Talk:Animal-made art

Title of article

"Monkey painting" is an inaccurate title; the image used here is by Congo, who as the caption states was a chimpanzee. Apes and monkeys are two different things, as the Librarian would no doubt forcefully point out! 86.132.142.207 (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Primate painting" would be better(?), however this term necessarily includes humans as well.

The word non-human primate specifically excludes Homo sapiens from the rest of the primate clade. However, I'm sure that I've seen (somewhere) "paintings" by other animals such as elephants, birds? even dolphins? So is there scope for an article on painting by animals? I am not a dog (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge

but if there's no other primate than Congo that paints; It shouldn't get 2 pages. And be merged rather than moved.-  DasRakel  ✍  06:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Celebes crested macaque#Copyright test case

That section has no place in an article about a specific monkey species. However, there seems to be no good place for it. For lack of a better one, I propose moving it here. — Keφr 05:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Celebes crested macaque § Out of scope

Bias in copyright section

My edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal-made_art&diff=620543944&oldid=620526398 - added cited legal views by specialist lawyers from both sides of the issue.

First the ITV lawyer's words were removed, which recently gave grounds that Slater might own the copyright. Then the other New York lawyers statements were removed. No reason given and actually difficult to see where this happened. The section now states that despite(!) Wikipedia Foundation's assertion the photos were in the public domain, Slater asked for the photo to be removed from Commons. A completely biased tone that assumes that WF assertions must be gospel. Come on, surely we can do better than this. Meerta (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement from the American lawyer was not removed, but was instead moved up from "Monkey selfie" case to the parent section Copyright issues. The version that I saw also had a good dose of original research (about owning the animal), which I have removed.

I have now reworded the subsection to remove the "despite" and the claim that Slater was "claiming the photographs existing in the public domain affected his ability to collect royalties on the images", which was not supported by the source cited, and was potentially a violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people.

I have also moved the opinions of the American and British intellectual property lawyers, both talking about the Slater photograph, back down to the subsection, and have restored the ITV media lawyer's view. The following sources will hopefully be helpful to anyone trying to add more content to the parent Copyright issues section:

1. "Monkeys can't own selfies—but what about paintings?". Daily Dot. Contains opinion of Parker Higgins of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
2. "Monkey Selfies, Elephant Expressionism – is there copyright in Australia in animal generated works?". Opinion of Annette Rubinstein of intellectual property law firm Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick.
3. "Far from Fauvists: The Availability of Copyright Protection For Animal Art and Concomitant Issues of Ownership". Michigan State University's Journal of Animal Law. Academic paper by Vania Gauthreaux of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you I think this is really well considered. It's great to see the article expanding into other areas too. Meerta (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Camera trap

Are pictures taken by camera traps also animal-made? They were the ones who triggered the camera, after all. Mateussf (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal-made art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140925123901/http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-full.pdf to http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-full.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pigcasso with the $5200 artwork ‘PEACOCK’.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)