Talk:Monkey selfie copyright dispute

I mean, this is a huge BLP violation.... and it needs to be dealt with
It's an interesting article, but wow, the images are among the more egregious WP:BLP violations I've seen. This can't really stand, I don't think.

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

'''Wikipedia, Biographies of living persons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * If the photos of the monkey selfies are removed without a WP:CONSENSUS, they will be restored, as has happened in the past. As for David Slater, the real loss to his wallet was defending the dubious lawsuit by Peta.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a wall of text, illustrated even. The photos are specifically what the dispute is about, excluding them is ridiculous. --GRuban (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also; please do not put a picture of a brown skinned person and title it "a simian". I'm deleting that one, and strongly recommend you do not put it back. --GRuban (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh for goodness sake. Simians are the lowest level that contains both humans and Celebes crested macaques, is all. I changed it to "primate", OK? Let's get back to the merits.
 * User:Ianmacm, my take is that Slater genuinely believes he's out the money; it's hard to prove the objective truth of that either way, but how he feels about is the most important factor I think. I'm reluctant to gainsay him. And if you read WP:BLP carefully, you'll note that nowhere does it say "But if the person acted foolishly or otherwise deserves what he got, then do whatever you want. As to consensus re removing the images, we can look at that later. They can stay for now. Herostratus (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the idea here that because Wikipedia continues to display the image of the monkey selfie here on this article, Slater continues to be unable to generate income from the photo, and that as a result, Slater's livlihood (the ability to pay his rent, pay his utility bills, and put food on the table) is imperiled? Is that the argument that is being put forth?  AzureCitizen (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Suppose that the selfie photos were removed from the article. Would this help David Slater? Not really, because the photos are ineligible for copyright under US law anyway. It's unlikely that David Slater would make one penny simply because the photos were removed from the article. It has also been pointed out that if the photos were deemed to be copyrighted, one of them could be uploaded at reduced size with a fair use rationale.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a way to look at this is that there was harm done, when the WP editor who believed the photos were in the PD due to how Slater described them being taken uploaded them as commons. But that forced the issue to the appropriate courts and gov't agencies that came down to the rule affirmatively that such pictures are ineligible for copyright, regardless of Slater's argument. A "possible" mistake was made but proven since it was not a mistake. So even if another non-WP site did the same thing, the likely same result would have happened. So at this point, there is definitely no harm being done, until a court ruling tells us differently. --M asem (t) 14:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

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


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


 * The photos are ineligible for copyright under United States law. They would have been removed from the article straight away if they failed this test.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * https://petapixel.com/2018/04/24/photographer-wins-monkey-selfie-copyright-case-court-slams-peta/.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That case appears to be setting the fact that only humans can bring copyright claims to court. Slater sued to stop PETA from filing as a "friend of Naruto" to argue for the copyright of the photos (since Slater could not already). The photos remain ineligible for copyright per past decisions, this suit does not change it. --M asem (t) 13:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this matter can be summed up as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming this 2016 case was conducted with the proper diligence to be upheld; as noted by the 9th district court, this most recent case was aired to establish the legal precedent that neither animals nor next friends of animals (PETA in this instance) can file copyright lawsuits. For the Wikimedia Foundation's purposes, the status quo remains unchanged as the argument that animals cannot hold copyright has never experienced sufficient legal challenge. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, so how about best friends of next friends? etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also if the courts ruled Slater owned they copyright in April 2018 we would have heard about it far sooner than May 2020.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah this seems like a pretty cruel WP:BLP violation, it does seem like he was actively materially harmed by wikipedia's involvement here, and the article even details as such with citations. Finbee (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah,I mean,Wikipedia made him go broke just because we wanted to have some photos,which is pretty cruel indeed SigmaAnt (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As a wildlife photographer, I find it highly improbable that the loss of 2 (two) photos to the public domain would have impoverished Slater to the extent of quitting photography. I think it was the legal action that did that, and it is not Wikipedia's fault that PETA decided to be a bunch of assholes to him when he had already lost against us. As for us, it is good and necessary to seek out and publish whatever notable knowledge we can, because that is the purpose of the Wikimedia movement, the purpose for which we ask our donors for money each year. Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/c ) 14:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Back in the news
SoftBank Owned Patent Troll, Using Monkey Selfie Law Firm, Sues To Block Covid-19 Testing, Using Theranos Patents. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Very much incidental to this. Would not include. --M asem (t) 19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:TOPIC problems. Apart from the case being handled by Irell & Manella, it doesn't really have anything to do with the monkey selfie saga.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A bit like Anglesey Council reporting the death of Kim Jong-un as "Tyrant whose regime once hacked Anglesey council 'dead', reports suggest"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Dog selfie
YouTuber Simone Giertz created a machine for her dog to take selfies. Some of those pictures are shown in this video. Could those pictures and that example be added to this article, or to Animal-made art? Mateussf (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It has WP:TOPIC problems here because it does not relate directly to the legal hoo-ha that the monkey selfies caused. Also, a YouTube video is not a suitable source and does not establish notability in the same way as mentions in reliable secondary sources.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem is that she built the environment, which might be above the threshold of originality, thus making it a derivative work of her Lego structure. Even if it weren't, the difference here is that she has chosen a composition and fixed the camera in place, giving herself far more artistic control than Slater ever had. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

"works created by a non-human"
is it ok to extend this to AI art, or no? if this might be like super dumb, i 100% understand 98.59.80.64 (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't go into that on this page, but the copyrightability of AI generated works is definitely work a see-also from this page. M asem (t) 02:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)