This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monkey selfie copyright dispute article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | Material from Animal-made art was split to Monkey selfie on 27 November 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Animal-made art. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
![]() | On 17 August 2017, it was proposed that this article be moved from Monkey selfie to Monkey selfie copyright dispute. The result of the discussion was moved. |
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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):
“ | [T]he possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment | ” |
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.))
((Gallery | title = Anyway, if we're in a decorative mood, here are some other images that would be as good or better. As a bonus, all are both indubitably free and publishable without taking bread off anyone's plate. | File:LibraryofCongress MadisonBuilding.JPG | The [[James Madison Memorial Building]], location of the [[United States Copyright Office]], which in August 2014 published its opinion that animals cannot hold copyrights | File:Judge William H. Orrick, III.jpg | Judge [[William Orrick III]], who ruled for the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] (''Naruto et al v. David Slater'') that animals lack statutory standing to bring suit under the Copyright Act | File:Copyright Law of 1790 (United States), first page.jpg | [[Copyright Act of 1790]], the foundation of American Federal copyright law (and the first Federal law to ascribe copyright benefits to "authors" of works), enacted soon after the ratification of the [[Constitution of the United States]], which enabled such law in its [[Copyright Clause]] | File:Wikimedia Foundation office at One Montgomery Tower - work area (4633).jpg | Offices of [[Wikimedia Commons]], the organization that published the "monkey selfies" and declared them to be in the public domain, which Slater averred cost him £10,000 | File:Carlos Bea Circuit Judge.jpg | Judge [[Carlos Bea]], who wrote the opinion for the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] upholding Judge Orrick's decision; the other judges on the panel were [[N. Randy Smith]] and [[Eduardo C. Robreno]] | File: Macaca nigra immature (1).JPG | A Celebes crested macaque, the actual species involved in the copyright dispute | File:Anurag Meena.jpg | A "[[selfie]]" by a different species of [[primate]] in its natural habitat, showing the close-up pose typical of a real-time photographic self-portrait ))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)