pressed the button holds the copyright, in order to get permission to display the photo on Wikimedia, they need to travel to Indonesia, find and identify the monkey who pressed the button and get the monkey's permission to make the images public domain. Do any of the editors who've called for the retention of an image in copyright wish to go that route? SeraphinaWinsham 18:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That's in poor faith. No one is claiming that the monkey holds the copyright. We are claiming that, as the monkey took the picture the photo has no copyright, as works created by animals are explicitly excepted from most copyright laws. Newbornstranger 04:16, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Mr Slater didn't even set up the camera specifically for the selfies, so I believe that his contribution in terms of skill and effort is not enough to grant him the copyright. Also, consider that the Wikimedia Foundation has denied a takedown request by Mr Slater, so it seems they're ready to fight a legal battle and they think it would be won. --Jaqen (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone sets up a camera in a forrest to be triggered by a passing animal, who would own the copyright? I would argue that it is morally indefensible to deprive Mr Slater of his rights in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.66.240 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Why second-guess Wikimedia Foundation's own judgement on this? Is anyone here really claiming to be greater legal experts than WF, who will bear the liability, itself? If Mr Slater disagrees with WF's call, the only right place to have it settled would be in a court of law - not on Commons talk pages.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Irrespective of the WMF perspective, I don't think we have a good legal precedent here to go so far as to deny copyright. If we got this wrong we denied the photgrapher the fruits of his labour. The zeal people seem to have to "get this out there" is almost mean spirited. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'm not a lawyer, but i might vote for "keep", although i don't want to take away any copyrights of Mr. Slater on this photo (if there are any). As far as i read in the past about it, the Macaca grabbed the camera and played with it. Neither was the photo intended (like setting up a trigger for "passing by"), nor did the Macaca know, what it did. In fact, the Macaca "choosed" the motif and took the photo unknowingly, and Mr. Slater did not want it to happen in that way. In germany law we have something called "Schöpfungshöhe" ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he ), which is not given here, because the photo has been taken accidentally. - Well, in the end a court has to decide. I suppose, our opinions don't count. I'm VERY curious about the outcome, because it's a very special and rare case. --Zefrian (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to stress, in German law, the absence of Schöpfungshöhe is not enough in case of photos, because photos are covered by Leistungsschutzrecht in addition to Urheberrecht. For Leistungsschutzrecht, it is sufficient that a minimum of skill and effort is involved ("ein Mindestmaß an geistiger Leistung"). It has always been argued that this threshold is very, very low and basically everything that's not photocopy is restricted by law. And we have similar laws in other countries; one that covers this picture would be enough... We don't know the exact setup. To what degree this was a random outcome and to what degree the photographer tried to motivate the animal to make those photos is beyond our knowledge. It's a grey area as I stated. I think we shouldn't be egoistical and hostile in this case. We'll survive without this picture. Pissing of the photographer certainly causes greater damage than that. --rtc (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In  Germany this picture is in the public domain, since works of art must be personal intellectual creations and an animal ist not a person. (§2 Abs 2 UrhG) --Rôtkæppchen68 17:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has now been repeated several times, and it is still wrong. In Germany, this picture is covered by Leistungsschutzrecht, which does not require it to be an intellectual creation. It is sufficien that a minimum of skill and effort was involved. That's a difference between photos and paintings. --rtc (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... I've read the german article on Verwandte Schutzrechte and the "wrongness" isn't at all clear to me. I suppose you're referring to §72 UrhG but that grants protection to whoever made the image using a process simular to Lichtbilder. In this case, it's not the man who created the image, it's the monkey. Hence the man has no protection under that title. Kleuske (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(BK)Nope. Holder of the Leistungsschutzrecht according to §72 Abs 2 UrhG would be the Animal. An Animal is not a legal personality in German law. Thus there is no Leistungsschutzrecht on this picture neither is it a work of art. --Rôtkæppchen68 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're both right to say "In this case, it's not the man who created the image, it's the monkey", but your conclusion "Hence the man has no protection under that title" is wrong. It's a non sequitur. It's as wrong as claiming that the camera processor is eventually making the picutre, not the human. The human who invests his skill and effort, who sets ups the camera to eventually have this picture shot, is holder of the Leistungsschutzrechte. "Mit automatischen Kameras aufgenommene Luftbilder und Satellitenfotos sind als Lichtbilder ... anzusehen" (de:Bildrechte#Luftbildaufnahmen_und_milit.C3.A4rische_Anlagen) A satellite falls into the same legal category as a monkey -- according to law, both are merely objects, so it wouldn't be right to treat them differently. --rtc (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(nach BK)Sorry for continuing in German. Nach HM ist derjenige der Lichtbildner, der auf den Auslöser drückt, nicht der, der die Kamera zur Verfügung stellt. Auch ist die Kamera manuell durch den Makaken betätigt worden. --Rôtkæppchen68 18:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Nach HM ist derjenige der Lichtbildner, der auf den Auslöser drückt, nicht der, der die Kamera zur Verfügung stellt." But only if both are human. You are confused here and cherry-pick, treating the monkey both as a human and as an object, depending on what fits your argument best. You can't do that. The monkey is exclusively an object. It's exactly the same as a satellite -- it's a machine for activating the button at random points in time. --rtc (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and therefore there is neither an Urheberrecht nor a Leistungsschutzrecht on this picture, because the originator (the macaca) is not a legal personality, complete independent of the camera provider Mr Slater, which has no right at all in the picture, because he did not press the button. Property in the camera does not include property in the pictures taken with the camera. Rules for aerial, satellite and automated photos do not apply either, becausr the camera was triggered manually by the macaca and it was not airborne or on a satellite. --Rôtkæppchen68 18:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're merely repeating your opinion without considering the constradiction to my arguments. By saying "becausr the camera was triggered manually by the macaca" you are cherry-picking and threating the animal as a human. It's not a human. It's an object. There are no special rules "for aerial, satellite and automated photos". From the perspective of law, a monkey is not different from a satellite. They're both machines. The fact that the satellite is an electro-mechanical machine and the monkey is a bio-chemical machine does not make any legal difference at all. --rtc (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. The opinion that "Mit automatischen Kameras aufgenommene Luftbilder und Satellitenfotos sind als Lichtbilder, aber nicht als Lichtbildwerke anzusehen." is Austrian Law, not German, see reference [2]. --Rôtkæppchen68 19:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not wrong. Unlikely as it may seem to you, in that section the Austrian court is in fact discussing deutsches Urheberrechtsgesetz, "dUrhG". --rtc (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse. I know that Austrian law courts sometimes use German Law and German court decisions instead of making own ones, but this has no effect on Germany. Also your conclusion from satellite to macaca violates the prohibition of analogy (Analogieverbot). --Rôtkæppchen68 19:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be that it has no effect on Germany, but that doesn't change the fact that what court says is and has always been the situation in Germany. I don't conclude from the macaca to the satellite, but I conclude from the general principle or photos shot by help of machines, for which the satellite and the macaca are both equally valid examples. Which doesn't mean that I agree that something like a prohibition of analogy exists. --rtc (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Animals certainly cannot under US law have automatic copyright, German law does not matter only US. So if the monkey did take the photo then its in public domain. His argument is that he set the camera up so he owns copyright, i don't bye that at all, setting the camera up does not constitute placing the camera for the photo and capturing the image, there is no argument that the monkey did this part of it. By Slater's reckoning all photographers assistants would have right to copyright. I feel sorry for Slater greatly but feel this is clearly one for the foundations legal team to deal with and given they denied a take down notice its clearly one they are willing to fight. Lets leave them to it. Blethering Scot 17:33, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just German law, similar laws exist in many other countries. US law is not the only one relevant here, because commons is an international project. "i don't bye that at all" is not an argument. --rtc (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Now in the Torygraph. I won't vote since the newspaper brought me here but this issue really does capture the arrogance of commons/wikipedia and the usual refusal to consider the real world consequences to real people of our discussions. Someone wrote somewhere that commons was broken.... Spartaz (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Typical case of copyfraud by Mr. Slater. --Voyager (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep David Slater cannot release copyright on this image, because he's never owned any copyright over it in the first place. If you think this is copyrightable, you should start a DR for {{PD-animal}} and all images tagged with it. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That's another non sequitur. {{PD-animal}} makes perfect sense for paintings. But this is a photo. In Germany, and I doubt it's different in the US, photos shot by help of a machine, like satellite photos, are copyrighted by the one who caused, or permitted, that the machine would make that photo. And, in legal terms, the monkey is just such a machine here. I see a lot of arguments along the lines of "the photographer was the monkey, but a monkey is not a human, so no copyright". But that's fallacious. What it is really saying is that "the human photographer was the monkey, but a monkey is not a human" That's cherry picking. You can't treat it as a human, then not treat it as one. You have to be consistent. You have to say: The photographer was a human, who, by the help of a machine--the monkey--made a photo of that machine. Like a satellite photo. Or a photo shot by an automated drone. Or a vehicle on mars. That the machine--the monkey--is a biochemical one here instead of an electro-mechanical one, doesn't make any difference. --rtc (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The analysis that the image is public domain seems reasonable at first sight, and WMF has refused to take down the image when requested. I think the image should be kept unless Slater's claim of owning copyright is somehow substantiated. --A3 nm (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 DeleteThe arguments for keeping the image fall into two forms: One that as the Wikimedia Foundation has decided to keep the photograph, it's incumbent on Wikimedia editors to defend the decisions of Wikimedia against the rights of the individual photographer. That seems to fall on very shaky ground ethically. Two, that even though David Salter is clearly the photographer responsible for the image existing, the copyright of the image belongs to a monkey in Indonesia, and as the legal right of the monkey to own a copyright is denied, anyone can take the photograph and make use of it who likes. This is both dishonourable and illogical: if the Wikimedia editors honestly believe that the monkey in Indonesia owns the copyright of the photograph, they should honour the legal right of the monkey and unless they have specific permission from that monkey to use the photograph, it's not public domain. It would appear simply that the claim that an animal owns copyright is being used simply for the sake of taking the photograph away from the photographer responsible in order to have it on Wikimedia. Is this in accordance with Wikimedia principles? --SeraphinaWinsham 19:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The monkey is not a machine set up by Slater and it's not a work for hire where another human, in an arrangement, pushed a button. He can and should sue if he feels wronged, but I don't see how he created it when it's a "selfie". Slater talks about his expenditures to make photographs on this journey, but how serious can this investment be when (if I read the article correctly) his livelihood depends on the chance of a camera taken away by an animal. Taking the camera himself to make photos of dangerous places, yes, but collecting it only to claim copyright? Going through the images and picking one accidentally good photo by the monkey does not a creator make. I don't know why German law is being discussed here. Hekerui (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know where you've got the idea that David Slater intended to give his camera away to the monkeys. Though if he had, his claim to be the originator of the photo would be all the stronger, wouldn't it? Where did you read that - got a cite? --SeraphinaWinshamSeraphinaWinsham (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually tried to make myself clearer when you responded, which lead to an edit conflict. Thanks for your careful reading though. I clarified my remark. Also, why not put your statement above mine together with your statement at the beginning, it does not seem to be a response. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  German law is discussed here because this is Commons, an international project, so all jurisdictions are relevant. Why do you treat the monkey differently from any other machine making random photos at random points in time? Like drones, satellites, vehicles on mars? It's set up by allowing it to take the camera, even accidentally. Photos don't lose copyright merely because they were shot accidentally, whether by man himself or a machine he allowed to press the button! --rtc (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point. Nasa doesn't enforce copyright on such images, but on closer scrutiny does expect attribution of the source. Their website explains that Nasa relinquish such rights as policy (ie they initially held copyright for all such images) with conditions, much like a Creative Commons license. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html#.U-MVDWOnwlQ . So it would appear that images taken by non humans are copyright of the entity or person which administered or created the situation by which the image was generated. This would support David Slater's position. Additionally, the European Space Agency, as a comparison, claims the copyright on all images produced by satellites and rovers and indeed anything else on its website. See the copyright notice. http://sci.esa.int/herschel/ Tonyinman (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @rtc: German law is totally not relevant to this case. odder (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong. Of course it is relevant. Commons is an international project, it is subject to all laws of all countries. And Germany is certainly not the only country with these kinds of laws. It's even questionable whether it's different in the US. Are photos made by machines, such as satellites or monkeys, not copyrighted in the US? --rtc (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No, only American law applies here. Otherwise we would have to delete pornography, blasphemy, swastikas and so on. 24.215.95.52 04:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Germany is not a relevant jurisdiction for this image. It is hosted in the U.S., and Slater says he seeks American representation. He is British and the picture was taken in Indonesia. Germany does not matter in this case. Hekerui (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  We're discussion the legal status and deletion of the picture, not any specific legal battle Slater v. Wikipedia. It's irrelevant where commons is hosted. The audience commons targets is relevant. And this audience is international, so German law applies in the same way as US, British and Italian law does. --rtc (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @rtc: What nonsense. The only laws that apply here are Indonesian, UK and US. In none of them can a non-human animal hold copyright. odder (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not nonsense, it's international law. Is true that "In none of them can a non-human animal hold copyright" But that is an argument in favour of the fact that the human who set up the camera prior to the random shots holds the copyright. --rtc (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Strong keep for both per this Wikimedia Foundation statement. odder (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Does the Wikimedia Foundation have the monkey's permission to make use of the photos which the Wikimedia Foundation is claiming is owned by the monkey?--SeraphinaWinshamSeraphinaWinsham (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but Wikimedia is not claiming that the copyright is owned by the macaque in question. The claim is that the image is in the public domain, having been authored by the macaque. La Maga (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That's self-contradictory. Either the macaque authored something, and thus has a copyright, or it is an object, a machine, and thus has neither authored something nor obtained a copyright on it. If I set up a camera to take a picture after 10 seconds, would you also claim the camera has authored the picture and it's thus in the public domain? If not, why are you making that difference? Because the macace is not an electromechanical, but a biochemical machine? --rtc (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Under US law, which I gather is the prevailing law that the WF is held under, a macaque cannot hold a copyright. That being said, your logic is faulty because it is not operating under the direction of, control of, or at the behest of a human, much less the one who is claiming to own the rights. As of yet, machines, biomechanical or not, are not given autonomy of rights. Arguably that means that the zoo owns the copyright as its owner, but that still doesn't make the "photographer" the owner. Cat-five (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1) The WMF has to obey the law of all jurisdictions in which it offers its web pages. For example, it has already been sued in courts of European countries. Only the WMF's internals are subject exclusively to US law. 2) This is not about the WMF, but about our decision as the commons community. We can discuss all aspects, and are not restricted to the current legal conflict in which the WMF is involved. 3) No, your logic is faulty. The human has made the decision to allow the macaca to take the camera. This is precisely the same as allowing a machine, like a drone, to shoot random photos at random points in time. Just because we perceive the macaca as more human-like than the drone does not make it a different thing in legal terms. You are right, "As of yet, machines, biomechanical or not, are not given autonomy of rights" and that's important. But your conclusions are wrong. Not the owner of machines such as cameras or anything used in addition for automated button-pressing at random points in time (such as a monkey) becomes copyright holder. The human who sets up the camera to allows a photo to be made by any natural cause (any cause not under the influence of a human) becomes the copyright holder. --rtc (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rtc: Your first point is ridiculous because regardless of what a few misguided countries think (think countries that try to censor content because of their insecurity about their religious fanatics for example) think, it is utterly ridiculous to expect any website to submit itself to 196+ jurisdictions simultaneously and be held to each country's laws. That is why, for the most part, websites are only beholden to their own jurisdiction or to other ones where they have secondary interests (Google for example could tell Europe to fuck off were it not for the advertising and other businesses that require European countries' support, and also possibly agreements with the US government on internet governance). To my knowledge, the area of copyright for animals is not an issue where there is a copyright deal between countries, which almost undeniably makes this an issue of US law as that is the home jurisdiction for the WMF. That is me going down the rabbit hole though since, as you said, the WMF conflict doesn't (entirely) matter to our debate, although if it doesn't matter then I don't see what point there is in even bringing up the law. It's not the same as a drone, but to avoid repeating myself ad nauseam (or possibly infinitum) I'd ask that you see my reply to you and my reply to George 8211 below for my reasoning. Cat-five (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not ridiculous, but it's international law. The WMF does not dispute anything of what I said. It even has legal representatives outside of the US specifically for this purpose. I'm not talking about any website here. I'm talking specifically about commons, which has international audience. Certainly we can't respect any law in the world, but we have to consider the most important ones, and this one holds in Germany and other European countries, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't make a difference under US law. I don't think we need to continue discussing here, since we already have the relevant discussion below, as you pointed out yourself. --rtc (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  We can't respect any law in the world, but we can respect yours, huh? We violates laws of a number of nations that still ban pornography and even nudity. Commons just had a violent argument where any number of Europeans told us it was outrageous that we should delete European images that were copyrighted in the US. This is not a principle upheld by the WMF or Commons users or most of the Europeans who frequent this site.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Owning the camera with which the picture was taken does not make the picture Slater's. This is simple copyfraud. La Maga (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  True, but the fact that Slater set up the camera before it shot those photos by some sequence of natural causes makes it his. ---rtc (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  If Slater had set up the camera to take that shot - which is excellent, by the way, with great bokeh, subject in clear focus etc. - then he would own the copyright, because it was his creative effort and the animal just happened to trigger the moment in an already composed shot. But this is not the case - the creature and others seized the camera, played around with it, took hundreds of different shots of different things, some in focus, most not, and this is one of the few usable ones. Serendipity is a large part of a photographer's life, and some of the most famous images were accidents or near accidents. That famous Iwo Jima flag-raising wasn't artfully composed or anything - the photographer didn't know that he had something extraordinary until much later. This image goes well beyond that. The owner of the equipment didn't set up the shot, choose the settings or press the shutter. His creative input into the base image is zero. --Skyring (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Serendipity can also come from the fact that the camera button was accidentally or randomly pressed. It cannot make a difference whether this happened directly by finger or indirectly by some object nearby hitting the button accidentally and randomly. Creative input is not required, creative output is sufficient! We do agree the picture shows creativity? --rtc (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently the creature was smiling at its own reflection in the lens and engaged by the sound of the shutter - according to Slater himself. The photograph was just one of hundreds shot, most of them showing little worth displaying. Perhaps Slater's "creative output" extends to selecting which photograph(s) taken by others to display? If the image had been snapped by a random child who stole the camera, we would not be having this discussion, nor would anybody be arguing that Slater owned the copyright. There are two factors at play here: what is the legal position, and what differences are there between humans and other primates. I say, that as described by Slater himself, the macaque and not Slater had the most input. The argument that the macaque was some sort of random machine is not convincing me, but others may differ. --Skyring (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep If I go to the library and type up a document on their computers, who owns the copyright? The only differences are that the monkey didn't have permission to use the camera, and I'm not a monkey (we hope)monkies have more primitive thoughts. George8211 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, in both cases a work is created with help of an object (in one case the computer, in the other case the monkey) and in both cases the human retains the copyright. So I don't understand why you vote for deletion, since this is what your argument suggests. --rtc (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I create a document using library facilities, but I own the copyright. The monkey creates a picture using the photographer's facilities, but the image goes to PD since the monkey can't own the copyright. George8211 (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  But in terms of law, the monkey is just an object, not a human. Only humans can create pictures. In terms of law, the monkey is just a machine, like the camera and the computer, used to create the work. --rtc (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep (Edit conflict) Having read many of these comments, this strikes me as a very odd debate and almost the epitome of pointlessness because it is fairly obvious, based off pretty much every similar debate about deletions in the history of Wikipedia, that most Wikipedians will defend the right to show the content regardless of what the, mostly outside, other forces want (Mohammed debate, Rorschach test debate, etc...) and that means that this will end up a keep. It also doesn't matter though because the decision is going to fall to the lawyers in the long run. That being said, for what it's worth, I'm voting (even though this is a consensus creating (hah) debate and not a vote) to keep based off the previously mentioned basis that it takes creative input to be the creator of the image (which the human owner of the camera didn't fulfill) and that the animal that took the photograph cannot, per US law as it exists today, hold a claim to the image's copyright. Cat-five (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  If the button were pressed by a drone at random points in time while flying around randomly, would you come to a different conclusion? If so, why? --rtc (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) A drone is an inanimate object, quite literally a machine and it would be endowed by its creator (to swipe a phrase from US Declaration of Independence) with the ability and the command to do so. A drone has no free will or choice in the matter. As I said, arguably the zoo, as the owner of this animal, has an argument for the right to the copyright. Barring that though, this macaque acted on its own without any outside command requiring it to do so which gives it the copyright, i.e. gives it to the public domain since there is no legal framework/ability for that. Cat-five (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cat-five: basically you mean that monkeys can think; drones can't? George8211 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@George8211: I am not a biologist or a neurologist so I am not qualified to judge to what extent monkeys can think. I do however know that the monkey's thinking, such as it may be, is not reliant on the owner of the camera or any other human other than to the extent that any animal, humans included, may have their thought processes influenced by others (i.e. by the offering of a treat or a banana as maybe be appropriate). To that end, unlike the drone, that not only is owned by a human and whose decisions are run under the auspicious of the owner (since even if he or she didn't program it, the drone's commands are the responsibility of the owner/operator), the monkey has independence of decision making from both its owner and the owner of the camera. Cat-five (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A monkey doesn't have free will either. Both drones and monkeys are machines that show random behaviour. There really is no difference from the perspective of law, because none of them is human. We can't treat the monkey as a human to claim it created the picutre, then treat it as an object to say it has no copyright; then treat the drone as an object to claim it hasn't created anything and the human has the copyright. No. both are the same, and the right view is the drone view. --rtc (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A monkey doesn't have free will either. Both drones and monkeys are machines that show random behaviour. An unusual claim. I disagree with both views. Drones are programmed and (usually) directed. They are subject to atmospheric disturbances and other effects, but so are we all. Any non-random behaviour may be traced to human creators, designers or controllers. Monkeys are their own agents as much as any human. Their thought processes are not random, any more than ours are. They react to situations, they have social and cultural imperatives, they solve puzzles. They do not generally act at random. They may exhibit behaviour incomprehensible to a human observer, but that doesn't make it random. --Skyring (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyring: your comment reminds me that once on a TV programme there was a (different kind of) monkey that had lost two feet. It improvised and walked around in handstands. Machine? Random? George8211 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A drone can be programmed in such a way that it randomly chooses one path out of a set of given ones, or that it even constructs a randomized path. That doesn't make a difference. I didn't say that drones or monkeys are behaving in a completely chaotic way. Of course they show directed behaviour, but some aspects of their behaviour are random. From the point of view of law, they're both machines showing random behaviour. And that's all that matters here. It was a camera setup that, by some accident, worked out in a vastly different way than planned, yet the outcome was meaningful and creative. It's a standard case of serendipity. --rtc (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slater describes the macaque's behaviour in terms that rule out random action. The creature was fascinated by its reflection in the lens and engaged by the sound of the shutter. It kept pressing the shutter release to hear the sound. Presumably it was also treated to the shutter workings visible through the lens. Try it yourself to see and hear what the macaque experienced. It can be fascinating to watch the iris blades operate and the sensor appear as the mirror lifts. That's a decision, not random behaviour. --Skyring (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep You're repeating over and over again that the monkey is a kind of machine. But even if it can be considered that it's a machine, from the point of view of law, it doesn't imply that this machine has been setup by Mr Slater (since he reported that his camera was stollen by the machine, hmmm, the monkey). The monkey cannot be considered to belong to Mr Slater's infrastructure. So your argument that the monkey is just a machine in Mr Slater's control is void. On the contrary, Mr Slater had absolutly no control over how this picture was shot, and no intention to shot it, even indirectly. Manuco (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  So some accident was involved, the machine, which was not under Mr. Slater's control, took that camera and pressed its button accidentally. That's serendipity, as if Mr. Slater had pressed the button himself, but accidentally. This does not void Mr. Slater's copyright claim, just because some serendipity was involved. The picture itself was creative and it was untimately the result of Mr. Slater's camera setup, even though that setup may have worked out in quite a different way than initially planned by Mr. Slater. --rtc (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (Edit conflict)The arguments being reiterated here, repeatedly, about machines are irrelevant. If a person sets up an automatic device to take a photograph on the triggering of some chosen criteria, even if that criteria is the output of a random number generator, they are taking the 'positive act' of making that choice, and thus retain copyright. In this case, it's explicitly obvious that Slater did not actually intend for the particular photos to be made, and took no action specifically meant to enable it. If the 'creator' of a work (the monkey) is ineligible to hold copyright, then the work is automatically in the public domain. Revent (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Saying the monkey "created" the work is already making him a human in legal terms, which is just as wrong as claiming it owns copyright. Please don't cherry-pick. Treat is consistently as an object, an apparatus. It cannot make a difference whether a photo was shot intentionally or not. If the photo itself is creative, and even if the creativity comes from a random number generator, that's sufficient for the person who set up the camera to obtain copyright --rtc (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone know what we're trying to achieve on this page? George8211 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the objective is to figure out whether the picture should be deleted. --rtc (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It's just that no-one seems to have agreed on anything. George8211 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why the discussion hasn't ended yet. --rtc (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The main thing that seems to be being achieved here is user:Rtc playing IDHT with the rest of the community. The 'debate' was closed as keep. Revent (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the debase was not closed as keep. That debate was some time ago. This is a new debate, not initiated by me. --rtc (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I initiated this debate because I felt it was dishonourable and dishonest of Wikimedia to claim that a photograph authored by David Slater was "really" authored by the macaque who pressed buttons on Slater's camera, purely to take Slater's photographs from him and claim they were public domain. I agree with the general trend of what RTC has been saying here - if it's claimed the macaque who pressed the button owns the copyright, then the Wikimedians who defend that argument should travel to Indonesia, make contact with the monkey and get its permission, and meantime, have the photo taken down as it is clearly not public domain. If the photograph is - more logically - authored by David Slater, then equally it is not public domain unless Slater chooses to make it so, which he has not. There's no excuse for keeping the photos aside from the blunt one of "might makes right" - corporation takes photo from little guy. SeraphinaWinsham 21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It is our mission to make available freely licensed or public domain media files, and if a "little guy" does not share that mission, then that little guy isn't someone we should be trying to defend when he claims more rights than he has anyway under copyright law. If you believe the public domain is about "corporation takes photo from little guy", then I don't think you've come to a site where you'll find much sympathy for your views. darkweasel94 21:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  But these images aren't either "freely licensed or public domain media files". They belong to the photographer who authored them. Wikimedia claims that's the macaque monkey - and jumps to claim that because they belong to the monkey, Wikimedia can take them away. But they're fairly obviously authored by David Slater, and Wikimedia is just being dishonest. --SeraphinaWinsham22:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The claim was not made that the monkey owns the copyright. That 'alleged claim' is a complete red herring. The sole issue is if Slater owns the copyright. If not, then in the absence of a valid copyright holder the image is in the public domain. It's that simple.

  Since David Slater authored the photographs, Slater owns the copyright. It's that simple. --SeraphinaWinsham22:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slater contributed to the circumstances in which the photo was taken, yes, but he did not exercise any creative control over or input to the content of the image. This is not the same situation at all as if he had set up the camera on a trigger, and the money was just in front of it... the camera was removed from it's original location, moved in a random manner by the monkey, and by his own statements that was not his intent. It is not 'his' work.

As far as 'closed as keep', there have been no (real) new issues brought up in this latest nomination, and the consensus is overwhelmingly obvious. That certain people are refusing to hear them and spamming the discussion by saying the same thing over and over is irrelevant. Revent (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that certain people are saying the same thing over and over. But that's because certain people can't accept that they can't assign copyright to a monkey in order to steal the photographs without disgracing Wikimedia. --SeraphinaWinsham22:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SeraphinaWinsham: Can you read? No one here is claiming that the monkey hold the copyright over the picture(s). odder (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - Slater's claim is based on his ownership of the camera. He did not set up the shot, choose the settings, or press the shutter. He did not set any sort of timed release. The photograph was not random, it was taken by the subject who apparently liked the sound of the shutter and kept pressing the shutter release. That explains his expression. I have read all the arguments above, some going deep into territory not usually explored on a Wikimedia project, and a few of the sources, including Slater's descriptions of the circumstances. He has my sympathy, but his creative input remains zero. I don't know about non-human copyright, but the image is clearly the result of conscious action on the part of the macaque, without the prior permission or direction or involvement of the camera's owner. If it is not Slater's, and non-human creatures cannot hold copyright, then it is public domain, in my view. --Skyring (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not matter what Slater's claim is based on. This is not a court. We have to figure out whether Slater is the copyright holder, not necessarily by his own argument, but by any valid argument that can be made. Law does not consider monkeys a subject. Else the monkey would be given copyright. In terms of law, the monkey is just a machine. --rtc (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that Slater's claims are not final. Probably a court will have to decide the issue and we will accept the decision. But Slater's statements illuminate our own consideration here. He admits that he didn't take the shot, or set it up in any way. He also states that the animal was engaged by the sound of the shutter actuation and kept pressing the release. That can't be considered random. The macaque exhibited the same sort of conscious behaviour as we would expect of (say) a toddler playing with a camera. Unguided and unfocussed, to be sure, but hardly random. --Skyring (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  In terms of law, the monkey is not a human, it's a machine. It doesn't matter that it's more like a human than like a machine. It's simple as that. From the point of view of the law, it's a machine showing random behaviour. --rtc (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  "Thuh law…" Which "the law" are you referring to, in which jurisdiction and under what conditions, please. --Skyring (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's the case, then why do we have laws against animal cruelty? A machine feels no pain, and any response to cruelty is just random behavior..? Diliff (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - Since non-Human primates have no rights as authors, this image is in the Public domain. Ownership of the camera is irrelevant. Rama (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's wrong that "non-Human primates have no rights as authors". non-human primates are no authors. They are objects. Ownership of the camera is irrelevant, true, but not setup of camera. The setup didn't work out as planned, but that happens quite often and doesn't make a difference. --rtc (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're wrong about this on two points. Firstly, where do you get the notion that non-human primates are objects and cannot be authors? Secondly, imagine this scenario: A man sets up a camera to cature a time lapse of the clouds moving across the sky. His wife comes along mid way through the time lapse, and not realising it's in the middle of a time lapse, decides to take a photo with his camera. It is the wife that has created and owns the copyright to the image taken at that moment, regardless of the fact that the camera was set up by her husband to capture a time lapse. Of course this is an unlikely situation, but the logic and legality of it is quite concrete IMO. Likewise, a macaque, regardless of its ability to be an author by any legal definition, has stumbled across a camera set up for a different purpose and has hijacked the equipment for its own amusement. The photographer had no involvement in this. Diliff (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep whose is copyright: who take the photo?, who borrow the camera? or who made camera manufacturer? This file is in the public domain, because as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested.--EEIM (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment I have added my own upload File:One-of-the-photos-taken-b-013.jpg to this deletion request, as the same issues apply there and this should really have been a mass deletion request including that photo. I'd have liked to be notified of it in another way than "why is that image suddenly appearing several times today on my watchlist, no one cared about it for months", but well. darkweasel94 21:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep I think a reasonable comparison would be if an animal had access to some kind of art supplies or raw materials (or maybe just some poop) and created some kind of "artwork" of this. Would the first human to come across this artwork own the copyright to it? What if the human left the supplies there? I think in both cases, the human does not own the copyright, and thus this should be in the public domain. RockMFR (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• When you ask a bunch of free culturists who has the copyright they will always side against the content creator. I see this whole thing as a kind of theft. If it wasn't for the photographer the world would not have this image. He had final say whether it was to get published or not. Even if his claim to copyright is weak, the notion it can be thus taken away from him is morally bankrupt. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content creator was not the human. If it wasn't for Apple, the world wouldn't have had a lot of images, yet we would dismiss any claim they had on the works made with their cameras.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Stating that Slater is "the content creator" essentially ignores the many excellent arguments above. I'll agree that it is morally queasy for us to claim that something so obviously cherished by another is common property, but it does not seem to me that Slater can be regarded as "the content creator" in any significant way. One might just as well level a charge of theft against Slater, for daring to claim something as his own when the content creator is another being who is unable to speak for himself, lacking a typewriter. --Skyring (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The law is clear here; the monkey was the photographer using someone else's camera, therefore the monkey would own the copyright if there is one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the law says the opposite of your claim in every country. The monkey is merely an agent of an action and not the instigator of the action/creator. Since it was argued that monkeys can't own copyright, then he couldn't cdispute the copyright from the camera owner. 173.153.5.21 22:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if the monkey had killed someone with the camera, the camera owner would have been on murder charges? If one believes a work is in the public domain, and someone else believes they own the copyright to that work, it's like any other civil disagreement; the court will listen to the first party's claim that the work is in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment It seems to me a monkey couldn't be copyright owner as it is not human. Only an human could be copyright owner. So what's a monkey ? At least a monkey could be a tool like a monkey is a tool for a tamer. So this particular monkey is the object and the tool. It often happens with animal photography. A monkey never was photography creator because photography is human invention. A monkey couldn't be camera owner nor it couldn't set a camera to take a picture. Photography is only an human work. I think David Slater is the copyright owner because he made camera setting and used the monkey tool to have this picture he first owned. Louis Hoebrechts 23:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet the monkey wasn't a tool; the human expressed no control over what the monkeys did with the camera. The inventor of photography seems irrelevant; an American never was a photography creator because photography is a French invention works just as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course monkey was a tool like any dog, monkey or lion in a circus. Now, no matters about that. Fact is wikimedia never owned any rights on pictures David Slater owned as pictures creator and agent (distributor) nor never Wikimedia gained rights to publish these pictures from a court. I'm certain Wikimedia could be convicted for copyright infringements when Wikipedia/Wikimedia often ask people for donations. Be sure I will never donate to help Wikimedia to pay for copyright infringements and I'm sure many donators would think like me. This discussion is just unproductive and dishonest because two sort of (human) people have coyrights : creators (I think David Slater is) and having rights (as defined in the Belgian copyrights law). David Slater ever was the first and only owner of these pictures when Wikimedia nor anyone else never was. --Louis Hoebrechts 23:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• (Edit conflict)  Keep While I have sympathy with David Slater's position with relation to the costs he had in obtaining this image, I can see no legal precedent in UK or US law that would cover this and make it his copyright. Having said that common law countries (like the UK) have, at times, made interesting legal rulings on the copyright of works that commons and the US would view as non-copyright-able (for example the Edge Logo or Aboriginal Flag) so I would not be surprised at all if a UK court ruled that David Slater was, as a co-creator, entitled to copyright in the image and if that ever happened we should respect the courts ruling and remove the images. But absent a clear ruling covering this I think can retain the images, but should add a very clear and prominent notice that warns re-users of this dispute. LGA _talk^edits 22:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Equipment used to take the photograph gives copyright to the owner. If you ask someone to take a photo of you with your camera, they don't get the copyright and they never have. Otherwise, automated feeds would not be copyrighted. This has always been the case, and it is odd to see so many people willfully denying that. 173.153.5.21 22:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• … this is obviously not true at all. odder (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyright law is very clear, only an agent can dispute the ownership, and courts only rule when the agent proves that there was no direct connection with the equipment owner. Otherwise, cameramen would own the rights to movies. There is a severe lack of evidence from the keep people because it is impossible to find. Wikimedia is being mocked on thousands of newspapers because a handful of people have attempted to defy clear copyright law that should result in a delete. 173.153.5.21 22:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Where in Title 17, the entirety of US copyright law does it say anything about only an agent can dispute the ownership? Anyone who wants to use a work in the public domain can do so, with only the owner having the civil right to bring a lawsuit about it. Cameramen don't own the rights to movies for several reasons because the lawmakers and judges found that would be an unreasonable result; nonetheless, the contracts for cameramen make it very clear they don't own the rights, just in case a judge would rule the law (which is actually rather unclear on the matter--again, contradictions should be cited to Title 17) does give rights to cameramen. In the case of photography, the guy who points the camera and shoots the camera has always been the copyright holder. In the US, copyright is about creativity, and it's clear the equipment owner here exercised no creativity in the matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Where? It is clear throughout. Only a person can claim copyright, and there was only one person there, the owner of the equipment. The monkey cannot dispute the owner's right to own the photo. Items do not default public domain except in very specific circumstances. Otherwise, the film industry would not be able to hold copyrights over their material. Did you look at the link? In particular, Chapter 2. Many examples have been given to show that you have absolutely no correct interpretation of law or logic. 173.153.5.21 23:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Courts love the argument that specific cites don't need to be given to specific questions. The author of a photograph is the cameraman. Chapter 1, section 102, part (a) says that "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship..."; if the cameraman as a monkey can't author something, then there's no reason to think that copyright protection subsists in it at all; rocks untouched by human hands are not authored by the person standing there when they came free from the mountain, for example. A film is an original work of authorship, and the film industry has contracts with everyone who could reasonably claim to be an author so they hold copyright over their work. In fact, the law singles out films and not photographs: Chapter 1, definitions: "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to ... as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work ... if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." Chapter 2 starts with "Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work.", which doesn't help your case in the least, since we're contesting whether the owner of the camera can be the author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Only a person can claim copyright if that person had creative input. If I let someone else use my camera, I am not the copyright holder. Romaine (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the laws cited above, the monkey would have to have had 'creative input' to claim the copyright, which cannot be held by the monkey since the monkey is not human, hence the argument that the image should be PD. However this rather falls apart when tested. By the very same definition that the only humans can 'create' works and therefore be copyright holders, the monkey cannot therefore have had any 'creative' input. Therefore the monkey cannot have 'authored' the work and therefore the image cannot be PD. So, was there any other instance of 'creative input'. Yes - the thought, ideas, set up, location, trip planning of David Slater. The only human 'creative input' was that of David Slater, therefore David Slater is the de facto copyright holder regardless of any animals which might have interfered with his equipment. Tonyinman (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The camera owner did not ask or direct or otherwise have any input into the image. Apart from owning the camera. The whole thing was performed without his approval or consent. He didn't deliberately leave the camera to be taken by a wild creature. It was essentially stolen and used without authority. This is not analogous to a movie cameraman or an assistant or an automated sequence. The macaque took the photo at a time of his own choosing. --Skyring (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You weren't there so you cannot dispute the author's story. He set it up. Since monkeys are not people, they have no rights and cannot be deemed agents or a human entity that can accept copyright. Since the guy was the publisher, the owner of the equipment, etc., all copyright law backs him. 173.153.5.21 23:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not disputing Slater's story. Here it is. He's not claiming any input apart from owning the camera. --Skyring (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That article says nothing as to his story. "There’s a lot more to copyright than who pushes the trigger on the camera. I set up the shot, I was behind all the components in taking that image." That is from most reports of the incident. You chose the one that didn't contain that quote. Why do you have to be disingenuous? Is it because you have no legitimate legal reasoning? 173.153.8.38 02:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the quote from the story I linked to, which you may not have read fully: David, 46, said: "One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy. At first there was a lot of grimacing with their teeth showing because it was probably the first time they had ever seen a reflection. They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button. The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it. At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to watch. He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet. Seems pretty clear that Slater didn't set up that shot, he didn't employ the macaque in any way, he didn't even intend for the camera to be used by the creatures. The only creative input, as he himself describes, comes from the macaque itself, deliberately pressing the shutter release. --Skyring (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- This debate can be resolved easily if you replace the "camera" in the base fact that a "monkey stole and shot with stolen camera" with "gun". Would the photographer claim his agency an ownership of the monkey's actions and their products still applied if the monkey had stolen and shot a firearm instead of a camera? Clearly he cannot be responsible or have ownership for any harm the monkey does... But by the same measure cannot claim said ownership simply when it would be beneficial to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.174.21 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you have been living, but people have been held legally responsible for the deaths of individuals because their weapons were easily used to bring harm to others. 173.153.5.21 23:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Animals can own copyrights and other property in the US. When rich people leave part of their estate to a pet, the executor must set up a trust which will vest legal control in the property to the animal's caretakers, which must be interviewed and hired with estate funds or equity, if they haven't been already, but the resale rights revert to heirs after the animal passes away. In this case, the copyright is owned by the owner of the land where the monkey draws sustenance and sleeps, which is apparently a national park, so the Indonesian government is the owner. 104.128.96.117 23:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Patently false. US copyright law explicitly states that an animal cannot hold copyright. Twice, in fact. Revent (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Under Indonesian law, the author of a copyrightable work must be a 'person'. In the absence of evidence that monkeys are legally defined as 'persons' in Indonesia, there is no copyright, and thus it cannot devolve to the Indonesian government. Revent (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep This seems fairly clear-cut: The person who takes the image is the copyright holder, unless they assign copyright. There is some ambiguity as to whether the Macaca can actually own copyright, but even in the case where the Macaca cannot, I see no reason why Mr. Slater would own the copyright. He did not take the image, and he didn't convince the Macaca to assign copyright to him. We can reasonably assume either the Macaca has copyright or it is Public Domain. AJF (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - to be able to have copyright on a work, you need to made a creative work yourself, the claimer must have creative input. The owner of the camera says himself he hasn't set up the situation to get the photo, so he cannot claim creative work himself. If an artist intentionally throws an egg on the wall, he can claim that is art, but if a bird is doing the same on its own, the bird has not the copyright. The same applies here. If an artist is making a nest he makes a creative work, if an animal is doing that, the animal doesn't own the copyright.
  • Owning equipment is at itself not giving any rights. If I give my camera for some minutes to someone else, the one who makes the photo has the copyright.
  • Who did the creative work? the monkey, but the animal can't own copyright.
  • Adjusting the photo by bettering the colours, cutting of some parts of, is intented to make the picture better, but is insufficient creative input itself.
• As there is no human who did creative work to get the photo, and animals can't own copyright, the photo is public domain.
• This conclusion is derived from a legal expert. Romaine (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Cameras put on animals have always remained the copyright of the person who put it for the animal. An animal can't claim copyright so it defaults solely to the other party involved. 173.153.8.38 02:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Sorry for the photographer, but he admittely is not the author of the photo. Being the owner of the camera doesn't make you automatically copyright holder of anything that is done with the said camera. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 00:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - The photographer generally holds the copyright, excepting in works for hire and similar situations. To hold a copyright, one must be human or a legal person. The photographer in this case is not human, nor is she a legal person. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Though it's clear that the copyright obviously can't belong to the monkey (and claims to the contrary certainly aren't helping), I find it hilarious that so much work is being devoted into arguing over whether or not Slater does own it. I should expect that Wikimedia would always want to err on the side of caution; not on the side of screwing people over technicalities. The fact that there has been so much debating here is prima facie evidence that Slater's claim is at least debatable. And, if debatable, I really don't see the overwhelming need to keep the file until it's been definitively classified. "Well, this may or may not be yours... so it's incredibly important that I assume it isn't until I'm legally forced to accept otherwise. Because of reasons. No, of course we can't wait until we know for sure! That would injure us... because of reasons." Considering how incredibly bad this makes Wikimedia look, I'm surprised someone higher-up hasn't just taken it down preemptively. 139.57.240.18 01:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The only way in which Wikimedia is made to look bad by this is in articles that say that things like "Wikipedia is claiming the monkey owns the picture", and that's only really relevant in terms of people who actually believe it (it isn't true). For people who actually understand copyright, this isn't really a 'debatable' issue....it's obvious, if you accept the statements that Slater himself has made as factual. The fact is, the community on commons actually puts a massive amount of effort into removing copyrighted material.

  As far as people 'higher up', the authority for that would be WMF Legal, who have already refused, on the grounds that the material is in the public domain. Other than the legal office, the Wikimedia Foundation exercises no editorial control over content on Wikimedia projects. Revent (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: Slater, by his own description of events, did not have substantial creative input in creating this image, and so is not the copyright holder. The monkey is not a legal person, and so cannot be the copyright holder. In the absence of a copyright holder, the image is in the public domain. --Carnildo (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That isn't true at all. Slater made it clear that he set everything up. That is full creative input. There is no difference between a monkey hitting the button and putting on a timer. 173.153.8.38 02:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  He said the monkey "stole" the camera. That suggests that the money chose the angle and timing of the shot and the position of the subject. Arctic.gnome (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I don't see how this situation is any different than photos taken from a game camera. In both cases, the photo is/was triggered by an animal - in the case of a game camera, by walking in front of the triggering beam; in this case, by triggering the button directly. In both cases, copyright should fall to the person who set up the camera. In both cases, the photographer, despite not triggering the camera, contributed a large amount of creative work, such as setting the exposure, choosing and selecting the best pictures, and all the work that went into the post production stage. While I am normally very sympathetic to fair use and other copyright exception claims, I just don't see how this one makes the cut. I expect that should this continue in court, the Wikimedia Foundation will lose. - Bardbom (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The photographer may have set the exposure, but he did not choose the exposure for a photo he didn't know was going to happen. Unlike a game camera, he did not point the camera, or otherwise set any features of the shot. (I actually find game photos pretty marginal as copyright goes, so arguing that he had almost as much creative input as goes into a game photo doesn't really impress me.) I went through a collection of photos and chose File:Sibirskai Surikov.jpg to display; that does not give me rights to restrict anyone else from using my scan of Surikov's work. (Also, the same idea would give copyright to an editor for merely pulling a story out of the slush pile, which involves a lot more work then picking a photo out of the small collection the monkey's provided him.) w:Corel v. Bridgeman basically says that post production work like that doesn't a copyright make; I don't see why post-production on someone's photo would be more copyright-providing then pre- and post-production on a photo of a painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  In the case of a game camera, an actual human being took the positive act of choosing where to place the game camera, activated the triggering device, and did so with the express intent of taking photos of animals that walked in front of it. The person 'pushed the button', even if they did so by means of a machine. In this case, according to the description of events, Slater walked away in the middle of setting up the camera with the intent of taking photos himself, and the monkey 'highjacked' the camera for long enough to take dozens of photos. It was not Slater's intent to have the monkey taking pictures, and the camera was not in the same location, so not even the 'framing' of the actual photos was his creative work. The monkey was, also, by Slater's statements, doing so of it's own volition, and for it's own reasons, not as a result of any attempt to induce it to do so. Effort expended in creating the situation in which the event occurred is irrelevant, as is effort expended later in an editorial process.... that is the 'sweat of the brow' argument, and is invalid. Revent (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep As uploader. In this case, the Wikimedia Foundation has determined that it is of the view that the image is in the public domain. This authoritatively settles the matter. This request is moot. Sandstein (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - WMF's obsessive pride and ego deserves a legal takedown for their ridiculous stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.32.198 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep See 503.03(a) by the U.S. Copyright Office. This work is not the "product of human authorship". But where does authorship begin? To me, there needs to be a substantial element of human intent in the composition of the image. The Copyright Office gives an example of random, mechanically created floor patterns, which could presumably be affected by how the machine operator sets up the machine that prints them, but they are not copyrightable. The patterns are not of human authorship even if the machine creating them is. Here, the photographer set up the camera but the monkey took it and used it in an unpredictable way. There was a lucky "keeper" among many bad frames taken. That's not a creative work by the human. What would be interesting is if a photographer/animal trainer trained the monkey to take a selfie, but that level of intent doesn't seem to be the case here.Fletcher6 (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete According to Copyright Compendium § 202.02(b): "The term ‘authorship’ implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable." Firstly, in this case unless the human being was present, the image could not have been produced. Secondly, for the material to not be copyrightable, the image must have been produced solely by the animal. Since the animal did not posses a camera, did not have the ability to set up and frame a perfectly composed, perfectly exposed and perfectly focused image, and crucially would have had no concept of what the camera was, let alone intentionally 'produce' an image - then the copyright clearly resides with the author of the work. It's origin is owed to the presence of a photographer; and the animal did not possess the means to 'solely' produce the image. The test for whether the image is not copyrightable would be a proof that the animal had sufficient innate ability to be solely responsible for an image - ie without the presence of any humans or contributory factors. Such a proof is extremely unlikely since in such a situation a camera would not have been present. Therefore the copyright must reside with the author of the work - ie David Slater. Tonyinman (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The animal did possess a camera, however stolen. It did set up, compose and frame the photo; any focusing was done automatically by the camera. David Slater had no influence in that. David Slater lacks the sufficient innate ability to 'solely' produce the image, as does any person; I've read it would take at least ten million of us to maintain the ability to produce such high technology as a recent camera. Its origin is owed to a lot of people.

The precedents are clear; if you hand out a bunch of cameras, say at a wedding or an event, and the people who hold the cameras take some pictures, the pictures are copyright them, not you. Changing that giving a camera to a monkey merely obliterates the copyright, not gives to someone the law has already declared is not the author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) "The precedents are clear". Unfortunately you have not quoted any precedents to back up that assertion. If you are referring to legal precedents - these, if they exist, should surely be tested in a court of law and not Wikimedia - an corporation website.

2) "If you hand out a bunch of cameras, say at a wedding or an event, and the people who hold the cameras take some pictures, the pictures are copyright them, not you." This is a completely different scenario and irrelevant to this discussion.

* BTW, there are places in the world that these kind of pictures can be regarded as ordered or commissioned work in a case of a family or a private event e.g. Wedding and the copyright is automatically assigned to the orderer. --79.182.52.188 04:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3) "Changing that giving a camera to a monkey merely obliterates the copyright, not gives to someone the law has already declared is not the author. " This is specious. As stated, copyright law states the animal would have to be "solely" responsible - and there is no evidence to suggest it was in this case.

4) More worryingly, decisions regarding revocation of copyright (and any other legal decisions) in a democratic society should reside with the courts. The fact is the copyright belongs to David Slater. Wikimedia has decided to try and revoke it, yet Wikimedia has no authority to do so. There must be a presumption that the copyright resides with the photographer unless a court of law decides otherwise. If Wikipedia - an unaccountable and unelected corporation - is allowed to act as judge and jury over decisions of law then it is a very sad state of affairs for civil liberties and freedoms. Wikipedia should respect democracy and await a decision from the courts. Until then the copyright resides with the photographer and Wikipedia has no legal, democratic or moral right to decide otherwise. Tonyinman (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revocation of copyright is begging the question; no court has decided that he has a copyright. It doesn't appear that he's registered a copyright with the US copyright office, so he doesn't even have that presumption of a valid copyright yet.

The Wikimedia Foundation is perfectly accountable; like any other organization, it can be sued in a court of law. The WMF has declined, as is the right of any individual or organization, to accept David Slater's assertion of copyright, at which point a real judge can step in if Slater choses to take it that far. The court has the ultimate power here, and Wikipedia is respecting democracy by declining to act upon an autocratic claim of copyright from a private individual. If we were to delete the file, it's unlikely there would be a decision from the judge. Or would it be more right for us to decide to sue Slater?

Note that vanishingly few copyrights ever go through the slow and painful process of a court case. Demanding that the WMF sue the estate of Agatha Christie to establish that we have the right to host The Mysterious Affair at Styles at Wikisource would be painful and expensive, and any court would bounce it immediately if said heirs declined to respond to it, as not a live controversy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No court has decided that he has a copyright." No court has to decide this. David Slater owns the IP rights and copyright unless a legal challenge is made and court decides otherwise. That's rather the point - no such court decision has been made. Wikimedia has no right to revoke copyright unless such a court decision has been made. By revoking copyright without waiting for a legal decision, Wikimedia is flouting the law. To suggest Wikimedia, an organisation unaccountable to millions, if not billions, of people who cannot vote it out of office or change its policies, should act as judge and jury is akin to promoting corporate totalitarianism.

"Copyright registration" for photographs is an urban myth. The copyright resides with David Slater from the moment the image was created. It remains with David Slater until a court decides otherwise. 213.246.85.74 04:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you keep assuming your own conclusion that Slater owns copyright. That is precisely what is in dispute. Wikimedia is not trying to "revoke" his copyright but disputes it was ever extant, because the image is not a work of human authorship. Fletcher6 (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Slater owns the copyright until a court of law decides otherwise. Wikimedia is not a court of law. Therefore Wikimedia does not have the right to revoke copyright. Any assertion otherwise would concern me - I like to live in a democratic society where decisions are made by an accountable judiciary and legal process - not a mob rule vote on a corporate website. If there is a dispute that copyright does not reside with Slater, or never existed, then the correct place to argue the case is in a court of law. Would you rather a photographer's livelihood was determined by unelected, anonymous, unaccountable and legally uneducated folk or by a democratic judicial system? Aside from the legal authority, common sense and morality dictates the latter. Tonyinman (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of law, we don't even know if David Slater was ever in Indonesia; the assertion hasn't even been made in court yet. Courts of law don't that way; for a court to take up the question of whether or not David Slater is the author of these photographs, there has to be an actual controversy. The best way for a court to actually rule on the matter is for Wikimedia to use the photos and David Slater to sue them, at which point then the court will rule on the matter and distribute monetary damages as appropriate. You keep using the word "unaccountable"; I don't think you know what it means. Wikimedia is accountable to the court system, and Slater has free reign to take action through that court system.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The best way for a court to actually rule on the matter is for Wikimedia to use the photos and David Slater to sue them." Good grief - so the entire planet has signed away its IP rights to Wikipedia. True colours are being displayed!!! Tonyinman (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See US Copyright Office circular 1, page 7. Copyright registration is not necessary for copyright protection, but may be required for bring a copyright case and is required to get statutory damages in a copyright case. It's also available in court as prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright; should the US Copyright Office refuse to register these works, it would be much harder to bring a court case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from presuming the USA is the only country in existence, that's simply not the case. Tonyinman (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete There are photographs out there that are the result of accidents by the photographer's equipment. Those photos belong to the photographers who's equipment was used, even if they did not intentionally hit the shutter, or even if the camera was pointed in an unintended direction. If I drop my camera, and it takes a photo, I own the photo. If we are to presume the monkey is unable to own a copyright, it follows that this photo be treated the same as any other accidental photo, the fact that the monkey is alive has no legal bearing on the matter. If we presume the monkey is able to own the copyright, then no one can ever use the photo anywhere because a monkey cannot sign a contract. Either way, Wikimedia can't use it. But the main reason for deleting it is none of this rhetoric. It's that Wikimedia will lose an expensive lawsuit, and that will be bad for Wikimedia. I don't know why the foundation's lawyers haven't intervened and settled this yet, it is idiotic to allow user votes to create liability like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:2c00:318:5074:604c:8af3:43f1 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation's lawyers have intervened; they've told David Slater that they decline to delete the file, as it's in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Made the news: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-at-center-of-copyright-brouhaha/ -172.1.184.14 03:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I think you are missing the point here, Wikimedia and Wikipedia should be used to benefit all people and not to abuse its power; by "deciding" by your own to strip the copyrights of the original owner, monkey or man you are de-facto assigning the copyrights to Wikimedia and therefore Wikimedia is responsible for all of the infringements that might and will occur on its behalf. This might lead to the case of paying a great deal of money from the Wikimedia foundation which I personally contributed to and it will eventually hurt this establishment, pocket wise and publicly moral wise. Set that aside, the photographs would never have been published without the intervention of the photographer, so he deserves a little credit for that; He selected them from all the bad ones which falls into an assembled work which is under copyright law, moreover processing of the photos to the computer even with a minimal intervention gives him an intervention in the finished product. I would like to state that the original copyright law for photographs in the UK stated that the owner of the negatives holds the rights to the photos, this law has since been changed around the world due to digital photography (which still have digital negatives) and issues that arose from commissioned work, but in this case the spirit of the original law can prevail. In my honest opinion, when I read the article about this lawsuit, and I think for every common sensible human being it is clear that the photographer should hold the rights and that Wikimedia is playing dirty here, even a little bit juvenile just on the reason of spite and trying to abuse the law. When I saw that, I had to say something. As an active user of this site and someone who believes in the spirit of the Wikipedia ongoing project I believe that this case should be solved and should have been solved out of court with the common morality of the common, therefore I vote delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.52.188 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp; picking paintings and processing the photos thereof to computer does not give the rights to the photographer. Even the taking of the photos of the paintings on top of that was not sufficient for copyright, given the lack of creative effort. Copyright law has strict bounds, and in the US it's not about the sweat of the brow at all; it's about the creative input, which here there was none.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That case is irrelevant to this matter. It concerned photography of existing works, such as this detail of a ceramic work of art, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imari_Jar_DES.jpg . The David Slater case concerns an original work, for which the IP rights are held by David Slater until a court of law determines otherwise. Tonyinman (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That case involved the selection of works and the post-processing of pictures of them, exactly analogous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it doesn't concern the photograph of that Imari jar, as that is a three-dimensional work and general consensus is that photographs of two dimensional works (which makes an exact copy) and three dimensional works (which have substantial creative input by the photograph in how they are photographed) are different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And for the last time, why do you think that David Slater has copyright until a court rules otherwise? If two people claim to have written a novel, do they both have copyright until a court rules otherwise? Must a publisher ignore the fact that one claim is ludicrous and wait until the court case is over to start publishing?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If two people claim copyright of a book the first to publish retains copyright unless the second makes a successful claim in a court of law. This case is similar in that David Slater is the de facto copyright holder as the initial publisher, and if you believe he isn't, you'd need a decision in a court of law - not a decision by yourself or wikimedia cronies. We live in a democracy, not internet mob rule. Tonyinman (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the photographer is a UK citizen the case should be judged under UK copyright laws and under the Bern convention. --79.182.52.188 04:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You can check the British law here note paragraph 9 - 'Authorship of work' Section (3) - In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken. (under UK law artistic work includes photos, see 4(1)(a)). --79.182.52.188 05:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Works that originate from a non-human source can not claim copyright, so the monkey does not own a copyright. Everyone agrees on that except a few misleading and sensationalized claims on a few blogs. If Slater had set up an automation to take the picture, that would have been a substantial creative input - but he didn't. There is nothing creative about having your camera stolen, and indeed, if a human had stolen his camera and taken a self-portrait, that human would own the copyright on the resultant image. So the monkey cannot claim copyright, and Slater cannot claim copyright, and thus nobody can claim copyright and the image is in the public domain. I feel sympathy for Mr. Slater not being allowed to monetize a work on which he had zero creative input, but this is a simple case of attempted copyfraud. Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The WMF, on behalf of the community, hired a lawyer to advise us on issues like this. That lawyer said that we can keep it. Why do we even have a lawyer if we aren't going to take their advice? If this goes to court and the judge rules against the WMF or the judge given an interim order to take in down, then we should take it down. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So a Wikimedia lawyer decides the law and not a democratic judicial system? I'd rather live in Stalinist Russia. Tonyinman (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the second line of my comment, you'll see that I said we should take it down if a judge tells us to. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You, and Wikipedia have no legal authority to make a decision to wait for a court decision. The image should be deleted, as per copyright law, until there is a decision otherwise. You are not in charge, the courts are. That's how a democratic judicial system and separation of powers works. That's what two World Wars have been fought over. That's, supposedly, what America is supposed to protect above all else - civil liberties and the power of the individual against corporations and the state. Why do you think you have the right to decide on this photographer's livelihood - who do you believe gave you that authority? Tonyinman (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't put everything on hold every time there is a court challenge. When some guy sued over copyright of Harry Potter a few years ago, stores didn't take all of the Harry Potter books and movies off the shelves while the court case was going on. In fact, if the image was deleted now, there wouldn't be a court case because the plaintiff would already have what he wanted. The WMF using this image is how we're actually going to get a decision. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-sequitur. With Harry Potter, JK Rowling published first - she was the copyright holder until a court deemed otherwise. The court sided with her, dismissed the challenge, and JK Rowling remained the copyright holder. No one 'removed books' since JK Rowling's copyright was never revoked. In this case, David Slater as the original publisher is the copyright holder, so no-one should be removing that copyright until a court of law has made that decision. And actually, I don't believe there should be a court case to decide a dispute, simply a court case to decide on damages and loss of earnings due to the DMCA copyright infringement. David Slater holds the copyright, and under US copyright law another 'agent' has to make a claim for that copyright to be disputed, let alone transferred. Since the agent would be a monkey, that could never happen. Also, there's no provision or precedent for PD to act as an 'agent' or for an image to have copyright 'revoked' in this way. Tonyinman (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To quote your earlier post, "You are not in charge, the courts are." You may have already decided that David Slater owns the copyright, but a number of lawyers disagree with your legal analysis, so the issue is not as simple as you make it out to be. The only body which can decide who is right is the court, and the only way for this to get to the court is to keep the image up. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Because lawyers do not offer advice based on morality. The WMF should have asked itself: While legal advice indicates we are in a sound legal position is it the morally correct thing to do in this circumstance? It is a slippery thing where you own something until the moment you publish it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want a moral argument, I say that it's immoral to try to claim copyright over something when another agent, who is not employed by you or working on your behalf, chose the camera angle, chose the position of the subject, and chose when to press the shutter. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under US copyright law an animal cannot be an agent. Besides, David Slater organized the trip, set up the cameras, chose the lenses, decided on the location - only for an animal to interfere with the equipment. It is immoral for a non-judicial corporation to decide to deprive a photographer of his livelihood. Tonyinman (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Non-copyrightable. Also, oppose meta:copyright paranoia. Heck, even WMF took an official stance on this, who wants to be more holy than the pope? Any oppose rationale borders on paranoia level that's close to trolling IMHO.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep 304 takedown requests were rejected by the WMF during 17 months, 304 times WMF said no to Slater's request. This is not the fight of the Wikimedia contributors, and deleting the image certeinly won't stop Slater from taking legal actions (if he hasn't started with them). If the WMF stood in almost 2 years 304 times over the same answer ("no") it is now their fight, in this case a legal one. If the copyright belongs to Slater, the monkey, or if the image is PD, is now up to the court this will be handled. WMF has said "yes, we will delete it" before, if they didn't decide to say "yes" for two years, it is out of contributors' !votation. Tbhotch™ 05:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

So the photographer who caused the photograph to be created has to spend his life savings on suing a giant corporation every time the giant unelected law evading corporation decides to determine copyright on his image? If that's the case: 1) All photographers, except very rich ones or those who are friends with the corporation heads, will go out of business since their work will be worthless as IP commodities. 2) Wikimedia will have decided it determines image rights for the entire world by default, unless the photographer is rich enough to take legal action. Is Kafka required reading for Wikipedia employees? I thought most Americans were against such 1950s communist ideals? Even North Korea has more freedoms than what is being suggested. Tonyinman (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to throw around comparisons to totalitarian governments, I'd like to point out that you seem to be advocating a system where people using photos are guilty until proven innocent, which is hardly acceptable in a free country. Also, isn't a system where corporations can do what they want more in line with capitalism than communism? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the projection and ludicrous comment - no. A photographer creates an image and publishes it. The photographer owns the rights to that image and derives income with which he pays his bills, lives his life and builds a business. Then a big corporation comes along and says, "Our users have decided in an arbitrary vote that: the image isn't yours, we're going to give it away for free and destroy your earnings, and if you don't like it spend your life savings and try to sue us." That's wrong on every level, anywhere. For a precise philosophical definition, it's 'inverted totalitarianism' and an erosion of the rights of the individual. Tonyinman (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete hello i dont know where to ask to hav photo take down. Please remov as i not grant permison. -- monky 05:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.222.87 (talk • contribs)

If you are the real monkey who took the selfie, where did you learn English and how are you on the internet? Can you email OTRS with additional verification? 104.128.96.117 06:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

am use internet cafe. they dont tell how to use email and i dont speak indonesian. -- monky 70.36.222.87 06:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, the monkey personally said .."ooohhhoo..aaa..ahhh..ahhha..ooh...ooohhh..aaahh"...which translated by google say its its have given wikimedia rights to its 'selfie' ..silly request, silly reply..--Stemoc 06:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep There is no reason to second guess wikimedia on this. They have come to the determination that it's non-copyrightable, and their judgement should stand until overturned by a court. Also, word on the law blogs is that Slater has no case and will lose in court. Darx9url (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone recognise Wikimedia as an arbiter of copyright law decisions? Wikimedia's 'determination' has no authority and to suggest it does places Wikimedia above the authority of the United States judiciary. I agree that a court of law should make a decision, and until that time, the de facto copyright holder - David Slater - should have his wishes and rights under DMCA respected. He has made a good faith attestation that the image is his, and Wikimedia should abide by the law, in this case DMCA and promptly remove the image. Tonyinman (talk)

•  Keep --Sigmundur (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Copyright is granted based on artistic originality. Since the ape took the initiative and made all the decisions related to taking the picture, the copyright is clearly hers. --Tungsten (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep This is actually a clear keep, no idea why there's so much discussion about it. See the original DR for the legal reasons. The image was not made by the photographer so it's not copyrighted by him. Even the WMF denied a takedown request for the obvious reason - it's not his work. If someone takes my cam to take a photo then it's his copyright, unless he/she/it is not eligible to be a copyright holder.--Denniss (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: This is long past a useful discussion. Let's the real lawyers decide. Apprentice lawyers should look for padawan-lawyers.com. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete A) Because the present image's uploader (Odder) and User:AJF have falsely stripped the EXIF / licensing info reflecting the photographer David Slate's copyright claims.

B) Because the previous DR of 2014 did not run for at least 7 days mentioned in policy

C) Because there is recent judicial finding by the US court on the photographer's motion dismissing the authorship claim filed on behalf of the monkey

D) Because US Copyright law follows the "Marshall- Goldstein" rule.for establishing authorship, by this rule it is the photographer David Slater, whose idea was permanently fixed and subsequently tangibly expressed, who is now the only possible "author" in law

E) Because the {PD-animal template} is incorrect

F) Because the monkey is not a person G) Because the monkey cannot hold copyright in this image (or the other images)

H) Because it is a settled principle of common law that the owner of stolen goods is entitled to all its profits if it is returned to him

I) Because criminal law also applies here considering that the US importers of this image (NBCNEWS) admittedly paid the UK based photographer for the right to publish a copy, and it was on a copyrighted and paid basis that the image was imported into the USA.

J) Because the IANAL approach of Commons "mobs" can create subsequent criminal legal liabilities for those who reuse the image based on the uploader's false assurances of public domain status

K) Because stripping the EXIF of this image requires explicit legal opinion of the WMF to retain this image (beyond the evasive and misleading WMF Transparency report paragraph)

L) Because retaining this image on US servers after stealing / importing it from UK contravenes the present EU safe harbor principles

M) Because the image source (NBCnews) clearly mentions David Slater as the photographer to whom the copyright went. Mohsinpathania (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: This controversial case should be handled by Wikimedia Legal (WMF Lawyers already decided to keep this file). The only way to delete this file is by a DMCA Takedown. Meanwhile, this still considered a work by the monkey in most parts of the world. Unless you're an attorney, please keep away from this case and this file. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  COMMENT a) there are new circumstances (the court judgment), b) After the 2014 DR, 4 prominent US lawyers opined to Newsweek that Slater holds the copyright and derided WMF's claims. c) I am filing this DR with a view to get WMF to clearly state their reasoned legal opinion. d) WMF's privacy policy does not permit you to violate my privacy (by asking if I am an attorney). 14:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Delete per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Commons deletes thousands of files on the most tenuous of reasons. So an image like this with some obviously high profile court cases that still haven't decided copyright on it clearly falls under COM:PCP.

This image harms Commons, as it is unwarranted use of non-free content.

This image harms Commons particularly, because of grandstanding at events like Wikimania 2014. We should reverse this as fast as possible, starting with this image. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Why would an admin delete EXIF data? Why would the excuse "Upload a metadata-free file version to limit file size" ever be a valid reason? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ExifTool Version Number         : 10.08
File Name                       : macaca.jpeg
Directory                       : .
File Size                       : 1400 kB
File Modification Date/Time     : 2016:03:06 14:24:39+00:00
File Access Date/Time           : 2016:03:06 14:25:28+00:00
File Inode Change Date/Time     : 2016:03:06 14:24:47+00:00
File Permissions                : rw-r--r--
File Type                       : JPEG
File Type Extension             : jpg
MIME Type                       : image/jpeg
JFIF Version                    : 1.02
Exif Byte Order                 : Little-endian (Intel, II)
Subfile Type                    : Full-resolution Image
Compression                     : Uncompressed
Photometric Interpretation      : RGB
Image Description               : PIC BY A WILD MONKEY / DAVID SLATER / CATERS NEWS - (PICTURED: One of the photos that the monkey took with Davids camera. 1 of 2: This photo was the original photo the monkey took) - These are the chimp-ly marvellous images captured by a cheeky monkey after turning the tables on a photographer who left his camera unmanned. The inquisitive scamp playfully went to investigate the equipment before becoming fascinated with his own reflection in the lens. And it wasnt long before the crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away sending award-winning photographer David Slater bananas. David, from Coleford, Gloucestershire, was on a trip to a small national park north of the Indonesian island of Sulawesi when he met the incredibly friendly bunch. SEE CATERS COPY.
Strip Offsets                   : 31116
Orientation                     : Horizontal (normal)
Samples Per Pixel               : 3
Rows Per Strip                  : 4368
Strip Byte Counts               : 38158848
X Resolution                    : 72
Y Resolution                    : 72
Planar Configuration            : Chunky
Resolution Unit                 : inches
Software                        : Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Modify Date                     : 2013:11:01 13:55:43
Artist                          : David J Slater
XMP Toolkit                     : Adobe XMP Core 4.2.2-c063 53.352624, 2008/07/30-18:12:18
City                            : Tangkoko National Park
State                           : Sulawesi
Country                         : Indonesia
Time Created                    : 13:58:56+00:00
Prefs                           : Tagged:0, ColorClass:0, Rating:0, FrameNum:-00001
Rating                          : 0
Create Date                     : 2009:11:07 10:01:29Z
Location                        : Forest of Dean
Creator Work Email              : www.djsphotography.co.uk
Native Digest                   : 256,257,258,259,262,274,277,284,530,531,282,283,296,301,318,319,529,532,306,270,271,272,305,315,33432;0AD1C6F11A03A32B18E47C6BA36B0921
Copyright                       : Caters News Agency Ltd
Province-State                  : Sulawesi
Country-Primary Location Name   : Indonesia
Sub-location                    : Forest of Dean
Color Space                     : sRGB
Exif Image Width                : 1085
Exif Image Height               : 1500
Thumbnail Offset                : 31404
Thumbnail Length                : 6216
Current IPTC Digest             : e65b7116938db3218e2744e7962f48e8
Application Record Version      : 2
Caption-Abstract                : PIC BY A WILD MONKEY / DAVID SLATER / CATERS NEWS - (PICTURED: One of the photos that the monkey took with Davids camera. 1 of 2: This photo was the original photo the monkey took) - These are the chimp-ly marvellous images captured by a cheeky monkey after turning the tables on a photographer who left his camera unmanned. The inquisitive scamp playfully went to investigate the equipment before becoming fascinated with his own reflection in the lens. And it wasnt long before the crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away sending award-winning photographer David Slater bananas. David, from Coleford, Gloucestershire, was on a trip to a small national park north of the Indonesian island of Sulawesi when he met the incredibly friendly bunch. SEE CATERS COPY.
By-line                         : David J Slater
Object Name                     : Monkey takes photos on camera
Original Transmission Reference : 517366
Keywords                        : monkey, wildlife, amazing, camera, photo, photographer, park
Copyright Notice                : Caters News Agency Ltd
Reference Number                : 00517366
Program Version                 : 2.0
Local Caption                   : PIC BY A WILD MONKEY / DAVID SLATER / CATERS NEWS - (PICTURED: One of the photos that the monkey took with Davids camera. 1 of 2: This photo was the original photo the monkey took) - These are the chimp-ly marvellous images captured by a cheeky monkey afte
Job ID                          : 517366
IPTC Digest                     : e65b7116938db3218e2744e7962f48e8
Displayed Units X               : inches
Displayed Units Y               : inches
Global Angle                    : 30
Global Altitude                 : 30
Copyright Flag                  : False
Photoshop Thumbnail             : (Binary data 6216 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Photoshop Quality               : 12
Photoshop Format                : Standard
Progressive Scans               : 3 Scans
Creator Tool                    : Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 Windows
Metadata Date                   : 2013:11:01 13:55:43-07:00
Format                          : image/jpeg
Document ID                     : uuid:F653187195A5E01189D3CFCA0FCD4935
Instance ID                     : xmp.iid:E76B86353443E311B896DCDD405CAE47
Original Document ID            : uuid:F653187195A5E01189D3CFCA0FCD4935
Color Mode                      : RGB
ICC Profile Name                : sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Headline                        : Monkey takes photos on camera
Credit                          : Caters News Agency
Source                          : Caters News Agency
Transmission Reference          : 517366
Date Created                    : 2011:07:04
Marked                          : False
Creator                         : David J Slater
Description                     : PIC BY A WILD MONKEY / DAVID SLATER / CATERS NEWS - (PICTURED: One of the photos that the monkey took with Davids camera. 1 of 2: This photo was the original photo the monkey took) - These are the chimp-ly marvellous images captured by a cheeky monkey after turning the tables on a photographer who left his camera unmanned. The inquisitive scamp playfully went to investigate the equipment before becoming fascinated with his own reflection in the lens. And it wasnt long before the crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away sending award-winning photographer David Slater bananas. David, from Coleford, Gloucestershire, was on a trip to a small national park north of the Indonesian island of Sulawesi when he met the incredibly friendly bunch. SEE CATERS COPY.
Rights                          : Caters News Agency Ltd
Title                           : Monkey takes photos on camera
Subject                         : monkey, wildlife, amazing, camera, photo, photographer, park
Derived From Instance ID        : uuid:073B159C94A5E01189D3CFCA0FCD4935
Derived From Document ID        : uuid:073B159C94A5E01189D3CFCA0FCD4935
History Action                  : saved, saved
History Instance ID             : xmp.iid:E66B86353443E311B896DCDD405CAE47, xmp.iid:E76B86353443E311B896DCDD405CAE47
History When                    : 2013:11:01 13:55:43-07:00, 2013:11:01 13:55:43-07:00
History Software Agent          : Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows, Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
History Changed                 : /, /
Profile CMM Type                : Lino
Profile Version                 : 2.1.0
Profile Class                   : Display Device Profile
Color Space Data                : RGB
Profile Connection Space        : XYZ
Profile Date Time               : 1998:02:09 06:49:00
Profile File Signature          : acsp
Primary Platform                : Microsoft Corporation
CMM Flags                       : Not Embedded, Independent
Device Manufacturer             : IEC
Device Model                    : sRGB
Device Attributes               : Reflective, Glossy, Positive, Color
Rendering Intent                : Media-Relative Colorimetric
Connection Space Illuminant     : 0.9642 1 0.82491
Profile Creator                 : HP
Profile ID                      : 0
Profile Copyright               : Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company
Profile Description             : sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Media White Point               : 0.95045 1 1.08905
Media Black Point               : 0 0 0
Red Matrix Column               : 0.43607 0.22249 0.01392
Green Matrix Column             : 0.38515 0.71687 0.09708
Blue Matrix Column              : 0.14307 0.06061 0.7141
Device Mfg Desc                 : IEC http://www.iec.ch
Device Model Desc               : IEC 61966-2.1 Default RGB colour space - sRGB
Viewing Cond Desc               : Reference Viewing Condition in IEC61966-2.1
Viewing Cond Illuminant         : 19.6445 20.3718 16.8089
Viewing Cond Surround           : 3.92889 4.07439 3.36179
Viewing Cond Illuminant Type    : D50
Luminance                       : 76.03647 80 87.12462
Measurement Observer            : CIE 1931
Measurement Backing             : 0 0 0
Measurement Geometry            : Unknown
Measurement Flare               : 0.999%
Measurement Illuminant          : D65
Technology                      : Cathode Ray Tube Display
Red Tone Reproduction Curve     : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Green Tone Reproduction Curve   : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Blue Tone Reproduction Curve    : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
DCT Encode Version              : 100
APP14 Flags 0                   : [14]
APP14 Flags 1                   : (none)
Color Transform                 : YCbCr
Image Width                     : 1085
Image Height                    : 1500
Encoding Process                : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample                 : 8
Color Components                : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling            : YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
Date/Time Created               : 2008:09:25 13:58:56+00:00
Date/Time Original              : 2008:09:25 13:58:56+00:00
Image Size                      : 1085x1500
Megapixels                      : 1.6
Thumbnail Image                 : (Binary data 6216 bytes, use -b option to extract)

Kept: We have been over this before. The new arguments brought up aren’t really new and most are invalid. See here for example.

This has been discussed to death multiple times. The discussion was kept so end of story. We are not going to repeat a discussion every time someone read something in a newspaper and briefly read some laws. Sometimes cases are just closed, despite our personal opinions regarding this file.

Time to accept community consensus and leave this death horse be. Natuur12 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of the photos of David Horvitz's "Public Access" series intended to disrupt Wikipedia for an art project. As the uploader cannot be determined to be the copyright owner in any way, this photo cannot be retained on the Commons. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete COM:COPYVIO against the rights of living artist David Horvitz as there is no way to prove this uploader is the same as Mr. Horvitz without an OTRS. If OTRS were filed - and accepted - I would withdraw my vote to delete. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Photographers David Horvitz and Ed Steck published an art project called Public Access, documenting how they disrupted Wikpedia and Commons with images including this one. On page 35 of the 101-page PDF, you can see that this photo which is up for deletion is the same image previously deleted as Image:19 lobos weston.JPG. The same file was included in the big list of Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight, initiated by Ryulong on 23 January 2011 and deleted on 3 February 2011. Since this photo was previously deleted by community consensus, it should be speedily deleted. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of the photos of David Horvitz's "Public Access" series intended to disrupt Wikipedia for an art project. As the uploader cannot be determined to be the copyright owner in any way, this photo cannot be retained on the Commons. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete COM:COPYVIO against the rights of living artist David Horvitz as there is no way to prove this uploader is the same as Mr. Horvitz without an OTRS. If OTRS were filed - and accepted - I would withdraw my vote to delete. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Photographers David Horvitz and Ed Steck published an art project called Public Access, documenting how they disrupted Wikpedia and Commons with images including this one. On page 41 of the 101-page PDF, you can see that this photo which is up for deletion is the same image previously deleted as File:17milecypruspoint.jpg. The same file was included in the big list of Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight, initiated by Ryulong on 23 January 2011 and deleted on 3 February 2011. Since this photo was previously deleted by community consensus, it should be speedily deleted. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of the photos of David Horvitz's "Public Access" series intended to disrupt Wikipedia for an art project. As the uploader cannot be determined to be the copyright owner in any way, this photo cannot be retained on the Commons. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete COM:COPYVIO against the rights of living artist David Horvitz as there is no way to prove this uploader is the same as Mr. Horvitz without an OTRS. If OTRS were filed - and accepted - I would withdraw my vote to delete. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should also be deleted as a derivative of the other David Horvitz photos of questionable quality, educational purpose, and copyright status as we have no OTRS record of the claimed released rights. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete unclear (c)status --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia undeleted this to make a point when I went on the IRC channel asking for help in dealing with a recently discovered sockpuppet. It should be redeleted as should File:Laketahoewhalebeach.jpg.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete This photo was previously deleted by community consensus, so now it is a candidate for speedy deletion. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: If Russavia disagrees he can go to com:UNDEL just like everyone else. This is not the way. Natuur12 (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by David Horvitz to have his art project on the Wikimedia Commons. See other related requests. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. This guys is a sockpuppeter who has disrupted Commons for years. All of his uploads should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete agreed - --WPPilot (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Delete, per nom, sockpuppet & not here to build encyclopedia but to build self up. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: see above Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Undeleted We aren't in the business of deleting in scope images simply because of who uploaded it. Part of the required licencing here on Commons is that images can be modified; i.e. cropped and uploaded as a new image where deemed required by individual editors. russavia (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of several photographs by the artist David Horvitz whose sole purpose in uploading the photo is part of his nebulous art project where his body is in frame. There is no clear way of knowing if this photograph even has the correct licensing because it was uploaded by one of several sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet accounts operated by David Horvitz and has no place on this project. This was previously deleted through COM:DR already but Russavia undeleted it out of process. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After having been uploaded by so many multiple users, each claiming "own" work, it's not possible to know the copyright status of this image, COM:PRP suggests that items of this form of uncertain provenance be removed from the project. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete unclear (c)status --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Nice shot. No serious question on copyright status.--Nowa (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that we can be 100% sure that this photo was uploaded by the actual copyright owner due to the massive amount of accounts involved. The copyright is unclear and you need to end your disruption of these projects in your ass backwards attempt to promote this guy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The nomination states who the photographer is. Great photo, how about we spend time doing something other than punishing Horvitz by deleting in scope content? --Fæ (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia undeleted this again to make a point when I went on the IRC channel asking for help in dealing with a recently discovered sockpuppet. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep There is zero doubt as to the authorship/copyright status of the images. It was taken on 27 April 2012 and uploaded on 1 May 2012. The image is high resolution and is in scope. Ryulong claims that the existence of File:A Nudist at Whale Beach Lake Tahoe.JPG is enough, and that the images are the same. They clearly are not. The image is in scope. Whilst the person in question may have uploaded some pointless, out-of-scope images, this is one example where there is no doubt as to its usefulness for our repository, being in scope of Category:Whale Beach, Lake Tahoe. russavia (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's in scope has nothing to do with the fact that you've undeleted this because of your counter-crusade against my work to have the photographs of this series off of the website due to the disruption and unclear copyright status. You don't get to go against a week old discussion just because you think the photo is useful when everyone else in all of these myriad discussions realized there might be issues with the rights as well as the fact that you are the only one to hold this view. We do not know the photographer. We just know the uploader and human subject. It's not like Horvitz keeps an Indonesian macaque with him to take the photo for him. There is no way he managed to set up a timer to get him yards away from the camera, and from the resolution he clearly doesn't have a remote control for the trigger on him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree with russavia. I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that David Horvitz is the creator, uploader and rightful copyright holder of this image, no matter who actually snapped the shutter.--Nowa (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep However, David you know you can resolve this nonsense about your sock game by writing to permissions-commonswikimedia.org with a clear release statement for all your uploads, so please follow that path just to stop wasting everyone's time. I am keen to keep the good quality photographs you have released, but I will stop bothering to contribute to these discussions if the socks and dramah carry on, and on, as I have better ways to spend my volunteer time and my natural indulgence for this amusing fringe performance art has limits. --Fæ (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: If Russavia disagrees he can go to com:UNDEL just like everyone else. This is not the way. Natuur12 (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW, no permission. Yann (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 KeepCOM:FOP in HR is fine.--Sanandros (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Sanandros. Yann (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of possibly copyrighted work. I don't understand the reason for which it was kept. The FOP is only valid for permanent installments. A.Savin 23:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent in respect of their lifespan.--Sanandros (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shot (~scan) of a restaurant menu card. It is probably not located in a public place, and even if, the location will certainly not be permanent in the sense of any European country's copyright law. Besides, on COM:FOP#Croatia you can read that the Croatian FOP is only allowed "in regard to architecture, for the outer appearance only", so I wonder if we need to discuss about permanence here whatsoever. --A.Savin 08:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FOP in Croatia for non-permanent installations -FASTILY 04:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schreibfehler Fischer.H (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: but renamed as requested JuTa 00:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schreibfehler Fischer.H (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schreibfehler Fischer.H (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: but renamed to File:Sandsteinsturz 1533 IMG 6664.jpg JuTa 00:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk upload of copyvio bike images nominated here due to volume (File:Thumpstar-EG-110-.jpg is here; File:Thumpstar-TSX-.jpg is here, etc.)

• File:Thumpstar-EG-110-.jpg
• File:Thumpstar-TSX-.jpg
• File:125 ts thumpster.jpg
• File:125 bw TS-X.jpg
• File:Terra-Moto-TDX 125F Pro.jpg
• File:Terra moto krusha.jpg
• File:Road ripper thumpstar.jpg
• File:Thumpstar-TSR-88...jpg
• File:Thupster TSK 110cc.jpg
• File:Thumpster tsk 110.jpg
• File:TSK50lowres1-540x360.jpg
• File:Thumpstar-TSR-88-300x225.jpg
• File:Thumpstar-huge.jpg
• File:THUMP-150-2012-300x239.jpg
• File:Pro06-carbon-300x225.jpg
• File:TDX-125F-PRO-300x234.jpg
• File:Road-Ripper-eec501.jpg
• File:TSX+LE125.jpg
• File:Thumpstar-TSR-125rs.jpg

Эlcobbola _talk 15:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by User:Krd. JuTa 19:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not created by user https://www.facebook.com/TejaswiMadivada/photos/pb.513117292091068.-2207520000.1407342010./680608508675278/?type=3&theater Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear case of copyright violation. Picture found using Google search. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by User:Krd. JuTa 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Profile Shot of Chris McLennan in Africa 2013.jpg Catherine Anne Young (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by User:Fastily. JuTa 19:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr description indicates that this is a screen shot from a video, and so cannot be uploaded under a free license. DAJF (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another Flickr-laundered image from https://www.flickr.com/photos/125217783@N02/ DAJF (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The USA has no COM:FOP for modern 3D sculptures in Virginia or anywhere else. Leoboudv (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SVG file at File:Coat of Arms of Kurdistan.svg. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence the photos or text on the sign are available under a free licence. russavia (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photo/text on the bag cover would not be freely licenced. russavia (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is not own work, because of the website on the bottom of the image. That website, dailysquee.com, is now this website, that is about "cute animals". And if we search for "affenpinscher" there, we can find this image. Unfortunately, I can't find that post date, but it's too strange a photo with a website and icons on its bottom part.

Uploader needs to prove he is the real author. UAwiki (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Per nominator's. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 18:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this photo should be deleted because its unlikely to be used for educational purposes. The image is blurry and there are better images on commons that illustrate the interior of the train. (see: File:MRT-3 Train Interior.jpg) The file is currently not in use on any project. NewPhilippinerailways (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete bummer, please don't forget to move a low resolution version to the English Wikipedia for the article it's used on. Multichill (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raelene Gutierrez is not the copyright owner. Don Yang who took this picture is. Did Mr. Yang license this personal image freely for commercial use? Leoboudv (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom, unless evidence is provided that the copyright holder licensed the image. Green Giant (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. While I can't find an exact duplicate of this film poster online, the image on http://www.listal.com/viewimage/1628869 predates this file. Gabbe (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the copyright license requirements, image needs to be deleted. The Tepes (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the copyright license requirements, image needs to be deleted. The Tepes (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the copyright license requirements, image needs to be deleted. The Tepes (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the copyright license requirements, image needs to be deleted. The Tepes (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the copyright license requirements, image needs to be deleted. The Tepes (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the copyright license requirements, image needs to be deleted. The Tepes (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small resolution, no exif, likely copyvio Krd 07:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality selfies, not used, out of scope.

• File:Taye Bryant 2014-06-13 00-22.jpg
• File:Taye Bryant 2014-06-13 00-21.jpg

Yann (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation Shalbat (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW, no permission. Yann (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused personal picture. Lupo 08:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW, no permission. Yann (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW, no permission. Yann (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW, no permission. Yann (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW, no permission. Yann (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused personal picture. Lupo 08:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW, no permission. Yann (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused personal photo; advertisement. Lupo 08:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete -- advert of uploader, no other use. George8211 (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted-Blatant advert--KTo288 (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused personal picture. Lupo 09:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From some tweet: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsU_iDYCQAA2pyF.jpg, last-modified timestamp Sat, 12 Jul 2014 07:48:11 GMT, a few hours before the upload here. No evidence of free license. Lupo 09:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused personal picture. Lupo 09:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: advertising or self-promotion. Only used in a user page of a user without any single useful contribution to the project. BrightRaven (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the claimed author (B. Zarro) agreed with the licence. The image can be found here (article about a 2005 exhibition, probably published in 2005). BrightRaven (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused personal picture. Lupo 09:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Taiwanese actor zh:周賢忠.--KTo288 (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, then: already published at [3],sent with a last-modified timestamp of Thu, 03 Jul 2014 12:39:15 GMT, ten days before the upload here. Uploader does not seem to be the author or the owner of the facebook page. Unclear whether this facebook publication is the original source. If it is, and if the photo shows 周賢忠, and if the facebook account owner is not the actor himself (because if he is, then who took the photo? Is it a movie screengrab even?), then it would need at the very least an OTRS release from that facebook account. I don't know if that is just a fan or the actor himself.  Delete unless copyright status can be ascertained. Lupo 12:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader uploaded 2 other pictures of the same subject. Those 2 other pictures can be found here, where they are attributed to: "Photographer: Kutumba Theatre Project". I guess these two are not own work either.

• File:Ashley, Kathy, and Mary.JPG
• File:Ashley and Sam.JPG

BrightRaven (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused personal picture. Lupo 10:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope: unused personal picture. Lupo 10:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too low resolution to be of value OSX (talk • contributions) 10:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal file 37.5.3.33 11:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(c) 2011 www.mapsofindia.com Ciaurlec (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to fr:Guy-René Doumayrou a work of Doumayrou, not of the uploader

• File:Doum triptyque 2010 ouvert.jpg
• File:Doum triptyque 2010 ferme.jpg

37.5.3.33 11:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused pwrsonal file 37.5.3.33 11:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious "own work" (5 KB, no EXIF) 37.5.3.33 12:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal file 37.5.3.33 12:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A portrait of the uploader? (unused) 37.5.3.33 12:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal file 37.5.3.33 12:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal file 37.5.3.33 12:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal file 37.5.3.33 12:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no source, no permission 37.5.3.33 12:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

derivative work 37.5.3.33 13:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 04:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See image descriptions (and visual characteristics); these are screenshots (derivative works), not the uploader's work

• File:Bushra Ansari in 2012.png
• File:Abida Parveen Bushra Ansari Ali Azmat.png
• File:Abida Parveen Coke Studio.png
• File:Abida Parveen 3.png
• File:Abida Parveen 2.png
• File:Abida Parveen in New York.png
• File:Abida Parveen 1.png
• File:Abida Parveen Sur Kshetra.png
• File:Abida Parveen in 2008.png
• File:Abida Parveen.png
• File:Abida Parveen Atif Aslam.png
• File:Abida Parveen Runa Laila Asha Bhosle.png
• File:Abida Parveen Sonu Nigam Rahat Fateh.png
• File:Abida Parveen and Ali Azmat.png