# Who owns the copyright to this image of a monkey? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2014, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987 "2014-08-06T23:15:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/1 "2014-08-06T23:15:25Z")
Okay, so [here’s the story](http://myfox8.com/2014/08/06/wikimedia-refuses-to-remove-animal-selfie-because-monkey-owns-the-copyright/). It’s not a Skald-worthy story, nor will I do it the justice that **Mississippienne** , but it’s still [an interesting story: > [@](#): > > Wikimedia has denied a photographer’s request to remove a “monkey selfie” photo because the monkey pressed the shutter button making the photo ineligible for copyright, according to the Telegraph. > > Nature photographer David Slater was in Indonesia in 2011 when a crested black macaque stole his camera and took hundreds of photos, including the famous selfie that was featured in publications across the world. > > Many of the photos were blurry shots of the jungle floor, but among the throwaways were the selfie that gave Slater worldwide attention. > > Slater now faces a legal battle with Wikimedia after the images were added to the collection of royalty-free images. Wikimedia Commons is a collection of over 22 million images and videos that are in the public domain. > > Wikimedia’s position is that because the monkey took the photo, he “owns” the photo. However, non-humans cannot own copyrights — which is why Wikimedia placed the photo in the public domain. ]([http://myfox8.com/2014/08/06/wikimedia-refuses-to-remove-animal-selfie-because-monkey-owns-the-copyright/](http://myfox8.com/2014/08/06/wikimedia-refuses-to-remove-animal-selfie-because-monkey-owns-the-copyright/)) I first heard of this thanks to a MPSIMS thread started by **YogSothoth** , so a shoutout to him for bringing it to my attention. Thanks! [Wikimedia users have lengthy discussion already underway](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_(rotated_and_cropped).jpg#Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_and_derivatives), and frankly opinion seems pretty evenly divided about the issue. Like Mr. Slater, my own opinion is that of course Mr. Slater holds the copyright to [the disputed image](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_(rotated_and_cropped).jpg), since he rotated and cropped (“framed”, if you will) the raw image, but I also think he should hold full copyright over the raw image as well. He took the actions that led to the possibility of the image existing in the first place, therefore the image should be his, is how I see it. I admit that I am not an IP lawyer and my understanding of the applicable laws may be (and prolly is) flawed and incomplete; I look forward to clarification from more knowledgable folks. Obviously, some people at Wikimedia felt differently and were able to justify their position to their own satisfaction, and so we have a difference of opinion(s). What say y’all? I’m interested in both the actual legal aspects and just what people feel should be the right outcome to this case and, as always, an eager to hear what my fellow Dopers think. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/2 "2014-08-06T23:25:55Z")
His camera, his photo, in my uneducated opinion. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/3 "2014-08-06T23:31:58Z")
Well, I saved it to my desktop, in case Mr. Slater wins, because it’s a great picture. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/4 "2014-08-06T23:45:21Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Like Mr. Slater, my own opinion is that of course Mr. Slater holds the copyright to [the disputed image](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_(rotated_and_cropped).jpg), since he rotated and cropped (“framed”, if you will) the raw image, but I also think he should hold full copyright over the raw image as well. He took the actions that led to the possibility of the image existing in the first place, therefore the image should be his, is how I see it. He took _some_ of the actions that led to the possiblity of the image existing in the first place, but many others were involved. Who constructed the camera? Who conceive it? Who developed the technology on which it relies? Who transported Mr Slater to the place where the photograph was created? Etc, etc. > [@Gatopescado](#): > > His camera, his photo, in my uneducated opinion. So if an artist paints a picture using paints supplied by someone else, that someone else owns the copyright to the picture? Whatever else is the basis for copyright, I can’t see that ownership of the tools employed in the artistic work is the basis. Which raises the question we need to think about - why do we have a copyright law at all? Why am I not free to make copies of anything it pleases me to copy? And the usual answer is that we want to reward and encourage artistic creativity. And if we accept that that is the answer, then Mr Slater should not own copyright to the raw image. Leaving your camera lying around is not an act of artistic creativity. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/5 "2014-08-06T23:52:25Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > His camera, his photo, in my uneducated opinion. I don’t think this tracks. If I borrow your camera for a vacation and happen to take a beautiful picture that becomes internet-famous, it’s certainly not your photo, right? I think the salient point in this story is that the photographer didn’t really create the conditions for this photo to be taken. A monkey came up, snatched the camera, fucked with it for a while, and a handful of the hundreds of photos that weren’t a blurred mess happen to have been really cool fucking photos. There’s a difference between these photos and the work of photographers who set up cameras to take pictures remotely. One of the articles I read made a good point about pieces of “art” made by primates and elephants. Who owns those? Does the zoo get to claim copyright here because they created a set of circumstances which allowed the elephant to finger(trunk)paint? ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2014, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/6 "2014-08-06T23:55:33Z")
The owner of the camera is not the owner of the photo if the owner of the camera did not take the picture. I believe that’s settled law. ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/7 "2014-08-07T00:02:02Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Leaving your camera lying around is not an act of artistic creativity. Well, you could use this argument to discount about 90% of modern “art”. Christo, I’m lookin’ at you. 😉 Edit: Serious reply: Monkey had no intent to create art. So whatever the dude did _was_ art. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/8 "2014-08-07T00:11:44Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > The owner of the camera is not the owner of the photo if the owner of the camera did not take the picture. I believe that’s settled law. But let’s say these same pictures were the result of a trail camera that was motion-activated. Is the camera owner a copyright holder in that case? Is there a substantial difference between “Monkey finger activated” and “Monkey motion activated”? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/9 "2014-08-07T00:15:28Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > The owner of the camera is not the owner of the photo if the owner of the camera did not take the picture. I believe that’s settled law. If I ask you to help me take photos of a wedding, and I give you a camera to do it, who owns the copyright for those pictures, in your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/10 "2014-08-07T00:17:06Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > The owner of the camera is not the owner of the photo if the owner of the camera did not take the picture. I believe that’s settled law. Not as far as I’ve seen so far in a few hours of looking into this case. At least, it isn’t nearly that simple. ETA: Thought I had missed the edit window. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/11 "2014-08-07T00:21:46Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > He took _some_ of the actions that led to the possiblity of the image existing in the first place, but many others were involved. Who constructed the camera? Who conceive it? Who developed the technology on which it relies? Who transported Mr Slater to the place where the photograph was created? Etc, etc. All of the things you mention are things that Mr. Slater paid for; he uses them in exchange for the money he provided. That exchange precludes any future right to however Mr. Slater uses them or whatever he produces with them. > [@UDS](#): > > So if an artist paints a picture using paints supplied by someone else, that someone else owns the copyright to the picture? > > Whatever else is the basis for copyright, I can’t see that ownership of the tools employed in the artistic work is the basis. > > Which raises the question we need to think about - why do we have a copyright law at all? Why am I not free to make copies of anything it pleases me to copy? > > And the usual answer is that we want to reward and encourage artistic creativity. > > And if we accept that that is the answer, then Mr Slater should not own copyright to the raw image. Leaving your camera lying around is not an act of artistic creativity. He didn’t “leave it laying around”; it was stolen. And the camera was there specifically to capture images of nature and wildlife; his method of achieving that goal is irrelevant. And while we’re at it, if the artist decides that leaving a camera lying around and seeing what it films is what he wants to produce, then it is indeed art. The best argument you seem to be making is that if you stole paint and canvas from me, you still get to own the image you painted. I’m thinking the courts would differ with you on that, but I’m willing to be shown I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/12 "2014-08-07T00:23:13Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > But let’s say these same pictures were the result of a trail camera that was motion-activated. Is the camera owner a copyright holder in that case? Is there a substantial difference between “Monkey finger activated” and “Monkey motion activated”? If the photographer sets a camera with a motion sensor, he is exercising an _intent_ to create pictures. If a monkey just randomly grabs a camera, there is no intent by the human involved — no creative act, or _actus creantis_ as lawyers who use Google Translate would say. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/13 "2014-08-07T00:28:29Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > The best argument you seem to be making is that if you stole paint and canvas from me, you still get to own the image you painted. I’m thinking the courts would differ with you on that, but I’m willing to be shown I’m wrong. Surely the courts would hold that, unlike a human, a monkey is incapable of being held responsible for the crime of theft — or, as my Google legal advisor says, [_simia est doli incapax._](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doli_incapax) ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/14 "2014-08-07T00:31:12Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > The best argument you seem to be making is that if you stole paint and canvas from me, you still get to own the image you painted. I’m thinking the courts would differ with you on that, but I’m willing to be shown I’m wrong. My argument doesn’t require that. It only requires that _you_ don’t own the image that I made. (As it happens, I think I _would_ own the copyright to the image I created with the stolen materials. I’m not aware that it has ever been a consideration in copyright law that I should have ownership of, or a right or licence to use, the tools, materials, etc that I employ in my creative work. It’s the creativity of the work, not the legal title to the tools, that is the foundation of copyright.) ---
**Author:** ![DingoelGringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DingoelGringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DingoelGringo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/15 "2014-08-07T00:35:49Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > Well, you could use this argument to discount about 90% of modern “art”. Christo, I’m lookin’ at you. 😉 > > Edit: Serious reply: Monkey had no intent to create art. So whatever the dude did _was_ art. This attitude gets my vote. ---
**Author:** ![blondebear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blondebear/32/1022_2.png) [@blondebear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blondebear)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/16 "2014-08-07T01:21:14Z")
What if you gave a monkey a digital camera with the \*intention \*of creating monkey selfies…that sounds like an awesome art project to me. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/17 "2014-08-07T01:43:10Z")
Serious question: people have left things in their wills to their pets. Are artists not allowed to leave copyrights to their pets? there are circumstances where the copyright survives the creator, and passes down to heirs. Right now, the NAACP has the copyright to Dorothy Parker’s work, because she left her rights to Martin Luther King, jr. (she had no heirs or a surviving spouse), and he left them to the NAACP. Suppose she had left them to her dog instead? Personally, I think whatever preserve the monkey lived on, or if he lived truly in the wild, then the government of whatever country he lives in owns the copyright. In the past, when someone has had an animal create some kind of painting, it’s usually been for the benefit of whatever zoo or preserve where the animal lives, and if not, then I think it has belonged to whoever owns, or is responsible for the animal. The entity that maintains the animal’s living space can pay an editor’s commission to the photographer, then make a buttload of money, and use it to fortify the police force that catches wildlife poachers, or something. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/18 "2014-08-07T01:43:53Z")
> [@blondebear](#): > > What if you gave a monkey a digital camera with the \*intention \*of creating monkey selfies…that sounds like an awesome art project to me. If you give cameras to enough monkeys, will you eventually get a photo of Shakespeare? ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/19 "2014-08-07T01:56:50Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > If I ask you to help me take photos of a wedding, and I give you a camera to do it, who owns the copyright for those pictures, in your opinion? Bad analogy. In your scenario, there would be a contract in effect. Not that I disagree with your overall point, I’m just being pedantic. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987/20 "2014-08-07T02:09:39Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Serious question: people have left things in their wills to their pets. Are artists not allowed to leave copyrights to their pets? there are circumstances where the copyright survives the creator, and passes down to heirs . . . Suppose she had left them to her dog instead? Obviously the law is going to vary from place to place, but in most countries animals can’t own things. A clause in your will leaving property to your pet is ineffective and invalid. If you’re determined, there are various legal structures you can set up in your will, or in advance of your death, to ensure that your property will be used for the benefit of your pet - and, again, exactly what you can do in this regard will vary depending on the local law - but in general none of those structures involve your pet owning the property. A cat can no more own a house than an amoeba or a rosebush can. > [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Personally, I think whatever preserve the monkey lived on, or if he lived truly in the wild, then the government of whatever country he lives in owns the copyright. In the past, when someone has had an animal create some kind of painting, it’s usually been for the benefit of whatever zoo or preserve where the animal lives, and if not, then I think it has belonged to whoever owns, or is responsible for the animal. I think if somebody intentionally arranges to involve an animal in the creation of an artwork, then that somebody can legitimately claim the moral rights of the artist. I can’t remember who it was who used to put his paintings on the floor and get his cat to walk across them, but that kind of thing. This is no different from using any other force of nature; I could briefly expose my still-damp painting to the rain to secure a particular visual effect, for example, or expose something to the sun to fade it. But that’s not what happened here. The guy inadvertantly put his camera where a monkey could get it, and the monkey got it. Some interesting exposures resulted. Neither the owner of the camera nor the owner (if any) of the monkey can claim to have been engaged in any kind of creativity. This image may be interesting or beautiful, but it doesn’t follow that somebody must own a copyright in it. If they guy had _deliberately_ given his camera to the monkey in the hope that images would result, it would be different. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-owns-the-copyright-to-this-image-of-a-monkey/694987.md?page=2)