Friday,
August 8th, 2014
Nation, have you ever
wondered how Wikipedia is able to obtain pictures for its articles
without infringing on copyrights? Neither have I.
Wikipedia can only use
images that are either in the public domain or are specifically
licensed for free use by third parties, otherwise they are guilty of
copyright infringement.
If you go to the wiki
article of a famous person, let's pick one at random, how about
Stephen Colbert, D.F.A.? You'll find that there are no pictures from
my show, since screenshots of the Colbert Report are copyrighted by
some guy named Via Com. I think he's Italian.
So Wikipedia has to get
creative to obtain images.
One method is to wait for
some moocher to ambush me with a camera. That's how those non-profit
fat-cats obtained this photo of me and First Lady Michelle “I don't
wear mom-jeans” Obama. This image was taken by the White House's
official photographer, and therefore the picture is owned by the US
Government. Since the Government is not a corporation, it cannot be a
person like Mr. Via Com, and therefore it cannot hold a copyright and
therefore the image is in the public domain.
Another method is to wait
for users to upload and license their own images to Wikimedia. In
such a communist utopia, fine people everywhere take time out of
their busy lives to photograph and upload images so that all
Wikipedia articles may have wonderful and free illustrations.
Just kidding, Wikimedia
has been completely overwhelmed by user-submitted dick pics, and they
would like you all to please stop.
It's hard to pin down an
exact figure of the number of dick pics because Wikimedia uses
sub-categories that can themselves contain further sub-categories.
For example, under the category of “Human Penis,” there are 24
sub-categories such as “Human penis size by degree of rigidity,”
which itself has four sub-categories. I'm guessing, those four are
hard, soft, really soft, and Cheney.
Other sub-categories
include “human penis facing left” and “human penis facing
right,” which of course is needed to make sure that penis pictures
remain Fair & Balanced, “Human Penis in Art,” which has a
further 7 sub-categories, “Ultrasound Images of fetal penis,”
which is not Child Pornography because it's difficult to be aroused
by SONAR if you aren't a Dolphin, and “Sex Practices involving the
penis,” which contains a further 8 sub-categories, one of which is
“Male masturbation,” which itself contains a further 8
sub-categories, including “videos of male masturbation,” which
itself contains another four sub-categories, one of which is “videos
of male masturbation by posture,” which itself contains three
sub-categories which are “Videos of recumbent males masturbating,”
“Videos of sitting males masturbating,” and “Videos of standing
males masturbating.”
Thanks to the generous giving from thousands of volunteers, now wikipedia editors have plenty of videos to choose from to illustrate how congress works.
Thanks to the generous giving from thousands of volunteers, now wikipedia editors have plenty of videos to choose from to illustrate how congress works.
Wikimedia doesn't
list the total number of images and videos in all the sub-categories
of sub-categories, so you would have to pour through each
sub-sub-sub-sub category to take an accurate dick census, and nobody
has time for that. Except for Jay the Intern, who reported back that
there are over 9000 dick pics and videos.
This bouquet of phalluses
has led to protracted battles as users try to prop up their dick pics
as the best. Some users go around nominating other dick pics for
deletion while simultaneously inserting their dick pics into
articles, fighting to make their penis the actual protypical penis
pictured in the world's most used encyclopedia, making them a true
modern Vitruvian Man.
While the penis war wages
on, many other Wikipedia articles are lacking in the picture
department.
Please don't sue me. |
One such page is that of
the “Crested Black Macaque,” which is unfortunately not a
sub-sub-category of penis, it's a kind of monkey. Wikipedia uses this
selfie that a Black Crested Macaque took after it stole, I mean,
borrowed a photographer's camera in Indonesia.
The photograher, David Slater, claims that he owns the copyright to this image and requested
that it be taken down. Wikimedia responded by sending him a picture
of their black-crested macaque and balls, saying that he is not
authorized to request the removal of the photo because he is not the
photographer and therefore doesn't hold the copyright. According to
Wikimedia, the image was taken by the Macaque, so only the Macaque
can hold the copyright, and since a macaque is not a person, the
image is therefore in the public domain.
And
That brings us to tonight's Word.
Macaque
Selfie
How
can monkeys take selfies if they don't have a self? Or do they?
What
does it tell us about humans that the Macaque took selfies of its face instead of
thousands of neatly categorized close-ups of its genitals?
That
it's a female.
Slater
claims the picture belongs to him because he engineered the shot
saying “It was my artistry and idea to leave them to play with the
camera and it was all in my eyesight. I knew the monkeys were likely
to do this and I predicted it.”
“Artistry”
Which
is how I wrote my book I Am America and So Can You,
by leaving my laptop open and predicting that my interns would write
something in it.
Interns
are non-persons and cannot hold copyrights. :(
Wikimedia
countered that the person pressing the button is the photographer,
regardless of who owns the camera. But Wikimedia might be opening up
a huge barrel of angry monkeys with this argument.
The
Precursor to the Legal Precedent of the Origin of the Inciting
Incident of the Planet of the Apes.
If
a monkey is capable of being a photographer, why then can't the
monkey own the copyright on the image? And if monkeys can own
copyrights, why can't they, I don't know, own
people as slaves?
Many
of us are already slaves to Macaques.
Slater claims that his career has been ruined and
figures that he has lost around 10,000 pounds in royalties.
Which
is equivalent to 160,000 ounces of Freedom.
There's a famous saying that a monkey at a typewriter,
if given an infinite amount of time, would write the complete works
of Shakespeare. Now we know that a monkey with a camera can ruin a
photographer's career in about five minutes.
Monkey
see, monkey do. Monkey take selfie, monkey become world famous
photographer.
If
your income is jeopardized by monkeys hitting buttons, then maybe you
should have majored in something a little more useful than
photography.
Monkey
Business?
And
if Macaques are capable of taking selfies, why didn't Anthony Weiner
defend his dongle tweet by saying “I didn't take the picture,
Macaque did?”
That
picture is filed under “Human Penis – Concealed by Boxers –
Penis Selfies – Career Ending”
If a
picture is worth a thousand words, then if a Macaque named “Romeo”
takes 885 selfies, he will have contributed more to society than
Shakespeare.
Luckily,
I happen to have a Macaque named Romeo in my pants, and I have been
training him to take selfies.
Eww...Wherefore
art thou Romeo?
I'm coming for you Shakespeare!
Not
literally.
Nation,
it's happening. Monkeys are contributing to Wikipedia. What's next,
monkeys commenting on YouTube videos? That's absurd, it would quickly
degenerate into a massive shit-flinging nightmare – (REALIZATION)
Now
we know what those monkeys at typewriters have been doing while they
were supposed to be writing plays.
Nation.
If Monkeys are photographers who spend their days writing Youtube
comments, then that can mean only one thing.
Macaques
are college students?
Monkeys are unemployed free-loaders. Get a real job
macaque! Your picture taking and internet arguing is being subsidized
by my tax dollars.
Or
it would if I paid taxes...
Well
I won't be a monkey's uncle or his sugar daddy.
Mr.
Obama: De-port Ma-caque.
Macaque
just hangs out all day, checking out girls, getting in fights,
Sword
Fights?
And
taking selfies. Just ask Wikipedia if we need more macaque selfies.
Wikipedia: "Please
God Make it Stop."
President
“Mom Jeans” – Deport Macaque. And that's tonight's word.
(This is part-two of the "I pretend I'm a writer for the Colbert Report" series. Part One.)
(This is part-two of the "I pretend I'm a writer for the Colbert Report" series. Part One.)
No comments:
Post a Comment