It’s been so awesome to have so many cool and stylish followers, we here at fyeahindigenousfashion want to say thanks for supporting us and indigenous artists by having our first giveaway! Here’s the rules:
- enter by reblogging this post and following FYIF (if you aren’t already!)
- entries are accepted until midnight, September 25, 2014
- each prize is available individually—there are 6 prizes, so there will be 6 winners total
Our prizes are all authentic and come from indigenous-owned businesses. Because we always strive to celebrate the incredible creative diversity among indigenous peoples, we selected prizes from a wide array of cultures and nations:
- ngatu knockers, SOSS (Tongan)
- flower earrings, Cheyenne Noon (Southern Cheyenne)
- lightning bolt pendant, Urban Native Design Co (Pueblo)
- necklace, Kristin Gentry (Choctaw)
- flower earrings, Huichol Arte (Huichol)
- BearMan earrings, Crystal Worl (Tlingit, Athabascan)
Good luck everyone!!
So photographer David Slater wants Wikipedia to remove a monkey selfie that was taken with his camera. As you can see from this screen shot, Wikipedia says no: the monkey pressed the shutter so it owns the copyright.
We got NPR’s in-house legal counsel, Ashley Messenger, to weigh in. She said:
Traditional interpretation of copyright law is that the person who captured the image owns the copyright. That would be the monkey. The photographer’s best argument is that the monkey took the photo at his direction and therefore it’s work for hire. But that’s not a great argument because it’s not clear the monkey had the intent to work at the direction of the photographer nor is it clear there was “consideration” (value) exchanged for the work. So… It’s definitely an interesting question! Or the photographer could argue that leaving the camera to see what would happen is his work an therefore the monkey’s capture of the image was really the photographer’s art, but that would be a novel approach, to my knowledge.