• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Suit Settled Over ‘Selfie Monkey’ Photo Copyright

S

sanman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
17,399
Reaction score
7,263
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
monkeyselfie.jpg



Photographer hands camera to monkey, which then snaps selfie. After photo becomes a hit, PETA sues photographer for profiting from monkey's intellectual property:

Suit settled over ‘selfie monkey’ photo copyright | New York Post

SAN FRANCISCO — Attorneys announced a settlement Monday in a lawsuit over who owns the copyright to selfie photographs taken by a monkey before a federal appeals court could answer the novel legal question.

Under the deal, the photographer whose camera was used to take the photos agreed to donate 25 percent of any future revenue from the images to charities dedicated to protecting crested macaques in Indonesia, lawyers for an animal-rights group said.

Attorneys for the group and the photographer, David Slater, asked the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the case and throw out a lower court decision that said animals cannot own copyrights.

Andrew J. Dhuey, an attorney for Slater, declined to comment on how much money the photos have generated or whether Slater would keep all of the remaining 75 percent of future revenue.
There was no immediate ruling from the 9th Circuit.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sued on behalf of the macaque monkey in 2015, seeking financial control of the photographs for the benefit of the monkey named Naruto that snapped the photos with Slater’s camera.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised PETA hasn't sued yet over Tony the Tiger, or the MGM lion.
 
Sadly...not even surprised that PETA sued over this. They were hollering to beat all hell when Obama swatted at a fly so why would anyone be surprised about this? One thing about them though....they're about on par with all of our elected officials there in D.C. as far as intelligence goes. About as well "liked" too.
 
It's a cute picture and the photographer got lucky.

I hope PETA doesn't argue next that it is White Privilege.

comp-david-slater.webp
 
Well it's a settlement so who cares, they might as well have decided together that the photographer needs to stay away from monkeys for the rest of his life it wouldn't mean anything.
PETA are ridiculous but they need to be ridiculous to draw attention.
 
WCH said:
What about the GEICO lizard??
Click to expand...

He's obviously culturally appropriating some culture that is as yet undetermined...
 
Apocalypse said:
Well it's a settlement so who cares, they might as well have decided together that the photographer needs to stay away from monkeys for the rest of his life it wouldn't mean anything.
PETA are ridiculous but they need to be ridiculous to draw attention.
Click to expand...

Yeah, settling at least avoided the chance that a numbskull judge would set a crazy precedent.
 
sanman said:
monkeyselfie.jpg



Photographer hands camera to monkey, which then snaps selfie. After photo becomes a hit, PETA sues photographer for profiting from monkey's intellectual property:

Suit settled over ‘selfie monkey’ photo copyright | New York Post



I'm surprised PETA hasn't sued yet over Tony the Tiger, or the MGM lion.
Click to expand...

That is total BS. The guy who owned the camera owes no one anything. For the court to demand he does is lunacy. It's typical California thinking. You want to build a power plant? OK, then you need to buy a thousand acres of land and give it to the state.

The guy who owns the camera owns 100% of the rights because the critter has no property rights, and there is not written legislation requiring the courts to lean on a citizen "cut a deal".
 
why the hell did this guy settle with those idiots.
he should have sued them back for court costs.

of course given the stupidity of the 9th circuit he probably would have lost.
now he just gave them power to sue any and all animal photographers.

what an idiot.
 
chuckiechan said:
That is total BS. The guy who owned the camera owes no one anything. For the court to demand he does is lunacy. It's typical California thinking. You want to build a power plant? OK, then you need to buy a thousand acres of land and give it to the state.

The guy who owns the camera owns 100% of the rights because the critter has no property rights, and there is not written legislation requiring the courts to lean on a citizen "cut a deal".
Click to expand...

YOu didn't read the article did you?

he settled out of court.
the court had nothing to do with it in fact a lower court ruled against PETA and they appealed it to the 9th circuit.
how it even made it there is beyond me.
 
ludin said:
why the hell did this guy settle with those idiots.
he should have sued them back for court costs.

of course given the stupidity of the 9th circuit he probably would have lost.
now he just gave them power to sue any and all animal photographers.

what an idiot.
Click to expand...

Probably because PETA has enough monies to draw this out far longer than he could afford it to be. When you cannot beat them, outspend them.
 
ludin said:
why the hell did this guy settle with those idiots.
he should have sued them back for court costs.

of course given the stupidity of the 9th circuit he probably would have lost.
now he just gave them power to sue any and all animal photographers.

what an idiot.
Click to expand...

What's strange is PETA sued on behalf of the monkey, yet according to the article the monkey gets nothing, and PETA gets a few bucks to further their charity of the day.

Isn't PETA just as guilty of exploiting that poor monkey?
 
I bet the monkey still gets NO MONEY from all of this!!!


djl
 
ludin said:
why the hell did this guy settle with those idiots.
he should have sued them back for court costs.

of course given the stupidity of the 9th circuit he probably would have lost.
now he just gave them power to sue any and all animal photographers.

what an idiot.
Click to expand...

I don't think so because the issue arose because the photographer didn't create the image - he wasn't in control of the camera when the copyrighted 'art' was created. If he'd handed his camera to someone else (human obviously) and they'd taken a famous photo, the copyright would be owned by that person, the person who created the image, not to the photographer because he happened to own the camera.

In every other animal photograph I've ever seen, the photographer took the photo, created the image, and therefore clearly owns the copyright to that image/art.
 
ludin said:
YOu didn't read the article did you?

he settled out of court.
the court had nothing to do with it in fact a lower court ruled against PETA and they appealed it to the 9th circuit.
how it even made it there is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Probably to settle the unusual question of law. Who own the copyright to art created by an animal? The answer might be no one can copyright that image/art, or maybe the ownership follows the ownership of the equipment used. Who knows... hence, courts.
 
jimbo said:
Isn't PETA just as guilty of exploiting that poor monkey?
Click to expand...

PETA is a piece of **** organization bent on its own pocketbooks. Of course they'll exploit animals if it's to their benefit.
 
As posted above, I too would've insisted the settlement is a check put directly into the monkey's hands! :2razz:
 
Dittohead not! said:
and that's a really high bar.
I'd have just written the monkey a check. If he can cash it, he can have it.
Click to expand...

How do you conclude as a matter of law that the photographer owns and can therefore copyright an image that he did not create?

Another party to the lawsuit was Wikimedia Commons, who argued that the photograph could not be copyrighted at all, and so made the image freely available online. Wiki has an entry on the case here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

This part seems to do a good job discussing the actual issue in front of the court.

In December 2014, the United States Copyright Office stated that works created by a non-human, such as a photograph taken by a monkey, are not copyrightable. A number of legal experts in the US and UK have nevertheless argued that Slater's role in the process that led to the pictures being taken may have been sufficient to establish a valid copyright claim, stating that this is a decision that would have to be made by a court.[1][2][3]
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, it seems to me the photographer should be able to copyright the image - it was his efforts, and they were extensive, that created the image, and barring some competing claim by another human, the copyright should be his as opposed to the image being available to anyone for free. The problem is that's not clear as a matter of law.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom