Now the Intellectual Rights battle has risen to a unique level over a selfie taken not by a human but by a Monkey. A monkey Yes ! A selfie taken by a black macaque on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi three years back has become a tug of war between Wikipedia and the photographer who claims he is the owner of the selfie.
Wikipedia has refused to remove the famous selfie, saying the monkey and not the photographer owns the copyright because the animal took it.
Wikipedia’s argument is simply that Slater(the photographer) cannot own the copyright, because (despite the camera being his) he didn’t create the picture himself.
Now this issue raises a lot of valid and stupid questions:
Can an animal hold a Copyright?
Does simply owning the tools a picture was produced with (in this case, the camera) mean you own the copyright?
Does the owner of a wall get the copyright to graffiti painted on it? If you borrow somebody’s paints and brushes to create a painting, do they have part of the copyright?
Well if this is true then this can lead to hell lot of unique copyright battles. Now the question is can a Monkey hire an attorney to defend his case or claim compensation?