[zoips]

Which is too bad. I'm curious about rtc's argument around machines taking the pictures. It seems the logical conclusion of his argument is that if you buy a camera, and the software on the camera takes a picture without the act of camera owner, then the owner of the camera doesn't own the copyright but instead the company that made the camera? That seems like a very strange conclusion.

[bitJericho]

I think the issue at hand is that (from what I've read) the photographer set the camera down without intending for the monkey to pick it up and start snapping.

I don't think anybody would be arguing about the copyright had the photographer given the monkey the camera.

[JoeAltmaier]

Googling I find the requirements for copyright:

"the work must have been developed independently by its author, and there must have been some creativity involved in the creation"

This case is certainly debatable on those points.

[dhimes]

Serious question: If I steal a camera and take pictures with it, am I the copyright owner of those pictures?

[jahewson]

Yes, though if you're taking a picture of a scene which was set up by someone else then they may own the copyright in that scene. There can be multiple owners of copyright of different aspects of an image, e.g. if I make my own cartoon and include Darth Vader as a character, then I naturally own my own the copyright to my work but it still infringes on Disney's copyright and I don't have the right to reproduce those aspects publicly.

Also if the images you take have no creative merit then there's no copyright.

[marcosdumay]

Yes, and a thief.

[ghaff]

People might be arguing but I tend to think they'd be wrong. (i.e. giving a bunch of monkeys cameras to shoot selfies is pretty clearly a planned creating act). But distinguishing that from the (apparent) situation here seems like splitting incredibly fine legal hairs and I don't really understand why Wikimedia seems to thin this is an important principle on which to make a stand.