Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait (rotated and cropped).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait (rotated and cropped).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 17:12:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Self-portrait of a female Celebes crested macaque (Macaca nigra) in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, who had picked up photographer David Slater's camera and photographed herself with it.
  •  Info created by a female Celebes crested macaque - uploaded by Odder - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Whilst this image is under the resolution normally required of FP, there is precedence in this instance as per Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Firing Squad in Iran.jpg, so I am ignoring all rules here and nominating this for FP as it has both the WOW and the LOL factor. Any copyright concerns that people may have are covered in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg. russavia (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support -- russavia (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment -- Another great pic, heck the image could have its own article on WP, but I am not sure I am convinced by the no copyright argument. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Saffron Blaze: Go on… odder (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I don't think that DR established anything other than what most people write at DR is a completely uneducated guess. -- Colin (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • odder, it is exactly as Colin pointed out it. As is often the case at DRs like this the result is without case law or even a legal opinion to back it up. In this case the outcome was very disrespectful of the photographer who created the conditions that allowed these photos to be created. There are some jurisdictions where even the monkey could be imbued with the copyright as its creator. Regardless, in absence of actual case law, legal opinion, or even an informed one, it would seem the precautionary principle would be the best approach instead of participating in a self-serving rights grab. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It isn't uncommon to have nature photographs triggered by the animal passing some light beam. Or lightning photographs triggered by the flash. Or a camera installed to take pictures periodically. These presumably give loads of duff shots and some person chooses the decent ones and works on them a bit and publishes. And we really have no idea what processing the photographer did of the raw shots. We wouldn't have this photograph if it wasn't for that photographer. Morally, I think the photographer (the person who owned the camera and "developed the film") has some rights to it, regardless of whether law has anything to say on the issue. -- Colin (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • The owner of the camera is named at the image description page, which is a good thing I think. Jcb (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support - selfie of the year - Jcb (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, too low resolution, 2MP needed. - Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC) + a too manipulated original. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • User:Alchemist-hp, just a quite note, the FPX template shouldn't have been used above as this already had a support vote other than mine (the nominator). Anyway, sure the image is below 2MP, and that is the "guideline", but we can, and do, ignore all rules on our projects (as I showed above with the Iranian nomination). I think the photo basically has all other requirements needed for FP, except for the 2MP, so how about ignoring all rules in this instance. :) russavia (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I agree with Jcb. Natuur12 (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Needs to brush his her teeth. I find the plaque very distracting. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose if "rotated and cropped." Only original as it is by the Macaca nigra has any significance here. Good work by her, indeed. Jee 08:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per Russavia --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per Jee --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per Russavia --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support - awesome selfie JurgenNL (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Due to concerns over unresolved copyright violation. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Very cool, but the resolution just isn't there, without strong mitigating factors. Yes, it's uncommon for an animal to take a selfie, but it's not like a similar photo can never be taken. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Distorted face because of too short distance to the object. -- -donald- (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative (original)

Macaca nigra self-portrait
I'm sorry; but I sympathize with the efforts of "the photographer in background". (per Saffron's comment below) Jee 03:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support The original is nice as well - Jcb (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Yes, this one is also great. I love this pic. Natuur12 (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strong oppose Just don't like the rotation. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, still too low resolution, 2MP needed, but otherwise a nice and interesting shot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Tomer T (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per Jebulon :) Ю. Данилевский (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support - awesome selfie JurgenNL (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but the resolution is really low. --Ivar (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose 1) low resolution, 2) possible copyright issues - the Daily Mail photoghrapher could claim copyright due to staging, postprocessing, or simply having had the funny idea. Sorry --A.Savin 19:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose As A.Savin. --Karelj (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose As A.Savin too. Halavar (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Due to concerns over unresolved copyright violation. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose For a selfie it should be more far away (close up distortion) since these persons have long arms --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Per my comment above. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Distorted face because of too short distance to the object. -- -donald- (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Many users voted against ensuring potential problems with copyright, however, no one is able to make a nomination for deletion. :) --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Why bother with a DR when people pick and choose when copyright is to be respected based on little more than personal opinon? Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "the finest on Commons"? Don't see what is "fine" about taking someone's work without permission. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Get me the contact details of the monkey, and I'll be sure to contact them for permission, if you do desire. russavia (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I'm being serious Russavia. The monkey did not buy the camera and travel to a foreign country to take pictures. He didn't download the images into Lightroom, choose the ones that worked and delete the failures, adjust the levels and noise, crop and tidy up, save as a JPG and then contact his agent to get the images released to the press. This isn't some funny random cameraphone facebook photo someone found on the internet and appropriated. This guy takes photographs for a living. These photographs are his work. -- Colin (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I think you should nominate this picture for deletion. odder (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I'm tempted to use the "Commons is not Facebook" rationale. :) Jee 15:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • What is the point, odder, if the project only cares about copyright law? I just don't think this is anything to be proud of. Now, if the human photographer wants to donate the image CC then I'd support one of these. Has anyone asked him? After all, the Internet has stolen his picture already. -- Colin (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have been in contact with the photographer and he indicates that the first time this image was uploaded to Wikimedia he requested it be taken down and it was. He is quite unhappy it was re-uploaded and asserts his copyright over this image and is seeking legal advice to escalate this further. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is quite a serious issue. If that what you state above is true, those three images should be suggested for deletion asap. Sandstein and odder are OTRS members, with the result that their real names ( + probably the adresses) are relatively easily ascertainable. I think none of both would be pleased to be taken to court by a photographer who claims copyright on that pictures and has a real chance to have it adjudged. --A.Savin 21:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes no sense to me to sue individual volunteers. If somebody has doubts about the PD rational, he/she can start a DR and the community will discuss and decide. Also the photographer is able to contact the WMF legal department. If they think he is right with his claim, they will remove the files. Sueing an individual volunteer instead of contacting WMF will fail in most jurisdictions I guess. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No opinion on this process, but the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg resulted in keeping the image, and as discussed there other media organizations have also refused to recognize copyright claims in this image. Sandstein (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A glorified blog whose underlying mantra articulates that "I want a PRINCIPLED Free Culture Movement" is to be trusted as a reliable "media organization" when it comes to the discussion of copyright, given their disdain for the photographer in this case, is quite a dubious position to take. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 02:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_(rotated_and_cropped).jpg&oldid=130981252"