Copyright Complexities: A Monkey Stole My Photo

In somewhat recent news, a photographer has been battling against Wikipedia to remove a photo that he claims he owns the copyright for. Wikipedia disagrees saying that because the photo was technically taken by a monkey, the photographer does not own the copyright and it instead falls into the public domain.

Source

 

Copyright law is a writhing mass of retardation that is poisoning culture, in my opinion. That is, of course, the way it currently is. I mean I believe in creators retaining the right to monetize their ideas and work, but at this point the laws are outdated and I would go so far as to say archaic. With the expansion, a rapid expansion, of information sharing and computing power there has been massive changes in the way ideas and information is transmitted but it is still treated as if that information is pre-computer.

 

I saw this. Can monkeys be sentenced for murder and charged for dropping litter? Then why do copyright laws include them, lol. It's dumb, the photographer should own the rights.

 

Can corporations be charged for murder or charged for dropping litter? Then why do copyright laws include them, lol.
#justsayin

 

It's an indefinite technicality that's being exploited for personal gain both ways. In this situation it would be important to note that animals do not have personal rights as humans do, therefore the rights to ownership should be passed on to the one who owns the property of which the picture was taken with.

 

I don't make the rules

 

Wow..

Team Monkey. This is ridiculous, the pics are pretty remarkable though. Inb4 monkey duck face.

 

Exactly, the copyright laws wikipedia is saying is just bs lol... It should easily belong to the photographer.