Well, if corporations are people…

I'm bothered by trivialized or superficial interest in endangered species, even when it merits a chuckle. If you care to learn more:

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/ac…

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/e…

http://www.arkive.org/crested-black-maca…

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/12556…

^ one-page .pdf handout from iucn

would you like your royalties in dollars or bananas, sir?

I'm willing to be it comes down to: who owns the monkey?

As the monkey is incapable of consent, or signing either a model release or a licensing agreement, that would probably belong to whoever owns the monkey.

The real question is: do they have a signed authorization from the monkey?

I'm not much of a hashtag person, but #monkeyownsit has a certain ring to it.

"A monkey pressed the button, but I did all the setting up.” People have been complaining about this for years, but Terry Richardson still gets the credit for those American Apparel ads.

Such a handsome fellow!

An important detail "when one of the animals came up to investigate his equipment, hijacked a camera and took hundreds of selfies."

I feel for a working photographer losing out on what could be a nice windfall in a tough field, and I'm not sure Wikimedia is doing the right thing by using the photo... I wish there was a position where the courts could rule specifically for the monkey, and that is the side I would take. The monkey is the creator of the photo.

This is going to set an interesting precedent.

Actually, Wikimedia is saying that monkeys can't hold copyrights, and therefore no one is the owner of the photos- they're in the public domain. Photos are owned by the taker, not the owner of the camera, and the taker is not a legal person in this case.

By this logic, the camera man owns the rights to every film ever made. It doesn't work that way, or at least it shouldn't. Who care's who pushed the button. The photographer made the picture happen, published his photo, and then it was stolen. The thief cannot declare that the victim didn't really own it after the fact.

Noooo, THIS is what she said, “So what we found was that if the photographer doesn’t have copyright and the monkey doesn’t have copyright then there’s no one to bestow the copyright upon,” (Wikimedia Foundation’s Chief Communications Officer Katherine) Maher said. Please be accurate in your reporting.

Noooo, THIS is what she said, “So what we found was that if the photographer doesn’t have copyright and the monkey doesn’t have copyright then there’s no one to bestow the copyright upon,” Maher said (Wikimedia Foundation’s Chief Communications Officer Katherine Maher). Pleae be accurate in your reporting.