File talk:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg

	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

	Indonesia portal 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.

No longer Public Domain[edit]

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]