Photography FM‑class

This file is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles FM This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Indonesia FM‑class

This file is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles FM This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

US 9th circuit court of appeals has ruled that this image is the copright of the human photographer. 198.58.170.90 ( talk) 03:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

That article doesn't days anything about any 9th Circuit ruling. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I have replied to the IP at Media Copyright Questions where he raised the same issue. As you say, the settlement does not affect the copyright status of the image. AlasdairEdits ( talk) 11:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

No it does not. The court refused to accept the settlement and subsequently ruled against PETA. 108.168.84.99 ( talk) 17:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

PETA dropped its lawsuit contesting the copyright. You can't (legally) claim it is public domain. Nor could you after the 2016 ruling, either, for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.251.251 ( talk) 16:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

PETA was claiming this the monkey had a copyright to the image since it took the camera and pressed the button. Wikipedia' position was that neither party had a copyright since the cameraman did not take the picture and the minkey did not have the rights to it either so a ruling that the monkey did not save a copyright does not prove that the picture is not public domain. Logically, if Wikipedia believe this thr monkey had a copyright they wouldn't have considered the image public domain in the first place.-- 67.68.21.146 ( talk) 23:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply