This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 11:07, 8 August 2014 (Signing comment by 122.151.160.219 - "→Imputation of Copyright: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:07, 8 August 2014 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by 122.151.160.219 - "→Imputation of Copyright: new section")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Primates Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Indonesia Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Comment about "deletion" of negative comments
I see WikiPedia are working overtime, deleting all the negative comments that have been posted here, regarding their theft of copyrighted works. Well of course you can behave like this and try to disguise the public feeling for your despicable actions on your own site, but there are many other websites, TV news programs, media etc, upon which we can display our disgust, without you being able to whitewash over it. People power is a significant force and I am quite certain that a great many of us will not be making any donations until your deplorable decision is reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.173.191 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I simply moved the comments further down the page — see my edit here. No one has deleted them.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
earlier conversation
"Crested black macaque" seems to be the more widely used name. Should we change the name of the article? Tim Long 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Celebes Crested Macaque is its official common name, according to Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Assessed
Against conservation status as well as content SatuSuro 08:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Killer Dolphins
I have posted a long comment in the Talk section of the main Macaque genus article, about the renaming of all the macaque species articles to " Macaque" (e.g. "Barbary Macaque") from their traditionally names (e.g. Barbary Ape).
Would you please take a look at that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Macaque#Killer_Dolphins
And then correct this individual species article as necessary — I'm not sure which macaque species may have actually been called " Macaque" traditionally.
(And I hope you can see that the fact that I don't know that, after reading a Misplaced Pages article about the species, is why rewriting reality in Misplaced Pages is a problem.)
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.30.135 (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyright of 'selfie'
Give the guy his photo back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.70.189.38 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, above this page as I type are fundraising adverts and comments on copyright violation, its a shame wikipedia can't seem to do the decent thing and protect the independence and copyright of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.173.191 (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages cannot unilaterally declare someone else' work open source. That is a legal fact. Give up the photo (Redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.225.25 (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Slater took it to the court. It is now up to them to decide who is right, not to non-lawyers. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 19:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages stealing intellectual property based on some convoluted misinterpretation of the law. Misplaced Pages is developing an abstract culture and complex system of laws of their own.--2.25.5.106 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope
Without going into the rights and wrongs of the current dispute, this article is supposed to be about the macaque. Surely this is not the place to have a section on copyright issues? See relevant policy WP:NOT#JOURNALISM Periglio (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree — there should only be a brief mention of the copyright issue (though the photos should remain (assuming Wikimedia's position holds) as they are in themselves relevant). The copyright issue probably belongs on the selfie page, and/or on a page dicussing relevant photography law.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I tried to be fairly terse, pending the outcome, when I originally created this section. I managed to keep it down to three sentences. In only a day or two it seems to have ballooned out of proportion, as everyone wants to correct niggling details at much greater length. I can only suggest we tolerate it until there's a little more news (e.g. a court date or judgement) and then spin it off into it's own **simian selfie controversy** article, if there's enough to justify that. Alternatively, pruning will be possible when there's less active and current interest, maybe in 6 or 12 months time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strolls (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Imputation of Copyright
I would have logged in but everytime I try Misplaced Pages refuses my password, even when I have reset it. This place is getting to be a little cold. The question here is one of imputation. Misplaced Pages claims the animal owns the copyright because it pressed the button but can you impute copyright onto the species Macaca Nigra? Does it make any sense to do so? Georg Lucas asked a similar kind of question back in the 1920s when faced with who is responsible for imputing class consciousness onto the working classes when they are not conscious of their class. This is not a frivolous argument. Lucas argued it was the job of the Party to do so and the Party/State being the socialist owner of capital and having that consciousness would therefore impute class consciousness onto the proletariat. On the one hand copyright and ownership perhaps does not reside in the hardware or capital but on the other hand there is no scientific evidence that an animal can appreciate or understand the concept of copyright or license to distribute for free. In this case the copyright must be held by the nearest credible and responsible agent - ie the owner of the equipment, the photographer - who is the only one who meaningfully stands to win or lose from the loss or gain of copyright in this case - and if the photographer should want to attempt to impute the concept of copyright into the agent that pressed the button then so be it, but without explicit scientific evidence to the contrary, the idea that Wikimedia recognises that monkeys understand copyright for any other purpose than its own redistribution of capital is entirely unconvincing. If the monkeys feel their copright is infringed, let them stage a revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.160.219 (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Categories: