Talk:Monkey selfie copyright dispute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why is there a wikipedia article for this?

Why the f--- is this a wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.187.211.67 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because it's a legal test case. Or because someone's seen a "market development opportunity" for advancing primate tool use. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe just an excuse to publish the photograph more? --109.149.123.10 (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Or maybe because it passes the general notability guidelines and someone (or, actually, several someones) took the time to write extensive material about the photographs and case. It is not unprecedented to have articles on individual photographs (Situation Room, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, etc.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you for informing a pleb such as myself aboot the inner workings of Wikipedia.--109.149.123.10 (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"A monkey needs a camera like a politician needs a bicycle?" Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna go with "because wikipedia is run by and for self-satisfied idiots" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.160.97 (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And there's hundreds of the little blighters. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate coverage in reliable sources

One of the features of this case is that normally reliable sources have got it wrong and said that Wikipedia claimed that the monkey owned a copyright on the photograph, eg the Daily Telegraph here, the The Times of India here and News.com.au here. This happened in August 2014 and as a result many people have been confused as to what the case is about. Wikipedia has never said that the monkey owns or should own the copyright, and has always maintained that the image is public domain due to its non-human authorship. This could be added to the article but it may have WP:SUBJECT problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• That misunderstanding may be why some have claimed that the PETA ruling means Slater is the copyright owner... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Name

It is said the monkey has the name Naruto. --Itu (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

And not just by other monkeys, and other photographers. And it seems it may have been he/she who took the photograph: [1]? His/her name is notable and was added for a short time. But did the female/male monkey have a name? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that "Generally Indonesian does not make use of grammatical gender", but surely they have typical boy names and typical girl names? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed Naruto for the time being because it is unclear whether the famous smiling monkey is Naruto. Some news sources have said this, but other sources have cast doubt on it.[2][3] Naruto may be the monkey in the full length photograph, but there is confusion due to the lack of clear and consistent sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Theres a link at the top of this page called "Did PETA Name the Right Macaque". The BBC link in the article calls the monkey "a female called Ella". The two of them look like two different monkeys to me. Viam Ferream (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Katie Chan

The days of the image of Katie Chan with the monkey (or is it the monkey with Katie Chan?) may be numbered. But is there any reason why this one was chosen and not a more anonymous one? Does she get a say in whether it's used here or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, she doesn't get any say. She posed at Wikimania, in her role as part of WMF, and then had that image uploaded to Commons under a free licence. We surely do not have to explain to the nomenklatura of WMF what a "free licence" means? Once released with such a licence, they retain no more control over it (indeed, less) than a radio presenter who finds their date of birth unwarrantedly in a WP article.

There is a whole category of these things at Commons: Media related to Monkey selfie at Wikimania 2014 at Wikimedia Commons As you know, they are up for deletion too (for monkey-related reasons). There's even one of the first monkey selfie selfie selfie at File:Katie Chan taking a selfie with the monkey selfie at Wikimania 2014 01.jpg. Editorially, this is one of the better ones. The irony of the "Please don't photograph me" sticker on what is obviously such a posed photo is particularly good.

The monkey selfie selfies at Wikimania marked a particular low point for Wikipedia's reputation. As the Jimbo mss http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/24/wikipedia_monkey_selfie_backfire/ isn't on Commons, the next best thing is another prominent member of the higher echelons of WMF. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this image was adding greatly to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This image, or any image? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the Media related to Monkey selfie at Wikimania 2014 at Wikimedia Commons photos are all that good or necessary to add to the article. This is an area where the text is sufficient.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the original image here was the best but this one File:2014-08 education preconference (05).jpg is the next best. If youre that worried about identifiable people then that might be better. It was good enough for the Signpost to use Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-23/In the media. They don't seem to have a problem with using these selfie-selfies. Maybe Gamaliel or Jayen466 could comment? They wrote the Signpost piece. Viam Ferream (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I understand Andy's position, I suggest we sidestep that issue because we don't need an identifiable person. The photo we used in the Signpost makes the point quite nicely. Gamaliel (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Plurals

There remains some confusion on the article as it currently stands, between "[a] photo" and "photos". Can anyone clear this up, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

David Slater took a series of photos, but the media is only interested in the one of Naruto "smiling" because it is the most famous. In theory, the controversy applies to all of the photos, but the Featured Image is the hub of the controversy. The article doesn't currently say that the female macaque is named Naruto, although this is in some of the sourcing.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Slater is claiming copyright over all of the images, technically the article should include all of them in its scope. Most of what is here applies to all of the images equally (although, as Ian rightly notes, one is much more famous than the other). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The article now says that the image (implying a single) is of a single female called Naruto. Naruto is actually an adolescent male (second image), the more famous image is of a female (or immature male - apparently the teeth aren't those of a grown male) who isn't clearly sourced as to their name, but I have heard "Ella" used. PETA also seem to have got this wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There has been some debate about whether Naruto is male or female, and my understanding from the sourcing was female. This needs clarifying. Looking at the two images side by side [5] they are obviously not of the same monkey.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The above comments miss the point. The article at resent has wording like:

some were clear photographs [plural] of the macaque, which Slater later distributed as a [singular] "monkey's selfie". [singular]

and mixes plurals like:

as a result of the pictures being available on Wikimedia Commons...

and singular:

... because the creator of the photograph is an animal...

This is what I am asking be addressed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So fix the grammar. But what your edits are actually doing is hugely POV, and edit-warring over all other opinions. From any other editor, that might be a surprise. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please insert your ad hominem comments in a suitable repository Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your reputation precedes you: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3APigsonthewing Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Now, now, ladies. "I don't like this innuendo.... That's what I always say: love flies out the door when monkey comes innuendo." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wales use of the image

Per the most recent edit conflict ([6][7][8][9][10]),

This is what the cited source actually says:

As veteran Wikipedia contributor Andreas Kolbe reported:

“The Wikimedia Foundation has turned [the monkey selfie] into a symbol of its determination to retain content on Wikimedia servers ... it had also been used as a sort of conference mascot, with prints of the image displayed in numerous places around [London's] Barbican conference space.

“Even at the registration desk there was a copy of it, inviting attendees to take a selfie of themselves next to the image. As followers of the Wikimania Twitter stream could observe, Jimmy Wales led by example – and was rightly called out by some users on Twitter and, indeed, Wikipedia, for what appeared like tactless gloating."

Thus, Andreas Kolbe did not describe Wales' actions as harmless gloating. He summarized how OTHERS described it. Therefore, saying that:

Wales' action was described by one Wikipedia editor as 'like tactless gloating'.

...is incorrect, as Kolbe was not attributing this description to others. Those others were "some users on Twitter and Wikipedia", not Kolbe himself. Saying that Kolbe himself said this is wrong, so please stop reverting it, and in the future, please read the sources carefully, and relate what they say more accurately. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the Register article (El Reg doesn't like Wikipedia and never writes favourably about it) there hasn't been much if any media coverage of the Wikimania 2014 incident, so there are issues with WP:DUE. The most important coverage has been about the monkey selfies and how they impact on copyright law in the USA and elsewhere. This is important and satisfies WP:GNG, but I'm not sure that the Wikimania incident does. A bit too much navel gazing here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the topic of this discussion? Nightscream (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

" the monkey selfies and how they impact on copyright law in the USA and elsewhere" Their impact? That would be zero then. Much as wikipedia might like to think otherwise, copyright law impacts wikipedia, wikipedia doesn't impact copyright law.

Deleting images of wikimania also looks a lot like deleting anything that makes wikipedia look bad, just because. Doing it because "the Reg said it and they hate us" is very selective filtering of independent comment of independent reliable sources. Viam Ferream (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"what appeared like" is one person's analysis. It is otherwise unsupported by the source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

In my view the Wikimania 2014 incident is being blown up out of all proportion. It is entirely sourced to one piece in The Register which has a long standing dislike of Wikipedia. This is why I removed the "monkey selfie at Wikimania 2014" image, because it isn't very relevant to the main thrust of the media coverage, which has been about the copyright of the monkey selfie, not how some people behaved at Wikimania 2014. The entire Wikimania 2014 incident could be removed without a great loss, unless it received more significant coverage than the Register article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Back in the news

Peta is appealing against the decision of the San Francisco court.[11]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That's been noted in the article for some time:

"On March 20, PETA filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.[22] PETA/Naruto's opening brief is due to be filed July 28; and answering briefs are due August 29.[23]"

TJRC (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw this, but thought that the article might need updating.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 1, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-06-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

One of two monkey selfies taken by Celebes crested macaques using equipment belonging to the British nature photographer David Slater. In mid-2014, the images' hosting on Wikimedia Commons was at the centre of a dispute over whether copyright could be held on artworks made by non-human animals. Slater argued that, as he had "engineered" the shot, he held copyright, while Wikimedia considered the photographs public domain on the grounds that they were made by an animal rather than a person. In December 2014, the United States Copyright Office stated that works by a non-human are not subject to US copyright, a view reaffirmed by a US federal judge in 2016.Photograph: Depicted Celebes crested macaque

Title

I don't think this title is accurate enough. "Monkey selfie" may be an article on any selfie taken by any monkey, without specifying time and place of occurrence. A better title would be "2011 monkey selfies in Sulawesi". —capmo (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

How many other monkey selfies were there in 2011? Or in Sulawesi? But you could have a point about the plural. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You talk as if this was an isolate case, but that's not so. Without much research, I could find two more cases of monkeys taking selfies: one in Bali, the other at Birmingham Wildlife Conservation Park. Shall this article cover these stories too? —capmo (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me, I had no idea. I don't see why these couldn't be mentioned in "Other notable incidents", provided a non-Daily Mail source could be found. I guess the more these incidents occur and become a new internet meme, the less justification there is for any one of them being "notable." Most, if not all, of the notability for this current article has arisen from the copyright battle. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The interesting/notable bit here, and I think the only reason it passes notability guidelines, is not that a monkey took a selfie; but the resulting copyright controversy that ensued as a result of Slater's claim of copyright. The article itself is all about the dispute, as it should be. Perhaps a reasonable name would be something Macaque photo copyright dispute. That's a rather awkward name, but I throw it out there as a potential starting point. TJRC (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A good idea. Prevents the article becoming a monkey trivia magnet? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Monkey selfie copyright dispute would provide the best of both worlds? Less of an awkward name, but still distinguishing the article from other similar incidents. Greg (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No objection. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

TJRC raised a good point, and I like Greg's suggestion, too. —capmo (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I realize the RM is underway below, but just for the record, I like Greg's suggestion Monkey selfie copyright dispute much better than the Macaque photo copyright dispute I had proposed (which I myself had characterized as "rather awkward"). I'm glad Greg's proposal is the one that went into the RM. TJRC (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Proving once again the law is an ass

Er has no one pointed out the elephant in the room to all this BS, (and of course Wikipedia being the first to help themselves to others work).

THE MONKEY DOES NOT OWN THE CAMERA.

If the idiots claiming the monkey created the image actually took a moment to think about what they're saying, that means everyone watching a sporting event helped "create the image" and could claim they contributed to the image by cheering at the right moment.

The photographer did not give his written permission for the monkey to use the camera, hence if the monkey wants to take selfies it should have thought about it, gone on Amazon and ordered one themselves.

This just proves the law is an ass. Next that jaguar that tripped a remote camera will be given copyright or even, heaven forbid, PETA will argue that its privacy was violated because it hadn't given its consent to photographed.

This article should reflect the incredulity of this bullshit. Nor treat it as an acceptable use of the legal system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.79.155 (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the soapy pointed rant, which may soon be removed, I'm guessing. But just to say, I've previously had an image uploaded at Commons, of the subject of a Wikipedia article, removed because, although the phone used to take the picture was owned by the subject, it was taken, at his explicit request, by a friend. So the copyright permission agreement he signed, "wasn't valid." Things can be a bit complicated when it comes to copyright, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC) p.s. could you try and remember to sign your posts? Thanks.

Daily Mail article

There is a slightly longer piece looking at the impact on David Slater in the Daily Mail today.[12] Unusually for the DM, it gets all of the major facts right and does not say that Wikipedia claimed that the monkey should own the copyright on the photo, only that the photo was uncopyrightable, a position that the US courts agreed with.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

So this is one of those exceptional occasions when we can use the Daily Mail as a source? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

There have been various pieces in the news this week about how David Slater says that he is broke because of the copyright battle, eg The Guardian here. The DM's piece is unusually good but of course the DM got banned (more or less) here. It's good to see that none of this week's media coverage repeated the myth that Wikipedia claimed that the monkey owned the copyright, or was involved in legal action to this effect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• The case was also featured on BBC's Sunday Morning Live on 23 July. It is on iPlayer here starting at 44 minutes in. It didn't say much that was new, and didn't mention the Wikipedia aspect at all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Consensus in this and the prior discussion is that the current title is insufficiently concise to reliably identify this topic. Noting that a few editors disagree, consensus overall supports moving to a new title. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Monkey selfie → Monkey selfie copyright dispute – To quote @TJRC: the only reason this article passes notability guidelines, "is not that a monkey took a selfie; but the resulting copyright controversy that ensued as a result of Slater's claim of copyright. The article itself is all about the dispute, as it should be." This proposal solves the problem. The original discussion can be seen here. Greg (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Support, more accurately describes article content. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Broad agreement A point has been reached where the article is not about monkeys, or photographs of monkeys, but about the ongoing controversy over the David Slater photographs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should replace the current two monkey images with a couple of these? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Not really, because so far, all of the legal action has taken place in courtrooms in the United States, and they don't wear horsehair wigs. This is still the case in some British courts, though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, those Colonials just powder their hair, I believe. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Support per my comments quoted in the nom. TJRC (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Support - As the one who started this discussion on a title change, I'm glad that a consensus has been reached. —capmo (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – there are at least two separate disputes based on very different premises: one being that the image cannot be subject to copyright and thus belongs in the public domain, and the other being that the monkey is the rightful owner of the copyright and should be legally recognised as such. This being so, I think the current title is marginally better. We could of course use the title "Monkey selfie copyright disputes", but I don't really see this as preferable either: that kind of title would raise the expectation that there is a main article titled monkey selfie and this present article is a sub-article covering legal dimensions of the main topic. Andreas JN466 22:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment If David Slater had not created this famous series of photos on a trip to Indonesia in 2008, none of this would have happened. The article is now largely, if not wholly focused on the ongoing controversy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Support move per above. The article is about the copyright dispute(s), not the selfie itself.  ONR  (talk)  14:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose move while the article may be about the controversy, this title still best fits the WP:TITLEing guides. It is still referred to as the 'Monkey Selfie' case. Because its still the only notable monkey selfie, anything else is overprecise. I'm also not seeing any reasons for moving a page being met here. menaechmi (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Monkey Selfie case might be acceptable? c/f Charlie Gard case etc. Just a suggestion in case this requested move fails. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I think "copyright dispute" is far more descriptive, without being unnecessarily prolix, than "case". "Monkie selfie case" gives no clue as to what the "case" is about; "Monkie selfie copyright dispute" makes it quite clear. In addition, "case" suggests a legal case, and in this (um) case, that would mean the PETA one. In fact, there's much more to the dispute than just the PETA case, which is only one aspect of the dispute. Slater and the Wikimedia Foundation were heavily involved in the dispute, but not in any actual case.

I'm not particularly swayed by the fact that one can consider this two "disputes" -- one over whether the work is subject to copyright, and one over whether a non-human entity can be an author for copyright purposes. The reality is, it's one dispute -- what is the copyright status of this image -- with more than one (indeed, probably more than two) interrelated questions that may need to be addressed to completely resolve the dispute. That's not much different than other legal issues, which might go into standing, ownership, infringement, etc., so it doesn't really carry much weight here. TJRC (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Support move as per nom Power~enwiki (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as article creator. Keep the current title as a redirect (common name); if someone says "monkie selfie", 99 times out of 100 they're talking about this case.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE, the current title has sufficient information to identify the topic. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

But it doesn't identify the topic; that's the basic idea behind the requested move. The subject is not the selfie, but the dispute about it. If there were no dispute there would be no article. TJRC (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Are the "monkey selfies" now subject to copyright?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since the settlement was honoured by all disputing parties (PETA, Blurb, Slater) the selfie photos are now subject to copyright of Mr Slater. I believe said photos from the main article and this talk page should be deleted immediately as they don't meet Wikipedia's copyright policies anymore.

I also think that fellow editors should stop readding said photos anywhere on Wikipedia until a consent from Mr Slater is granted. 2A02:C7D:C59:4500:8954:FB2C:379:C3DB (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, the ending of the action in court does not mean that the monkey or David Slater now own the copyright on the photograph. The sourcing doesn't say this. Slater agreed to donate 25% of any future revenue from the photograph, which seems to have been a compromise designed to prevent the running up of further legal bills on the case. The 2014 rules on copyright and non human authorship were not the issue in this case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So you suggest that Slater agreed to share 25% of the proceedings and PETA agreed to accept the offer of 25% of the proceedings on behalf of unnamed charitable organisations without neither Slater or PETA owning the copyright? 90.194.69.123 (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. You can read the court transcripts too, or the few accurate reportings of this (and some bad ones too).

You can also complain that this is neither "justice" nor a "resolution" of the case, and you'd have a point. However it was the action of a wildlife photographer, trying to avoid being driven into bankruptcy by a "pro-animal" group who have a track record of wrong-headed actions with harmful side effects. They didn't even name the right macaque. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "of any future revenue" is revealing here. As things stand, the image is still public domain. Slater and PETA seem to have settled the question of what to do with the revenue if and when they get their hands on it, but they cannot decide whether the image is subject to copyright. There is obvious potential for WP:OR here, because if you look carefully at the sourcing, none of it says that Slater, PETA or the monkey now own the copyright on the photograph. "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated in the published sources"--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

AP reports that "Lawyers for Slater argued that his company, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., owns worldwide commercial rights to the photos, including a now-famous selfie of the monkey’s toothy grin" while no other party showed the desire to claim the ownership [13]. 2A02:C7D:C59:4500:9916:AFF7:6D44:A032 (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing has changed here. Slater has claimed the copyright on the photos for a long time, but the 2014 rules laid out by the US Copyright Office state that a work of authorship produced by an animal does not qualify for copyright. Since the image is hosted on Wikimedia Commons under US law, the image is still PD under US law. It's possible that under British or European law, Slater may get a different ruling which grants him some copyright over the photos in the future. But as far as US law is concerned, PETA has won 25% of nothing, a Pyrrhic victory if ever there was one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no ruling that these are PD under US law. There never has been. Only PETA have ever claimed that the macaque held the copyright. Slater claims (still does, still unchallenged) that he holds the copyright, not the macaque.

The Court of Wikipedia has ruled, entirely on its own, that these images are PD. There is no basis for this, WP/WMF are not a competent body to rule on that. COM:PRP has always been specifically against making such judgements, but for some reason WP/WMF have ignored that in this case. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In 2014, the US Copyright Office clarified its rules, saying "To qualify as a work of 'authorship' a work must be created by a human being.... Works that do not satisfy this requirement are not copyrightable. The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants", giving as examples "a photo taken by a monkey or a mural painted by an elephant". This means that for the time being, the image is still PD under US law, but who knows what further twists and turns await in this saga.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe David Slater to be human. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for David Slater over this, but the September 2017 agreement doesn't alter the US rules on copyright that were formulated in 2014. So the image stays for the time being, and it would probably take a WMF level decision to remove it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So if you provided the typewriter, would you become the author? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office is merely a register to hold information about copyright claims and submissions. It does not have any legal powers. The Compendium you are referring to is intended to be for internal use only. However, even under its own guidelines, The US Copyright Office says: "your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created" [14]. As mentioned above, the only party to dispute Slater's ownership so far was PETA on behalf of the monkey. This claim, however, was dismissed but PETA appealed. As of today, after the current settlement has been reached, nobody disputes Slater's ownership of the photo. 2A02:C7D:C59:4500:9916:AFF7:6D44:A032 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So the phrase "your work is under copyright protection" is addressed to the monkey in this case, yes? If he (or she) doesn't speak English, one hopes that translation services available. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your sarcasm, the US Court (a body that, unlike Copyrights Office, has legal powers) ruled that a monkey can not be assigned as a copyright holder. 2A02:C7D:C59:4500:9916:AFF7:6D44:A032 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's hope the macaque appreciates it too. Just to be clear, Slater's nationality and the location of the event are irrelevant, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. Commons (claims) to require that such material is PD in the country of origin too. Slater is in Wales, which is still Europe. So even if US copyright wasn't applicable, it would still not be freely licensed for Commons and shouldn't be there.

Still though, no-one has yet answered the case as to why Slater doesn't hold copyright. We recognise copyright on balloon or drone photography, and the photographer wasn't holding the camera for those either.

Most importantly though, Commons also claims to follow a "precautionary principle", which in this case has not merely been ignored but has been deliberately flaunted by the nomenklatura of Wikimedia taking it so far as to pose for selfies with the contested image. That's not merely an abuse of Slater's copyright, that's deliberate gloating. It has done significant damage to the reputation of Wikimedia and has alienated a number of other photographers. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There are no monkeys (typically) involved with balloon or drone photography? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In this case monkey is no different to a balloon. The "selfie" was an intended outcome of Mr Slater's pre-planned actions. Likewise, cameramen don't claim movie copyrights based on the fact of them holding the equipment. 2A02:C7D:C59:4500:9916:AFF7:6D44:A032 (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No different?? Are you thinking of a balloon or something else? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So what was the country of origin? Not Indonesia? But we have to assume that US copyright law was applicable. Why else would this be subject to US legal action? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

PETA took action in a US court. You would have to ask them why. But an international photographer needs to defend US court actions (at vast cost) or their future travel would be affected, at the very least. It doesn't even matter if there is a robust legal case (and there wasn't), it's punitive simply to make an individual non-millionaire have to defend such.

This whole mess is awful. PETA look like fools, Wikipedia looks like a thieving bully. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

As long as the image is hosted by Wikimedia Commons as public domain, it can and should be reproduced here because it is pertinent to the article. If you want to change this, nominate the image for deletion on Commons.  Sandstein  12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have an opinion on the matter? 2A02:C7D:C59:4500:9916:AFF7:6D44:A032 (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. So long as an image is freely licensed, it can be hosted on Commons.

It does not become freely licensed because it is on Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

As Sandstein said, debating the copyright status of the image is beyond the scope of this talk page. The correct procedure would be to nominate it for deletion on Commons. However, the 2014 rules of the US Copyright Office were not up for grabs in Naruto et al v. David Slater, so the image looks safe for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Nominating it for deletion at Commons has previously been seen as an act of lèse majesté against the magisterium and blocks are threatened for doing so. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

But the place to determine the copyright status, for Wikipedia purposes, is in fact a Commons deletion discussion. In my view, however, the article clearly establishes that the image is in the public domain and I do not expect a deletion discussion to come to a different conclusion.  Sandstein  14:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sandstein and the others above. The settlement result does not establish any new case law, so the only thing we can go on is the 2014 Copyright Office declaration, which puts this work in the PD. But that should be an issue decided at Commons, who have admins much better versed in the PD. Even if it is a deletion discussion, it is a good idea to get them to review the situation in light of this settlement to make sure nothing has changed. Until that happens, we assume what Commons assumes, which is that it is a free work. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

But why is PRP being ignored in this case?

Status here is unclear. Cases don't go to court because they're clear, they're there because they're unclear. So PRP should apply and exclude these images (which wouldn't even pass fair-use for macaques, if it wasn't for the story about them being used). WP has never needed these images. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, just that its editors at Commons (or legal from WRF if they decide to step in) that need to make the decision. If I had originally uploaded the photo, I would have treated it as non-free because its copyright is simply not clear. At worst, if it was determined to be PD, we switch the license to PD, and there's been no harm. Unfortunately we've set that it was PD from the start, and that lets the cat out of the bag to speak; we can't readily take that back. Sure we can switch the license, and reup to en.wiki a non-free version (which is completely within reason here under NFCC), but that PD-tagged image is already out in the wild. That was an issue that the uploader and Commons should have dealt with then, not now. As such, changing the image license now will do little beyond bringing us into compliance, as the damage is done. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"as the damage is [already] done" is not generally recognised as a principle in law. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia and Wikimedia's handling of this matter has been grossly inappropriate and unfair, as discussed in my editorial here. However, I do not believe the litigation settlement should affect the analysis, because an agreement between two litigants generally cannot bind non-parties. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That too. The damage to WP's reputation is severe. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that the photo should be removed - as at very least there should be a fair use exception, but I'm somewhat disturbed by this whole episode and the notations on the file themselves. It seems like Wiki* made a copyright decision before it was legally determined. It seems obvious that Slater's efforts and actions made the photograph happen, so the copyright should be his. The logic otherwise would mean that all sorts of nature photographs, video, etc. shot by cameras placed in the wild, attached to animals, etc. should now be in the public domain. Also, that perhaps avant garde art pieces that involve some sort of unattended recording devices now are too. Centerone (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Am still not sure why the whole thing isn't based on Copyright law of Indonesia (although admittedly that's not the fullest article on a legal topic). Perhaps someone could advise/ Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

IANAL and TINLA, but I believe the copyright law of Indonesia would only apply to the use of the image in Indonesia and the actions of the people and institutions in Indonesia. Any dispute that arises outside of Indonesia would presumably be considered under the law of the jurisdiction where the dispute occurred, and the law of Indonesia would be considered irrelevant. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, none of the media coverage today seems to have noticed that it was Techdirt and Wikipedia that played a key part in establishing the position that the image would be ineligible for copyright under US law due to non human authorship. Even before the rules were clarified, Techdirt was confident that the photos were ineligible for copyright in the US, citing 503.03(a). Neither PETA nor Slater has been able to obtain a ruling that overturned this. As for whether Wikipedia jumped the gun by saying that the photo was ineligible for copyright, this is harder to say, but the current rules specifically say that a photo taken by a monkey is ineligible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

How many times now have you pointed out that the macaque can't hold copyright under US law?

How many times has anyone, other than PETA, claimed that they could? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, BarrelProof. So we at WP are concerned only with Copyright Law in the USA, because this is where the image is being published (because the WP servers are located in USA)? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The image is hosted under US law and nothing changed after the September 2017 agreement between PETA and Slater. This was a sideshow as far as the actual copyright on the image is concerned. Slater may get courts in other jurisdictions to rule in his favour, but the image on Wikipedia is hosted under US law. It's a bit like Virgin Killer where the Internet Watch Foundation made a huge fuss about the album cover in 2008, but since the image is hosted under US law, it isn't coming off unless a court in the US says so.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ian. That's ever so slightly clearer for me now. I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Has any U.S. court actually ruled that Slater does not hold a copyright on the pictures? It seems clear that the macaque does not hold copyright (under U.S. law), but does Slater? (Apologies for the TL;DR question.) —BarrelProof (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No, Techdirt ruled that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So Slater claims to hold a copyright on these pictures, and no court has ruled otherwise, and Slater has said that he does not want the pictures published without his giving permission and receiving compensation? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think Slater has yet established if he does own copyright. The only court ruled action that remains is that while under US copyright law, the person that presses the camera's button is the owner of the copyright of the shot it takes, animals does not qualify, so the shot technically falls into the PD. There remains a gap here if Slater should have copyright since he did the work to set up the ability to take the shot, but that has not be proven in court yet. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not ask whether Slater has established in a court whether his copyright claim is valid. I asked whether he "claims to hold a copyright". He does claim that he has a copyright, doesn't he? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it now WP or Commons policy that photographers must first establish in court that they do own copyright before WP will agree to not host their content and offer it for free? When did that change? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That is a question to ask those involved in teh discussion on Techdirt, Commons or at WMF that determined on their own the image had no copyright. If we were ever presented with a similar case today, where there is even a slim but reasonable chance that copyright could be claimed, I would hope we'd default to assuming it is copyrighted. We made a mistake in the past that we cannot correct now, unless there is a legal court action against WMF/Techdirt for this position. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• No court has ruled on anything. There is an old judgement, not about this photo, which is the basis for the "animals cannot hold copyright" ruling. PETA's case (that Naruto did) has been rejected once and settled out of court once, with no formal judgement. No court has (AFAIK) looked at the question of Slater's own copyright, under any jurisdiction.

[ec] Slater is (or was - WP has driven the guy to penury) a commercial wildlife photographer. It is acceptable to WP, or at least most of WP, that photographers should be able to make an honest living by their efforts.

This clearly falls foul of Commons' PRP principle and they should not be hosted. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

A (relatively recent) ruling that "animals cannot hold copyright" seems pretty clear. Or are you disputing this on the basis it is merely case law and not on any statute? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

How many more times do I have to re-state this? David Slater is human. There is no relevance of that ruling to his claim (not PETA's claim) that he holds the copyright.

Techdirt have never claimed this, WP have never claimed this, Slater has never claimed this, only PETA has claimed this.

If you wish to claim that these images are PD, find an applicable reason why Slater does not hold their copyright, in neither the UK nor the US. If he holds any sort of copyright in either the US or a country of origin, they cannot be hosted at Commons.

If it is not clear that they can be hosted at Commons as PD, Commons' rules require them to not be there. This is not clear (it might even be true but it sure isn't clear), so they should not be on Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

WMF have certainly asserted that the photo is PD in the refusal to take down the image in 2014. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but surely Andy's point is that WMF have no legal status. They're just a tin-pot media orgnaisation pretending to be a court of law? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No, my point here was that everyone keeps focussing on the macaque not holding the copyright, but not addressing the issue of Slater holding the copyright.

This was news to me though, "the foundation rejected his claim on the grounds that the monkey had taken the photo, and was therefore the real copyright owner." I didn't realise that WMF had, like PETA, taken the "macaque holds it" argument. This is clearly invalid from the previous ruling, also "held by an animal" wouldn't be PD either. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to misrepresent you. Thanks for clarifying. That's quite a crucial point with regard to WMF's justification. It just doesn't stand up. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresentation by the text on the BBC page. Listen to the audio clips available on the same page, in which the position of the WMF is clearly stated: no copyright to anyone, including the monkey. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• "The image is hosted under US law"

That is not the relevant limitation. Firstly, it is hosted at Commons, not at Wikipedia. So Commons' rules apply, not WP's (and if you think that they are the same, then try telling Commons that!) Secondly, COM:L is very explicit about this: "that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."

It is not enough for a work to be US PD alone. It must also be PD in the country of origin, i.e. its publication, i.e. the UK. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hang on... so it was in fact (first) published in UK? And the "country of origin" was not Indonesia, but UK, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, it's probably a good read to review the XFD at Commons in 2015 when the nature of this image came up for discussion. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Even were we to now decide to treat this image as copyright protected, how could it not be fair-use in this article. When every RS source in the world concerning this image dispute, displays the image, as providers of RS based encyclopedic information, we would also. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That is just not true. Guardian is not a sole example of honest copyright treatment [15]. "The still photograph of the monkey was removed from this article on 2 August 2017, because the rights are under dispute". But I guess Wikipedia is too cool for that. 94.197.121.190 (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you look at the article you linked to, it has these images in it, right now. There are three in the article itself and three more along the bottom of that webpage. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

p.s. is it or is it not true that "CC licensing is irrevocable"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That isn't really relevant but yes it is, see here. Note that a creative commons license such as wikipedia's depends on a valid underlying right to that work. So public domain stuff on wikipedia is still PD for everyone and if someone purports to release something actually copyrighted by someone else under CC then it is still copyrighted by someone else it does not magically become CC.AlasdairEdits (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Not relevant? Thanks. I'm surprised. So if I was cynical, I'd say "that just goes to prove that a CC license is essentially meaningless". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Only when it's the image of Jimbo posing with a monkey selfie at Wikimania [16] that then "disappeared" from Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It is irrevocable, but you do have to own it first for it to be irrevocable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

But this image only became CC licensed when it was deemed there was "no owner"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No. PD is an assertion that no one owns it, so there is no one who can licence it and no licence CC or otherwise is needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

When have these ever been CC licensed? They're claimed as PD. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why the first response said CC is irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, that's bit clearer, for me at least. Presumably a PD claim is far from irrevocable. But it can be proven, or at least upheld, in a court in law? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

PD is a claim, CC is a licence.

PD is a claim that "I know this to already be in the public domain, because of objective reasons not of my doing" (age etc.) It can't be "revoked" because it was never granted. It was an observation by a competent person, such that other competent persons would agree "this is indeed old enough to be PD". Note that in several jurisdictions it's not possible to place something into the PD, it has to get there itself (this is why CC-zero was needed). Of course the claim could be wrong and it can be challenged. If so, then the claim is refuted rather than revoked, as if it had never existed. It's the difference between an annulment and a divorce. Someone using supposed PD material in good faith but then finding that it is no longer claimed to be PD, and that it should never have been claimed as PD, can no longer use it as such.

CC is a licence. It is granted by the licensor, who must have control of its copyright. They can revoke this in the future, but such revocation is only a refusal to grant any more future licences. Most licences will have made it clear at their time of granting that they are irrevocable. Licences for re-use have to be - it would be unworkable if they could be. It is also usual that such a licence may permit further redistribution of licensed content (CC encourages this) - Freedom 2, the third of the Four Freedoms. If A licenses it to B, and B then redistributes it to C & D, A may later make an attempt to revoke their licence and refuse to grant a further licensed copy to E. But B is still free to grant one to E, even if A no longer will. Of course, many licences (not CC) are written to be revocable - many of the ones granted to specific licensees will be, and many are even self-revoking (or optionally renewable) after some time limit expires.

Again, CC licences can also be challenged. An invalid CC licence (perhaps the licensor didn't control the copyright, either knowingly or innocently), was never a valid licence and so it effectively never existed.

So CC can't be revoked because CC forbids it and PD can't be revoked because it was never something granted that was there to be revoked. If a CC licence was no longer granted (the nearest it gets to being revocable) then that still doesn't affect those in circulation.

Either CC or PD can be questioned and possibly refuted, and that does affect those in circulation too.

Commons also needs to have content that meets COM:L and doesn't fail COM:PRP in order to be hosted. This requires conditions to be met in potentially two countries (if non-US sourced), one of which is the US. Refuting PD, or even significant doubt that PD is applicable in both, is enough to have something removed from Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

About animals operating cameras

Just learned about this today: http://nowiknow.com/what-happens-when-a-monkey-takes-an-awesome-picture-of-itself/

This whole thing is stupid. I can't believe the idiot lawyers (judges are lawyers too) were able to twist themselves around to actually believe that the photographer did not own the rights to this picture. Let alone the idiocy that is PETA trying to get their hands into his pockets. This will do nothing but prevent stories like this from every happening again. No one is going to tell us that a monkey took a picture, they'll just say they took it, and we'll never know the difference. What a stupid story and a stupid precedent. Everyone who litigated this should be ashamed of themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.253.186 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why many species of animal couldn't be trained to operate a device that takes their own photograph. I'm sure this one incident will not act as any kind of prevention for those who have no commercial or professional interest in publishing such photographs. But I think we're starting to stray a little from discussing from how this article could be improved. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to train animals to operate cameras. There are plenty of camera trap devices that will autonomously photograph an untrained animal. Copyright on those remains with their human operators and has not yet (IMHE) been challenged. WMF is silent as to whether they're planning any great IP-grab on those, and driving yet more photographers out of business. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I just felt a modicum of agency might imbue a sense of intentionality. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I mean, it's not as if the snaps have to be any good, is it?

There is still no legal ruling that there is no copyright here. The question of whether David Slater has a copyright to them has not yet been tested in court.

The closest it gets is that the macaques definitely don't.

The Compendium [17] also makes the claim (p.22) that photographs by monkeys cannot have a US copyright registered. Yet this is a stronger claim than the claims that have been proven in court (a monkey can't hold any copyright arising from such photograph), so that's one area to challenge which would still have to be proven in court. The Compendium is a compendium, not a statute. A second area is over the meaning of "taken by" applying to either a human or a macaque. It is quite possible that US law would find there that that macaque did it, but that UK law would find that the human did, or at least enough to claim its copyright. That has not been tested in either country's courts yet either.

So far, the judges appear to be making sound decisions. But they've been asked some bizarre questions, and they haven't been asked all the important ones. Nor can a US judge rule on a UK issue (and it might come down to that UK issue).

Also, this is not merely an issue of truthful copyright. It is an issue of Commons hosting the images and using Wikimedia's imprimatur to advertise them as public domain. It is this which has caused the clear financial loss to Slater. Commons has two rigid principles of its own, COM:L and COM:PRP, and material hosted at Commons has to either satisfy these or be removed. They are not based on legal proof (Wikimedia doesn't get to judge that), but on an absence of significant doubt over their status. Clearly these are most doubtful. They should go from Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we can agree that the link offered by the OP above is not a useful one for this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. That article is thin, but some of the links from it are quite useful.

The worst link posted of all of them is from the BBC, where they simply mis-transcribed the WMF's spoken comments and reported them as quite the opposite of what had really been said. Don't make the sacred cow of "WP:RS" on the sole basis of blanket proof by authority. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the OP was even suggesting adding it. But if you feel you can get consensus for that, I can't object. Likewise with removing the BBC one. Martinevans123 (talk)

Opposition to vacatur

I haven't seen it reported in the news yet, but the Competitive Enterprise Institute yesterday filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief opposing the vacatur of the Northern District order. I would not expect to see the parties' motions to dismiss and vacate granted, at least not immediately, as the court considers whether to grant the motion, and potentially requests further briefing on or argument on (or at least takes some time to consider) the vacatur issue. The lower court holding may very well remain in place after all is said and done, despite the parties' agreement and request to vacate it. TJRC (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

For legally savvy readers, see U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, holding that an appellate court should not routinely vacate a lower-court decision because the parties have subsequently settled the dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that's one of the cases CEI relies on, along with a slew from the Ninth Circuit (and a few more from other circuits, esp. the Seventh).

They catch PETA on an interesting dilemma: either it is in the suit solely as a representative of the monkey, in which case any settlement made by PETA is necessarily on behalf of the monkey and the monkey is bound by it; or PETA is settling on behalf of itself, which, as a non-real-party-at-interest, it has no basis to do. Either way, so the argument goes, the claim that this is a settlement between PETA and the other parties, and the monkey should not be bound to it, so the lower court's decision should be vacated, seems to fail.

I'm gonna need some more popcorn for this one. TJRC (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, PETA's filed an opposition to CEI's motion to file its brief. [18]. None of the defendants joined in the opposition, but PETA asserts that they do not consent to CEI's motion. TJRC (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

What does "Next Friend Status" mean? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Next friend, for starters. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Has any court actually ruled on their assertion that they represent the monkey? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Most of the relevant precedents there are in relation to cetaceans, not monkeys. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Status as of 2017-11-13: I checked the docket today, and there's been no activity since September 26, when CEI filed its reply to PETA's response in opposition. As of today, the court still has not ruled on the motion (on either point, whether to dismiss and whether to vacate; although I assume the dismissal is a pretty much a gimme, and only the vacatur issue is holding it up). TJRC (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Status as of 2018-01-29: Still no update since September 26. TJRC (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Status as of 2018-03-28: Still no update since September 26, 2017. This is starting to get interesting. It's been more than six months since the parties' joint motion on September 11 to dismiss and vacate, but the court's still mulling it over. TJRC (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Status as of 2018-04-13: The Ninth Circuit panel today denied the motion as to both parts: both to dismiss the appeal, and to vacate the district court judgment. Masem has already updated the article accordingly, so there's no further update needed to the article itself. Anyone interested in reading the panel's five-page opinion, it's online at [19]. Interesting to see they give a shout-out to the embattled Judge Alex Kozinski at the very end. TJRC (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)