You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 3.238.0.0/16 has been blocked by ‪ST47‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a web host's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and they should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 05:34, 21 January 2026. Your current IP address is 3.238.27.177.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
This IP address range has been globally blocked.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

This block affects editing on all Wikimedia wikis.
The IP address or range 3.238.0.0/16 has been globally blocked by ‪Jon Kolbert‬ for the following reason(s):

Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected

This block will expire on 05:35, 21 February 2029. Your current IP address is 3.238.27.177.

Even while globally blocked, you will usually still be able to edit pages on Meta-Wiki.

If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

Other useful links: Global blocks · Help:I have been blocked

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((Short description|Copyright dispute involving Celebes crested macaques))
((Use British English|date=January 2015))
((Use dmy dates|date=July 2022))
[[File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg|thumb|One of the monkey selfies at issue in the dispute]]
Between 2011 and 2018, a series of disputes took place about the [[copyright]] status of [[selfie]]s taken by [[Celebes crested macaque]]s using equipment belonging to the British [[wildlife photography|wildlife photographer]] David J. Slater. The disputes involved [[Wikimedia Commons]] and the blog ''[[Techdirt]]'', which have [[Image hosting service|hosted]] the images following their publication in newspapers in July 2011 over Slater's objections that he holds the copyright, and [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]] (PETA), who have argued that the copyright should be assigned to the macaque.

Slater has argued that he has a valid copyright claim because he engineered the situation that resulted in the pictures by travelling to Indonesia, befriending a group of wild macaques, and setting up his camera equipment in such a way that a selfie might come about. The [[Wikimedia Foundation]]'s 2014 refusal to remove the pictures from its Wikimedia Commons image library was based on the understanding that copyright is held by the creator, that a non-human creator (not being a [[legal person]]) cannot hold copyright, and that the images are thus in the [[public domain]].

Slater stated in August 2014 that, as a result of the pictures being available on Wikipedia, he had lost at least £10,000 (((Inflation|UK|10000|2014|fmt=eq|cursign=£))) in income and his business as a wildlife photographer was being harmed.<ref name="BBC_7_Aug_2014" /> In December 2014, the [[United States Copyright Office]] stated that [[animal-made art|works created by a non-human]], such as a photograph taken by a monkey, are not copyrightable.<ref>U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 306 (3d ed. 2021). [https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf]</ref> Several legal experts in the US and UK have argued that Slater's role in the photographic process would have been sufficient to establish a valid copyright claim, though this decision would have to be made by a court.<ref name="PolicyReview" /><ref name="El Reg, Cracking" /><ref name="Apollo" />

In a separate dispute, PETA tried to use the monkey selfies to establish a legal precedent that animals should be declared copyright holders. Slater had published a book containing the photographs through the self-publishing company [[Blurb, Inc.]] In September 2015, PETA filed a lawsuit against Slater and Blurb, requesting that the copyright be assigned to the macaque and that PETA be appointed to administer proceeds from the photos for the endangered species' benefit.<ref>((cite web|url=https://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/Complaint.pdf|title=NARUTO, a Crested Macaque, by and through his Next Friends, PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., and ANTJE ENGELHARDT, Ph.D. Plaintiff, vs. DAVID JOHN SLATER, an individual, BLURB, INC., a Delaware corporation, and WILDLIFE PERSONALITIES, LTD., a United Kingdom private limited company, Defendants.|date=21 September 2015|publisher=People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|access-date=14 November 2017|archive-date=15 November 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115000049/http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/Complaint.pdf|url-status=dead))</ref> In dismissing PETA's case, a federal district court ruled that a monkey cannot own copyright under US law.<ref name="AT-20160106">((Cite web |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/judge-says-monkey-cannot-own-copyright-to-famous-selfies/ |title=Judge says monkey cannot own copyright to famous selfies |date=2016-01-07 |access-date=2024-01-15 |website=Ars Technica |last=Kravets |first=David |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160109005741/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/judge-says-monkey-cannot-own-copyright-to-famous-selfies/ |archive-date=2016-01-09 |language=en))</ref> PETA appealed. In September 2017, PETA and Slater agreed to a settlement in which Slater would donate a portion of future revenues on the photographs to wildlife organizations. However, the court of appeals declined to dismiss the appeal and declined to vacate the lower court judgment.<ref>((cite web |last1=Wittenhorst |first1=Tilman |title=Streit über Affen-Selfie geht weiter: Vergleich hinfällig, Urteil angekündigt |url=https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Streit-um-Affen-Selfie-geht-weiter-Vergleich-hinfaellig-Urteil-angekuendigt-4024493.html |website=Heise online |date=15 April 2018 |language=de))</ref> In April 2018, the appeals court ruled against PETA in its judgement that animals cannot legally hold copyrights and expressed concern that PETA's motivations had been to promote their own interests rather than to protect the legal rights of the monkeys.<ref name = "888 F.3d 418">''Naruto v. Slater'', 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).</ref>

==Background==
[[File:Macaca nigra self-portrait full body.jpg|thumb|The other disputed image, a full-body "selfie"]]
Since 2008, British nature photographer David Slater had traveled to [[Indonesia]] to take photographs of the critically endangered [[Celebes crested macaque]]s. In 2011 he licensed several images to the Caters News Agency who released them, along with a written promotional press release with quotes from Slater, for publication in the British media.<ref name="newsweek wmf" >((cite web | url = http://www.newsweek.com/lawyers-dispute-wikimedias-claims-about-monkey-selfie-copyright-265961 | title = Wikimedia says when a monkey take a selfie, no one owns it | first = Louise | last = Stewart | date  = 21 August 2014 | access-date = 15 November 2017 | work = [[Newsweek]]))</ref><ref>((cite journal|url=https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/monkey-selfie-copyright-lessons-originality-photographs-and-internet-jurisdiction|title=The monkey selfie: copyright lessons for originality in photographs and internet jurisdiction|first=Andrés|last=Guadamuz|date=21 March 2016|journal=Internet Policy Review|volume=5|doi=10.14763/2016.1.398|doi-access=free|hdl=10419/214004|hdl-access=free))</ref> On 4 July 2011 several publications, including ''[[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]]'' and ''[[The Guardian]]'', picked up the story and published the pictures along with articles that quoted Slater as describing the photographs as self-portraits taken by the monkeys, such as "Monkey steals camera to snap himself" (''The Telegraph''),<ref name=Telegraph_04_Jul_11>((cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8615859/Monkey-steals-camera-to-snap-himself.html|title=Monkey steals camera to snap himself|work=The Telegraph|date=4 July 2011|access-date=4 November 2017))</ref> and "a camera on a tripod" triggered by the monkeys (''The Guardian'').<ref>((cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/04/shutter-happy-monkey-photographer |title= Shutter-happy monkey turns photographer |last=Morris |first=Steven |date=4 July 2011 |work=The Guardian |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221015170943/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/04/shutter-happy-monkey-photographer |archive-date=15 October 2022 |url-status=live |access-date=15 October 2022))</ref> The articles also contained Slater quotes such as "He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back." The following day, ''[[Amateur Photographer]]'' reported that Slater gave them further explanation as to how the photographs were created, downplaying the way newspaper articles had described them; Slater said reports that a monkey ran off with his camera and "began taking self-portraits" were incorrect and that the portrait was shot when his camera had been mounted on a tripod, with the primates playing around with a remote cable release as he fended off other monkeys.<ref name=Amateur_Photographer_5_July_2011>((cite news|first=Chris |last=Cheesman|url=http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/ape-rture-priority-photographer-plays-down-monkey-reports-16224|title=Ape-rture priority photographer plays down monkey reports|work=[[Amateur Photographer]]|date=5 July 2011|access-date=4 November 2017))</ref>

Slater gave further description on his website and in other media accounts, saying he and a guide followed the monkeys for three days, gaining their trust on the second day.<ref name=DJ_Sphotography_16_Aug_2014 /> According to Slater, in his attempts to get photographs of the monkeys, he found that they were fascinated with the camera and the camera gear and kept playing with it, but they also kept trying to run off with the camera. Slater further stated in a 7 August 2014 ''Amateur Photographer'' follow-up article that "I wanted a close-up image but I couldn't do it. They were too nervous, so I had to get them [the monkeys] to come to the camera without me being there and get them to play with the release, which they did". He added: "They were looking at the reflection in the lens, which they found amusing".<ref name=Amateur_Photographer_7_August_2014>((cite news|first=Chris |last=Cheesman|url=http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/photographer-goes-ape-over-monkey-selfie-who-owns-the-copyright-5054|title=Photographer goes ape over monkey selfie: Who owns the copyright?|work=[[Amateur Photographer]]|date=7 August 2014))</ref> In an attempt to get a portrait of the monkeys' faces, Slater said he set the camera on a tripod with a large [[wide-angle lens]] attached, and set the camera's settings to optimize the chances of getting a facial close up, using [[Autofocus#AI servo|predictive autofocus]], [[Motor drive (photography)|motor drive]], and a [[Flash (photography)|flashgun]]. Slater further stated that he set the camera's [[Remote control#Photography|remote shutter trigger]] next to the camera and, while he held onto the tripod, the monkeys spent 30 minutes looking into the lens and playing with the camera gear, triggering the remote multiple times and capturing many photographs. The session ended when the "dominant male at times became over excited and eventually gave me a whack with his hand as he bounced off my back".<ref name=DJ_Sphotography_16_Aug_2014 /> Slater also said in a 28 July 2017 ''[[Vice (magazine)|Vice]]'' magazine interview that some news outlets were misreporting how he obtained the selfie, but he went along with it because it was "a bit of fun and some good publicity for the conservation cause".<ref>((cite web|url=https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/3knmnv/im-a-human-man-being-sued-by-a-monkey |title=I'm a Human Man Being Sued By a Monkey |last=Rafaeli |first=JS |date=29 July 2017 |publisher=[[Vice Media]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221015171535/https://www.vice.com/en/article/3knmnv/im-a-human-man-being-sued-by-a-monkey |archive-date=15 October 2022 |url-status=live |access-date=15 October 2022))</ref>

==Copyright issues==
On 9 July 2011, an editor on [[Wikimedia Commons]], a site that only accepts media available under a [[free content license]] or in the [[public domain]], uploaded the selfie photographs from ''The Daily Mail''.<ref name="newsweek wmf"/> The uploader claimed that the photographs were in the public domain as "the work of a non-human animal", adding that "it has no human author in whom copyright is vested".<ref name=Wikipedia_9_Jul_2011>((cite web|url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macaca_nigra_self-portrait.jpg#filehistory|title=Macaca nigra self-portrait|work=Wikimedia Commons|date=9 July 2017|access-date=4 November 2017))</ref> Slater discovered this a few days later and requested that the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] remove the photos. Initially, an administrator at Commons removed the images, but they were later restored after a community discussion on their copyright nature. Slater continued to challenge the foundation to remove the image.<ref name="newsweek wmf"/> The foundation reviewed the situation, but made the determination that the images were in the public domain and denied Slater's request; in its transparency report for August 2014, the foundation stated "copyright cannot vest in non-human authors" and "when a work's copyright cannot vest in a human, it falls into the public domain".<ref name="BBC_7_Aug_2014"/><ref name="newsweek wmf"/><ref name="ITV"/><ref name="bbc-reject">((cite news| url = https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28672121| title = Wikipedia reveals Google 'forgotten' search links| date = 6 August 2014| access-date = 8 August 2014| publisher = BBC News))</ref>

Slater's conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation was covered by the blog ''[[Techdirt]]'' on 12 July 2011. ''Techdirt'' posted the photograph with a public domain license, arguing that the photograph was in the [[public domain]] because the monkey was not a [[legal person]] capable of holding a copyright, and Slater could not hold copyright to the photo because he was not involved in its creation.<ref name=techdirt-monkeysdontdofairuse>((cite web|last1=Masnick|first1=Mike|title=Monkeys Don't Do Fair Use; News Agency Tells Techdirt To Remove Photos|date=12 July 2011|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/01182015052/monkeys-dont-do-fair-use-news-agency-tells-techdirt-to-remove-photos.shtml|website=Techdirt|access-date=24 June 2014))</ref><ref name=metro-monkeyright>((cite web|title=Can monkey who took grinning self-portrait claim copyright?|url=http://metro.co.uk/2011/07/14/can-monkey-who-took-grinning-self-portrait-claim-copyright-77773/|website=Metro|date=14 July 2011|access-date=24 June 2014))</ref><ref name=techdirt-supoenathemonkey>((cite web|last1=Masnick|first1=Mike|title=Can We Subpoena The Monkey? Why The Monkey Self-Portraits Are Likely In The Public Domain|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110713/11244515079/can-we-subpoena-monkey-why-monkey-self-portraits-are-likely-public-domain.shtml|website=Techdirt|date=13 July 2011 |access-date=24 June 2014))</ref> Afterwards, Caters News Agency issued a request for the photo to be removed, citing a lack of permission; however, in response to a reply by the blog's author, [[Mike Masnick]], the representative stated that Masnick had "blatantly 'lifted' these photographs from somewhere&nbsp;– I presume the [[Daily Mail|''Daily Mail'' online]]", and continued to request its removal. Masnick claimed that even if it were capable of being copyrighted, the photo's use on ''Techdirt'' would be considered [[fair use]] under [[United States copyright law]]. He believed that "regardless of the issue of who does and doesn't own the copyright&nbsp;– it is 100% clear that the copyright owner is not yourself."<ref name=techdirt-monkeysdontdofairuse/><ref name=techdirt-supoenathemonkey/>

Slater counterargued in response to both the Wikimedia Foundation and ''Techdirt'' that he had made significant creative contributions to the monkey selfie photographs that would make the public domain argument moot. Slater told the BBC, "I became accepted as part of the troop, they touched me and groomed me&nbsp;... so I thought they could take their own photograph. I set the camera up on a tripod, framed [the shot] up and got the exposure right&nbsp;... and all you've got to do is give the monkey the button to press and lo and behold you got the picture."<ref name=BBC_7_Aug_2014>((cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-28674167|title=Photographer 'lost £10,000' in Wikipedia monkey 'selfie' row|work=BBC News|date=7 August 2014|access-date=4 November 2017))</ref> In a story published on or before 14 August 2014 on his own website, Slater said that the monkeys stealing the camera was a separate incident that occurred before the "selfies" were taken.<ref name=DJ_Sphotography_16_Aug_2014>((cite news|first=David J|last=Slater|url=http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/original_story.html|title=Sulawesi macaques...|work=DJS Photography|access-date=4 November 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140816043041/http://www.djsphotography.co.uk/original_story.html|archive-date=16 August 2014|url-status=live))</ref> Slater went on to say, "I put my camera on a tripod with a very wide angle lens, settings configured such as predictive autofocus, motorwind, even a flashgun, to give me a chance of a facial close up if they were to approach again for a play&nbsp;... I had one hand on the tripod when this was going on, but I was being prodded and poked by would be groomers and a few playful juveniles who nibbled at my arms."<ref name=DJ_Sphotography_16_Aug_2014 /> In a November 2017 interview with the radio show ''[[This American Life]]'', Slater said that he was holding the tripod with his fingers when the images were taken.<ref>((Cite episode |title=The Monkey Stays in the Picture |url= https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/631/so-a-monkey-and-a-horse-walk-into-a-bar|access-date= 13 November 2017 |series= [[This American Life]] |first=Dana |last=Chivvis |network=[[Public Radio Exchange]] |station=[[WBEZ]] |publisher=[[Chicago Public Media]] |date= 10 November 2017 |number=631 |transcript= So a Monkey and a Horse Walk into a Bar Transcript |transcript-url=https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/631/transcript))</ref>

===Expert opinions===
Expert opinion on whether Slater owns the copyright on the photographs is mixed. On 21 August 2014 the United States Copyright Office published an opinion, later included in the third edition of the office's ''[[Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices]]'', released on 22 December 2014, to clarify that "only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention" and that "Because copyright law is limited to 'original intellectual conceptions of the author', the [copyright] office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work. The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants."<ref name = Axelrad>((cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Tech-Culture/2014/0822/US-government-Monkey-selfies-ineligible-for-copyright | date = 22 August 2014 | access-date = 23 August 2014 | first = Jacob | last = Axelrad | publisher = [[Christian Science Monitor]] | title = US government: Monkey selfies ineligible for copyright))</ref><ref name="Compendium313.2">((cite web |url=https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-12-22-14.pdf |title=Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, § 313.2 |page=22 |publisher=[[United States Copyright Office]] |date=22 December 2014 |access-date=27 April 2015 |quote=To qualify as a work of 'authorship' a work must be created by a human being.... Works that do not satisfy this requirement are not copyrightable. The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants.))</ref> The compendium specifically highlights "a photograph taken by a monkey" as an example of something that cannot be copyrighted.((r|Guardian2014-08-22))

The intellectual property lawyers Mary M. Luria and Charles Swan said that because the creator of the photograph is an animal and not a person, there is no copyright on the photograph, regardless of who owns the equipment with which the photograph was created.<ref name="Laurent2014">((cite news|url=http://lightbox.time.com/2014/08/06/monkey-selfie/?iid=lfaround#1|title=Monkey Selfie Lands Photographer in Legal Quagmire|newspaper=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]|first=Olivier|last=Laurent|date=6 August 2014|access-date=14 August 2014|url-status=dead|archive-date=14 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140814172455/http://lightbox.time.com/2014/08/06/monkey-selfie/#1|publisher=[[Time Inc.]]))</ref> According to the American legal scholar [[Jessica Litman]], "No human author has rights to a photograph taken by a monkey&nbsp;... The original monkey selfie is in the public domain". She said that the US Copyright Office was clarifying existing practice, and not creating a new policy.<ref name = Axelrad/> However, the American art lawyer Nicholas O'Donnell of Sullivan & Worcester LLP commented that "even if 'a photograph taken by a monkey' cannot be copyrighted by the monkey, it is not clear why that would categorically rule out any copyright for a human author in a work in which cameras are intentionally left in a place where some natural force or animal will cause them to snap a photo".<ref name="Apollo">((cite news|url=https://www.apollo-magazine.com/is-the-monkey-selfie-case-making-a-monkey-out-of-the-law/ | title=Is the 'monkey selfie' case making a monkey out of the law? |author=Nicholas O'Donnell | work = [[Apollo (magazine)|Apollo Magazine]] | date=28 July 2017 | access-date=29 July 2017 ))</ref>

On 22 August 2014, the day after the US Copyright Office published their opinion, a spokesperson for the UK [[Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom)|Intellectual Property Office]] was quoted as saying that, while animals cannot own copyright under UK law, "the question as to whether the photographer owns copyright is more complex. It depends on whether the photographer has made a creative contribution to the work and this is a decision which must be made by the courts."<ref name=Guardian2014-08-22>((cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/22/monkey-business-macaque-selfie-cant-be-copyrighted-say-us-and-uk|title=Monkey business: macaque selfie can't be copyrighted, say US and UK|author=Samuel Gibbs|work=The Guardian|date=22 August 2014|access-date=16 July 2017))</ref>

The British [[entertainment law|media lawyer]] Christina Michalos said that on the basis of British law on [[computer-generated art]], it is arguable that Slater may own copyrights on the photograph, because he owned and presumably had set up the camera.<ref name="ITV">((cite news|url=http://www.itv.com/news/2014-08-06/wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it/|title=Monkey 'selfie' picture sparks Wikipedia copyright row|date=6 August 2014|access-date=14 August 2014|url-status=live|archive-date=13 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140813141113/http://www.itv.com/news/2014-08-06/wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it/|publisher=[[ITV plc]]|work=[[ITV News]]))</ref> Similarly, Serena Tierney, of London lawyers BDB, stated, "If he checked the angle of the shot, set up the equipment to produce a picture with specific light and shade effects, set the exposure or used filters or other special settings, light and that everything required is in the shot, and all the monkey contributed was to press the button, then he would seem to have a passable claim that copyright subsists in the photo in the UK and that he is the author and so first owner."<ref name="El Reg, Cracking" /> Furthermore, Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in IP law at Sussex University, has written that existing European case law, particularly ''[[Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening]]'', makes it clear that the selection of photographs would be enough to warrant originality if the process reflects the personality of the photographer.<ref name=PolicyReview>((cite journal|last1=Guadamuz|first1=Andres|title=The monkey selfie: copyright lessons for originality in photographs and internet jurisdiction|journal=Internet Policy Review|date=2016|volume=5|issue=1|doi=10.14763/2016.1.398|url=http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/monkey-selfie-copyright-lessons-originality-photographs-and-internet-jurisdiction|doi-access=free|hdl=10419/214004|hdl-access=free))</ref> Iain Connor, a partner in [[Pinsent Masons]], similarly said that the photographer could claim they had "put the camera in the hands of the monkey so [they had] taken some creative steps and therefore own the copyright," and that "if it's an animal that presses the button, it should be the owner of the camera that owns the copyright to that photo."<ref name=Guardian2014-08-22 />

== Wikimania 2014 ==
The "Monkey-selfie" became a theme at [[Wikimania 2014]] at the [[Barbican Centre]] in London.<ref>((Cite web|title=Wikimania Gets Social|date=11 August 2014|website=Barbican Centre|url=http://blog.barbican.org.uk/2014/08/wikimania-gets-social/|access-date=11 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170818005944/http://blog.barbican.org.uk/2014/08/wikimania-gets-social/|archive-date=18 August 2017|url-status=dead))</ref> Conference attendees, including Wikipedia co-founder and Wikimedia Foundation board member [[Jimmy Wales]],<ref>((Cite twitter|title=So this just happened... @jimmy_wales selfie with a #monkeyselfie #wikimania2014|user=WikimaniaLondon |number=497445491387691008|date=7 August 2014))</ref> posed for selfies with printed copies of the macaque photograph. Reaction to these selfies and to pre-printed monkey posters was mixed. According to Wikipedia contributor Andreas Kolbe, writing in [[Wikipediocracy]], Wales' action was criticized by some users on Twitter and Wikipedia "for what appeared like tactless gloating".<ref name="El Reg, Cracking">((Cite news|title=Cracking copyright law: How a simian selfie stunt could make a monkey out of Wikipedia|date=24 August 2014|first=Andrew|last= Orlowski|author-link=Andrew Orlowski|newspaper=[[The Register]]|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/24/wikipedia_monkey_selfie_backfire/))</ref>

==''Naruto v. David Slater et al.''==
((Infobox COA case
  |italic title=no
  |Litigants=Naruto v. David Slater
  |Court=[[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]]
  |CourtSeal=Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
  |ArgueDate=12 July
  |ArgueYear=2017
  |DecideDate=23 April
  |DecideYear=2018
  |FullName=Naruto, a [[Celebes crested macaque|Crested Macaque]], by and through his Next Friends, [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals|People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.]], Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David John Slater; Blurb, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Wildlife Personalities, LTD., a United Kingdom private limited company, Defendants-Appellees.
  |Citations=888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018) 
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=Judgement Affirmed. The Copyright Act did not expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement suits 
  |Judges=[[William Orrick III|William Horsley Orrick]], [[N. Randy Smith|Norman Randy Smith]], [[Carlos Bea|Carlos Tiburcio Bea]], [[Eduardo C. Robreno]]
  |Majority=
  |JoinMajority =
  |LawsApplied=
))
[[File:16-15469 Naruto v. David Slater.webm|thumb|Video of oral argument before the Ninth Circuit from 12 July 2017]]
The macaque photographs appeared in a book titled ''Wildlife Personalities'' that Slater had published via San Francisco-based self-publishing company [[Blurb, Inc.]] On 22 September 2015, [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]] (PETA) filed a lawsuit against Slater and Blurb in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] to request that the monkey, whom they named Naruto, be assigned copyright<ref>((cite news|url=http://www.dw.com/en/peta-files-suit-on-behalf-of-grinning-selfie-monkey/a-18730953 |title=PETA files suit on behalf of grinning 'selfie monkey' |date = 22 September 2015 | access-date = 22 September 2015))</ref> and that PETA be appointed to administer proceeds from the photos for the benefit of Naruto and other crested macaques in the reserve on Sulawesi.<ref name=USN20160106/><ref name=The_Guardian_12_Sep_2017>((cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/12/monkey-selfie-warring-parties-reach-settlement-over-court-case|title=Monkey selfie: warring parties reach settlement over court case |work=The Guardian|date=12 September 2017|access-date=4 November 2017))</ref> PETA did so by using the [[next friend]] principle, which allows persons to sue in the name of another person who is unable to do so. In November, Angela Dunning, the attorney for Blurb, noted that PETA may have been suing on behalf of the wrong monkey.<ref>[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/will-the-real-monkey-who-snapped-those-famous-selfies-please-stand-up/ Will the real monkey who snapped those famous selfies please stand up?], by David Kravets, at ''[[Ars Technica]]''; published 10 November 2015; retrieved 2 August 2016</ref>

During a hearing in January 2016, US District Judge [[William Orrick III]] said that the [[Copyright law of the United States#Copyright limitations, exceptions, and defenses|copyright law]] does not extend its protection to animals.<ref name="AT-20160106" /><ref name=USN20160106>[https://www.usnews.com/news/offbeat/articles/2016-01-06/judge-rules-monkey-cannot-own-selfie-photos-copyright A macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs cannot be declared the copyright owner of the photos], ''[[Associated Press]]'', 7 January 2016.</ref> Orrick dismissed the case on 28 January, ruling that "if Congress and the president intended to take the extraordinary step of authorizing animals as well as people and legal entities to sue, they could, and should, have said so plainly."<ref>((cite news |last1=Iovino |first1=Nicholas |title=Judge Dismisses PETA's 'Monkey Selfie' Lawsuit |url=http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/29/judge-dismisses-petas-monkey-selfie-lawsuit.htm |access-date=30 January 2016 |agency=Courthouse Naws Service |date=29 January 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160131082259/http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/29/judge-dismisses-petas-monkey-selfie-lawsuit.htm |archive-date=31 January 2016  ))</ref><ref>''Naruto, et al. v. Slater, et al.,'' no. 15-CV-04324 (N.D. Cal. 28 January 2016)([http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/29/monkey%20selfie.pdf Order Granting Motions To Dismiss]). Retrieved 30 January 2016.</ref> On 20 March 2016, PETA filed a notice of appeal to the [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]].<ref>((cite news |last1=Papenfuss |first1=Mary |title=Captivating monkey Naruto who snapped viral selfies filing appeal for right to photos |url=http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/captivating-monkey-naruto-who-snapped-viral-selfies-filing-appeal-right-photos-1550654 |access-date=21 March 2016 |work=International Business Times |date=21 March 2016))</ref> On 12 July 2017, the court held an oral argument on the matter in San Francisco.<ref>((cite web |title=Oral Argument Notice – James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, San Francisco – 2017-07-12 |url=http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/view.php?caseno=16-15469 |website=www.ca9.uscourts.gov |access-date=22 May 2017))</ref> On 4 August 2017, lawyers for all parties to the case informed the court that they expected to arrive at an out-of-court settlement in the near future, asking the court not to issue a ruling.<ref>((cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/monkey-selfie-animal-rights-brouhaha-devolves-into-a-settlement/|title=Monkey selfie animal rights brouhaha devolves into a settlement|date=5 August 2017))</ref> The court on 11 August stayed the appeal to 8 September.<ref>''Naruto v. Slater,'' no. 16-15469, 9th Cir., Order (11 August 2017), retrieved from [https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov PACER], 4 September 2017</ref> An agreement between Slater, Blurb, and PETA was reached on 11 September 2017, in which Slater will donate 25 per cent of any future revenues from the monkey selfies to charities that protect the wildlife of monkeys like Naruto, but the court has not accepted this agreement as being a valid settlement.<ref>((cite web | url = https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/11/monkey-selfie-rights-battle-ends-with-settlement/ | title = Monkey selfie copyright battle ends with a settlement | first = Jon | last = Fingas | date = 11 September 2017 | access-date = 11 September 2017 | work = [[Engadget]] ))</ref> As part of their joint motion to dismiss the appeal and vacate the judgment, the parties have asked for ''[[Vacated judgment|vacatur]]'', which would nullify the record in the lower court. The [[Competitive Enterprise Institute]] filed an ''amicus'' brief on 13 September 2017, urging the court to deny ''vacatur''. The brief argues that since Naruto is not a party to the settlement, PETA does not have standing to move for ''vacatur''.<ref>((cite web|first1=Sophie|last1=Duffy|first2=Dori Ann|last2=Hanswirth|title=Monkey See, Monkey Do… Monkey Own? The Curious Case of Naruto v. Slater|url=https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5deafb41-a767-4319-bf93-cff2bc5d726a|website=lexology.com|access-date=22 September 2017|date=20 September 2017))</ref>

In April 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the motions to vacate the case.<ref>((cite web | url = https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/13/17235486/monkey-selfie-lawsuit-ninth-circuit-motion-to-dismiss-denied | title = The monkey selfie lawsuit lives | first= Sarah | last = Jeong | date = 13 April 2018 | access-date = 13 April 2018 | work = [[The Verge]] ))</ref> On 23 April, the court issued its ruling in favor of Slater, finding that animals have no legal authority to hold copyright claims.<ref name="888 F.3d 418" /><ref>((cite news |last1=Zhang |first1=Michael |title=Photographer Wins Monkey Selfie Copyright Case, Court Slams PETA |url=https://petapixel.com/2018/04/24/photographer-wins-monkey-selfie-copyright-case-court-slams-peta/ | date = 24 April 2018 |access-date=25 July 2023 |work=PetaPixel))</ref> The court also expressed concern with PETA's motivations and actions during the case that were aligned to promote their own interests rather than to protect Naruto, as they found PETA's actions((mdash))i.e. attempting to vacate the case when the group learned of the potential for landmark case law to be set((mdash))to be troubling. The judges noted that their decision had to be considered in light of ''Cetacean Community v. Bush'', a 2004 case heard by the Ninth Circuit that found, under some circumstances, animals could have some standing to seek legal action, and encourages that the Ninth Circuit should hold an ''[[en banc]]'' hearing to review their decision in ''Cetacean'' in light of the monkey selfie case.<ref>((Cite web | url = https://www.wsj.com/articles/copyright-protection-for-monkey-selfie-rejected-by-u-s-appeals-court-1524526086 | title = Copyright Protection for Monkey Selfie Rejected by U.S. Appeals Court | first = Sara | last =  Randazzo | date = 23 April 2018 | access-date =23 April 2018 | work = [[The Wall Street Journal]] ))</ref><ref name="888 F.3d 418" /><ref>[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/04/23/16-15469.pdf United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, April 23, 2018]. Full text of ruling. Retrieved 24 April 2018</ref> On 25 May, a Ninth Circuit judge made a call for the case to be heard ''en banc'', potentially to overrule the ''Cetaceans Community'' precedent. The court requested the parties to provide briefs within 21 days on whether the ''en banc'' hearing should be granted<ref name="recorder-20180529">((cite news |last1=Graham |first1=Scott |title=Monkey Selfie Case Swings Back Into Action at Ninth Circuit |url=https://www.law.com/therecorder/2018/05/29/monkey-selfie-case-swings-back-into-action-at-ninth-circuit/ |access-date=29 May 2018 |work=The Recorder |date=29 May 2018))</ref><ref name="order-20180525">''Naruto v. Slater'', No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 25 May 2018), [https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4486190/9th-Fucking-Circuit-Sua-Sponte-Naruto.pdf order].</ref> and on 31 August, they declined to review the case.<ref>((Cite news | url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180831/18170340560/ninth-circuit-stops-monkeying-around-denies-en-banc-review-monkey-selfie-case.shtml | first = Cathy | last = Gellis | title = Ninth Circuit Stops Monkeying Around and Denies En Banc Review of the Monkey Selfie Case | work = Techdirt | date = 4 September 2018 | access-date=2018-09-09))</ref>

==Impact on Slater==
Slater told [[BBC News]] that he had suffered financial loss as a result of the pictures being available on Wikimedia Commons. He said the photograph had made him £2,000 in the first year after it was taken, but that interest in purchasing it disappeared after it was used on Wikipedia. He estimated that he had lost £10,000 in income, and said it was "killing his business".<ref name="BBC_7_Aug_2014" /> Slater was quoted by ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' as saying, "What they don't realise is that it needs a court to decide [the copyright]."<ref name="Telegraph-2014-08-6">((cite news |last=Sparkes |first=Matthew |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11015672/Wikipedia-refuses-to-delete-photo-as-monkey-owns-it.html |title=Wikipedia refuses to delete photo as 'monkey owns it' |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |location=London |date=6 August 2014 |access-date=2014-08-06 ))</ref> In January 2016, Slater stated his intention to sue Wikipedia for copyright infringement of his works.<ref name="southwalesargus">((cite news|url=http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/14191777.Gwent__monkey_selfie__photographer_to_sue_Wikipedia/ | date = 8 January 2016 | access-date = 8 January 2016 | publisher = [[South Wales Argus]] | title = The Gwent photographer who won a legal battle over a 'monkey selfie' is to sue Wikipedia))</ref>

By July 2017, Slater was reported to be having financial problems and was unable to pay his attorney.<ref name=Guardian2017-07-12>((cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/monkey-selfie-macaque-copyright-court-david-slater|title=Monkey selfie photographer says he's broke: 'I'm thinking of dog walking'|author=Julia Carrie Wong|author-link=Julia Carrie Wong |work=The Guardian|date=13 July 2017|access-date=16 July 2017))</ref><ref name=Telegraph2017-07-13 /><ref>((cite news|url=http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/photographer-being-sued-by-a-monkey-over-its-selfie-is-now-broke/|title=Photographer Being Sued By A Monkey Over Its "Selfie" Is Now Broke|work=IFLScience|date=13 July 2017|access-date=16 July 2017))</ref> While he had originally made a few thousand pounds from the images, enough to recoup his travel costs to Indonesia, this income reduced to about "£100 every few months" when the Wikimedia Foundation refused to stop making the images available without his permission.<ref name="BBC_7_Aug_2014" /><ref name=Telegraph2017-07-13 />

Slater was unable to travel to the July 2017 court hearing in the United States for lack of funds and said he was considering alternative careers as a dog walker or tennis coach.<ref name=Telegraph2017-07-13>((cite news|first= Camilla  |last= Turner |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/13/photographer-centre-bizarre-court-battle-reveals-sued-monkey/|title=Photographer in bizarre selfie court battle reveals that being sued by a monkey has left him broke|work=The Telegraph|date=13 July 2017|access-date=16 July 2017))</ref> He said he was no longer motivated to take photographs, that he had become depressed,<ref name=Telegraph2017-07-13 /> and that his efforts to "highlight the plight of the monkeys" had "backfired on my private life" and ruined his life.<ref name=Telegraph2017-07-13 /> However, Slater said he was delighted by the impact of the photoshoot itself: "It has taken six years for my original intention to come true which was to highlight the plight of the monkeys and bring it to the world. No one had heard of these monkeys six years ago, they were down to the last thousands. ... The locals used to roast them, but now they love them, they call it the 'selfie monkey'. Tourists are now visiting and people see there is a longer-term benefit to the community than just shooting a monkey."<ref name="Telegraph2017-07-13" />

In May 2018, [[Condé Nast Entertainment]] acquired the rights from Slater to make a documentary film related to the monkey selfie dispute. The project was being overseen by [[Dawn Ostroff]] and Jeremy Steckler.<ref>((cite web | url = https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/monkey-selfie-film-works-at-conde-nast-1109061 | title = 'Monkey Selfie' Film in the Works at Conde Nast  | first = Tatiana | last = Siegel | date = 7 May 2018 | access-date = 8 May 2018 | work =[[The Hollywood Reporter]] ))</ref>

==See also==
* [[Animal ethics]]
* [[Animal-made art]]
* [[Animal rights]]
* [[Camera trap]]
* [[Monty the meerkat]]
* [[List of individual monkeys]]
* [[List of photographs considered the most important]]

==References==
((Reflist))

==External links==
((Commons category|Monkey selfie))
<!-- Note: notwithstanding "Use dmy dates", legal citations use the form of "Mon. Day, Year"; see [[WP:BLUEBOOK]] -->
* ''Naruto v. Slater, et al.,'' no. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 12 July 2017). Oral argument. ([http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000030785 audio];[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000011923 video])
* ''Naruto v. Slater, et al.,'' no. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 23 April 2018). ([http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/04/23/16-15469.pdf opinion of the court]).
*Jiang, Jialei (August 2019). "What Monkeys Teach Us About Authorship: Toward a Distributed Agency in Digital Composing Practices." ''Kairos.'' Retrieved 5 March 2020. ([http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/24.1/topoi/jiang/ Commentary]).
* Conn Ó Muíneacháin, [http://technology.ie/monkey-selfie-photographer-david-slater-tells-story-audio/ "‘Monkey Selfie’ Photographer David Slater on his Fight with Wikipedia (audio)"], www.technology.ie/ August 14, 2014. <small>—Audio file.</small>

((Copyright law in the United States))
((Animal rights))
((Wikimedia Foundation))
((Portal bar|Animals|Indonesia|Law|Primates))

[[Category:2011 works]]
[[Category:2011 in art]]
[[Category:Animal rights]]
[[Category:Visual arts by animals]]
[[Category:Art by primates]]
[[Category:Color photographs]]
[[Category:Copyright law]]
[[Category:Primates in popular culture]]
[[Category:Indonesia–United States relations]]
[[Category:United States District Court for the Northern District of California]]
[[Category:Wikipedia controversies]]
[[Category:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cases]]
[[Category:United States standing case law]]
[[Category:2010s photographs]]
[[Category:Selfies]]
[[Category:Photography controversies]]
[[Category:Individual monkeys]]
[[Category:Monkeys in popular culture]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Monkey selfie copyright dispute (edit)
Template:Animal rights (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Category link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite episode (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite journal (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite news (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite tweet (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite twitter (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:Cl (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Commons category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Copyright law in the United States (edit)
Template:DMCA (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (articles) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Em dash (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:If empty (view source) (protected)
Template:Inflation (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Inflation/UK (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Inflation/UK/dataset (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Inflation/UK/startyear (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Inflation/year (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox COA case (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Infobox court case (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox court case/images (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Isnumeric (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:Mdash (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox with collapsible groups (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Plainlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Pluralize from text (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Portal bar (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:R (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:R/ref (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:R/superscript (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:R/where (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Replace (view source) (protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Side box (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Sister project (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Tfm/dated (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Use British English (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Use dmy dates (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Wikimedia Foundation (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Cite tweet (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Cite web (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Date (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Detect singular (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:GetParameters (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Icon/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:If empty (view source) (protected)
Module:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Infobox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:InfoboxImage (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Math (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox with collapsible groups (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Noinclude (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/rfd (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:Portal (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/a (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/i (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/l (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/p (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal bar (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal bar/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:Side box (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Side box/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:String2 (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Text (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:TwitterSnowflake (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:WikidataIB (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:WikidataIB/nolinks (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:WikidataIB/titleformats (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Monkey selfie copyright dispute.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute"