This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is a painting by a chip, but I guess not the uploader's chimp. Isn't permission required of the owner of the chimp instead of "animals have no copyright"? -- Siebrand12:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyKeep. Only works created through human creativity can be copyrighted. Why do you think the "owner" of the animal who painted this had any copyrights on this non-work? Lupo13:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most stupid things are copyrighted in this world. As an underage child, you are also owned by your parent, so I assumed notthing differently regarding animals. Also: if your animal does damage you are liable, however, according to your reasoning, if your animal does something brilliant, it's owned by society. Oh, well, I do not mind that much, but saw this as a nice trail case for the more difficult licensing issues. Siebrand14:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mean, does the owner of the chip, or the owner of the painting claims a copyright on it? Anyway the copyright does not belong to MSNBC. Associated Press might have made the picture (which is not even sure), but still do not own the copyright of the painting. Regards, Yann16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Siebrand's comments seem to me clear in having someone claim copyright. And a claim of copyright by the institution where the chimpanzee is living might well hold water. - Andre Engels15:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the photo is a plain reproduction of a two-dimensional original and thus squarely falls under the Bridgeman v. Corel ruling. The painting is {{PD-ineligible}} because it was made by an animal, not created by a human, and the photo is a simple reproductive photograph lacking sufficient originality/creativity to be copyrightable as per Bridgeman v. Corel. I have changed the tagging to {{PD-Art|PD-ineligible}} to account for that (IMO bogus) copyright claim by AP. Lupo20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The picture is used in the article Schöpfungshöhe in the German Wikipedia to demonstrate that animals are no owners of copyright (nor the owners of the animals). If copyright is claimed illegaly one has to speak of Copyfraud. Read Mazzone's brilliant article if you are interested in further information on Copyfraud. The photo is not copyrightable in the US (and Germany) according Bridgeman v. Corel. --Historiograf23:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A picture painted by a living being superior in intelligence to some users of commons.
Keep See also en:Wikipedia:Public domain: "...only works created by a human are eligible to copyright. Works created by animals (such as a painting produced by a chimpanzee) or machines are not copyrightable...", which is a fairly accurate statement of the law. -- Arvind00:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because........er.......well....I do not have any valid justification at the moment and....oh no, I have one: The chimpanzee revives and sues us...so the image MUST BE DELETED! (Warning: sarcasm could be used) Forrester00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope everyone reads your post up to the word "sarcasm".
We should immediately search our inventory for pictures of cow droppings and delete them. Just for the case that the cow or it's fellow peasant got the copyright in some strange, rural legislations.--Wiggum13:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only works created through human creativity can be copyrighted. Why do you think the "owner" of the animal who painted this had any copyrights on this non-work? Lupo 13:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete Siebrand's comments seem to me clear in having someone claim copyright. And a claim of copyright by the institution where the chimpanzee is living might well hold water. - Andre Engels 15:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
