Until someone sues them, you can get your own copy of the Monkey Selfie from Gallery of Innovative Art

Do you remember the “Monkey Selfie” dispute back in 2014? While arguably ALL selfies are “monkey selfies”, this particular monkey selfie was special, in that a human monkey loaned a bunch of crested black macaque monkeys in Indonesia his camera, and then tried to take credit for their work once it went viral. The whole incident may have faded into the mists of internet history, if it weren’t for the fact that Wikipedia sided with the monkeys, in what later became known as the Monkey Selfie dispute. In the ensuing legal brouhaha, British photographer David Slater claimed that he had lost over £10,000 (about $15,000) in income in just over a year, and Wikipedia refused to stop using one of the images, claiming that a Macaque named Naturo was the rightful creator of the image. Emboldened by Wikipedia’s refusal to back down, PETA later sued, supposedly on the monkey’s behalf.

Well, last week PETA lost the case. So guess what! Engaging in his own form of “monkey see, monkey sue” behavior, Slater is suing Wikipedia again. We’re of the opinion that – although the Advertising Value Equivalency might be difficult to calculate – everyone here has benefited from the increased exposure except the macaques themselves. PETA may lay claim to operating on the monkeys’ behalf, but as far as we know, they’ve done nothing directly to help them. Wikipedia’s intentions in the bigger picture may have been neutral – the usage notes for the image say “This file is in the public domain because as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested”, but their continued use of the image seems perhaps overly contentious. And Slater? There is absolutely no way this fellow could have gotten this much exposure without the help of the macaques. So we think he should at least agree to a 50/50 split.

_{(On a related note, this was the topic of the very first post on our site)}