Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg/2

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

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 19:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Macaca nigra self-portrait
Well he should have just went along with it, not try to own the image or whatever he did. --BoothSift 06:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing against your compassion for the photographer, but in my opinion we should only judge the photograph itself and not the story behind it. – Lucas 06:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Destroyed a photographer's life"? You must be joking. Actually he certainly made a huge amount of money selling this to whoever wanted it. This whole story was just a very successful marketing scam. Why do you think PETA claimed a copyright on it? For the animal's welfare? Ha! Ha! Ha! Regards, Yann (talk)
  • Actually, this is pretty much a good picture. Sometimes humans don't manage to get so nice shots. The eyes are in focus, it is not blurry, the facial expression is awesome. The DoF is a bit narrow, but considering the distance, certainly a corrected version would get a chance as FP if it was nominated by a regular photographer. This picture is of good quality, it is a striking portrait, the monkey looks curious, smiling and surprised, that's what makes it great IMO. Because it is a selfie, it means the animal is 100% natural in its environment, not distracted by humans, just captivated by its "game". And that is special -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of good quality photos that doesn't wow me and this is one of them. Btw, it's debated weather the facial expressions of monkeys and apes show the same emotions as those of humans. --Cart (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I've changed my view on this image over the years. I think what PETA did and what Wikimania did with the image was disgraceful and disrespectful, but PETA lawsuit aside, I don't buy the claim it destroyed his career. It looks like the photographer (like most) didn't have a particularly great career to begin with and is bitter that taking a viral photo didn't change things for the better. He claims he's "lost £10,000" but that's speculation about what he might have earned, not money he actually had and lost. If the 30 minutes of monkeying-around with his camera hadn't produced the "money selfie" he'd have been the same broke photographer he says he is now. The claim to fame is that it is entirely a "monkey selfie" whereas David's claim to ownership is that he engineered the situation. His story now is that he was attempting to photograph the apes as they groomed and played with him, but discovered they would play with the camera if he sat next to it, holding the tripod. If instead of being a "selfie", David had pressed the button as an ape gazed at her reflection in the glass, it wouldn't have been a "selfie" and not have gone viral. The whole magic of the photo is the "what's the chance of that?" and "what a clever ape!" reactions. Being a professional photographer is about consistently satisfying the client with great photos and being relied upon to do so next time, not one single photo created by a chance encounter in 30 mins. A look at David's website suggests this photo is the only thing that separates him from any other wildlife photographer who runs workshops to make a living. -- Colin (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Maybe, maybe not, who knows for sure. In any case I don't want commons to turn into a platform that pinches material from creators who don't consent or share their work voluntarily under a cc license. That's the main reasoning behind my opposing vote. The image actually might even warrant an FP status. It's striking, popular, well known & well done. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with not pinching material, but the raison d'être for this image is that the ape is the "creator" and it was a wild chance encounter rather than a trained animal. If David had creative input into the work, then it isn't a "monkey selfie", and no different to any other (of many) photos of these apes grinning. But if the ape is the creator then they don't get copyright. Neither do US Gov employees, whether they consent voluntarily or not. I don't think David can have it both ways. I think it quite rational to oppose for the reasons you give. -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a striking image yes, but not the work of the owner of the camera. Otherwise you can claim to be the artist when someone just borrows your material, after publishing their shots in newspapers. Is that "your work" ? No. You just bought the camera, and expect to become millionnaire because someone talented pushed the button. In this case, the talented subject is a monkey, and legally there's no ownership for this species (fortunately or unfortunately, but in any case the owner of the camera would not be the artist). So, for now, this picture is like the work of someone who took a shot of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre Museum and claims to be the owner of the work. We just say "This painting is in the public domain", that's not "yours", it belongs to Da Vinci. But you engage lawyers and absolutely want to sell your photo of the Mona Lisa. Well, sorry that's your problem, there are laws. And now if you can't pay the attorneys, you're a bit responsible too. Maybe you can expect recognition for your work (go visiting the macaques in Indonesia), but only the fair part, not the extra part (means not this lucky selfie). That is public domain. Your story and the camera belong to you, you were not forced to publish anything, now the picture belongs to everyone -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think your comparison with photographing a PD artwork is valid. Copyright law is what it is, there is no logic to it, and the law is pretty settled in the US at least. The thing is, if David had set his camera up with an intervalometer to take a pic every few seconds, or had rigged a trigger trap to detect an ape walking by, or had remotely triggered the shutter when the ape pulled a funny face, he'd have full copyright of the image, but it would not have gone viral: it wouldn't be a "selfie". That's the claim he's chosen to make, and if you take him at his word that the ape took the photo, then he loses rights to the image. If instead, he engineered the photo, then his claim is a fraud, and he'd still not be entitled to his £10,000. -- Colin (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eatcha, I see no reason why the bot shoudn't recognize and calculate with all possible templates used by people. – Lucas 19:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) I think the {{unsupport}} is a too problematic template to add to the tuple since I doubt the Bot will be able to pair it with the right {{support}} vote without a major code re-write. It is hardly ever used and it is better that users are very clear in their votes. There will always pop up strange templates that someone found somewhere, a human will have to check those. --Cart (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 12 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--BoothSift 21:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_large.jpg/2&oldid=861671268"