Naruto was just another monkey in the wilderness of Indonesia. Until one day in 2011, photographer David Slater came into the jungle. Naruto took Slater's camera, and snapped a 'selfie.' Slater published, and claimed the copyright for his company, Caters News Service. That would have been that, if not for PETA. They sued Slater, alleging that the copyright belonged to Naruto, as he took the image. PETA filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, starting the long, arduous tale of 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, Defendant. In 2016, the Judge dismissed the case, only to have PETA appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Wikipedia came into the dispute when Slater asked them to take the image down. Wikipedia refused, maintaining that the image is in the public domain. In early September 2017, PETA and Slater reached a settlement. Reported in, among others The New York Times, The Smithsonian Magazine, NPR, and The Washington Post)
Were I to say, go to the grocery story, to buy food, common sense would tell me that the displays are not food. To take this a step further, "we know intuitively that certain verbs pair naturally with certain nouns, and we also know that most verbs don't make sense when paired with random nouns." David Wingate, a Computer Science professor at Brigham Young University, put it this way "Consider the monitor on your desk: you can look at it, you can turn it on, you can even pick it up or throw it, but you cannot impeach it, transpose it, justify it or correct it. You can dethrone a king or worship him or obey him, but you cannot unlock him or calendar him or harvest him." However, as Science Daily reported, that intuition is almost nonexistent in most robots. In a study done by Wingate and several other researchers, they found that Wikipedia could be used to inform the AI what they were looking at, and what their uses are.
Discuss this story
Regarding the false quote persisting for 12 years on the German Wikipedia, "numerous scholars" is an overstatement on several levels. What the heck does "numerous" even mean here? A number somewhere between two and infinity? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Science is shaped by Wikipedia
It's worth reading the paper. They say "Our back-of-the-envelope analysis thus has stark conclusions: even with many conservative assumptions, dissemination through Wikipedia is ∼1700x more cost-effective than traditional dissemination techniques. Thus, from a public policy perspective, funding the creation of content in public repositories of science like Wikipedia is compelling. We thus encourage governments, organizations, and publically-minded individuals to incorporate the creation of such articles into their activities and applaud those who are already advocating it". We should make sure this recommendation is also well disseminated. Leutha (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Monkey Selfie
Am I correct in thinking that since the two have come to a settlement it doesn't set a legal precedent in the way that a court decision would? IE Animals still are not people and cannot claim a copyright on their works in the way that humans can? ϢereSpielChequers 07:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]