• Judge rules monkey cannot own selfie photos copyright
    34 replies, posted
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/01/07/judge-rules-monkey-cannot-own-selfie-photos-copyright.html?intcmp=hplnws[/url] [img]http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/science/2016/01/07/judge-rules-monkey-cannot-own-selfie-photos-copyright/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1452133378609.jpg?ve=1&tl=1[/img] [QUOTE]A macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs cannot be declared the copyright owner of the photos, a federal judge said Wednesday. U.S. District Judge William Orrick said in a tentative ruling in federal court in San Francisco that "while Congress and the president can extend the protection of law to animals as well as humans, there is no indication that they did so in the Copyright Act."[/QUOTE]
This is how rise of the planets of the apes begins
Not really surprising, wasn't the photos taken in another country, though?
That monkey takes better pictures of himself than I do.
[quote]The lawsuit filed last year by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sought a court order allowing PETA to represent the monkey and let it to administer all proceeds from the photos for the benefit of the monkey, which it identified as 6-year-old Naruto, and other crested macaques living in a reserve on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi.[/quote] I find this funny but I think there is a point to be made about this
#apelivesmatter WAIT FUCK THATS NOT IT NOO
No one should own the copyright. Animals obviously can't own things, and the guy who's trying to take credit didn't actually take the picture.
Equal rights for Macaques!
From Wikipedia: [quote]In 2011, nature photographer David Slater traveled to Indonesia to take photographs of the Celebes crested macaques. During his shoot, David set up the camera on a tripod, and deliberately left the remote trigger for the camera accessible to the macaque. A female macaque pressed the remote trigger and took several photographs. Most of these photographs were unusable, but some were clear photographs of the macaque, which Slater later distributed as a "monkey's selfie".[/quote] I think it's quite clear that he intentionally set up the circumstances that lead to the photo being taken, and as such can be considered a major player in the creative process that resulted in the photo. Lawyers might have a different interpretation though.
If it's his fucking camera then he should own the rights to it.
pay the damn monkey
[QUOTE=Keychain;49479444]If it's his fucking camera then he should own the rights to it.[/QUOTE] if i loan a camera are the photos not mine? [editline]7th January 2016[/editline] if i borrow a pencil is the drawing not mine? if i use someone else's paint is the painting theirs now?
[QUOTE=.Lain;49479591]if i loan a camera are the photos not mine? [editline]7th January 2016[/editline] if i borrow a pencil is the drawing not mine? if i use someone else's paint is the painting theirs now?[/QUOTE] shut up nerd all circumstances indicate the photo is his. The process and the situation should be 100% protected as his intellectual property, and while it was a funny 'wtf' notion for clickbait news reporting on a cute technicality at first, If peta was the driving force behind the whole "it's the monkey's photo" shit it's blatantly obvious they did this to be assholes and get another controversy under their belt at the expense of a person's career. No proceeds would go towards 'Naruto' and they'd shill the shit out of the photo as its unrightful copyright owner, and the photographer wouldn't be reimbursed a cent for its use and distribution, let alone for the trip in which he solely set out to take the photos. This is like five layers of hell below asking a photographer to do work for free because it's "great exposure"
[QUOTE=.Lain;49479591]if i loan a camera are the photos not mine? [editline]7th January 2016[/editline] if i borrow a pencil is the drawing not mine? if i use someone else's paint is the painting theirs now?[/QUOTE] If you own a camera and it makes pictures orchestrated by you, you should have the right to them Shit's very context sensitive
He'd probably just trade the rights for a bunch of monkey hookers or something, anyways. In my experience macaques never really understand the value of intellectual property
Animals no longer have rights
So I'm actually legit curious...why and how did a judge actually make a legal ruling that an animal can't own a copyright?
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49480440]So I'm actually legit curious...why and how did a judge actually make a legal ruling that an animal can't own a copyright?[/QUOTE] We call them 'human' rights for a reason.
the monkey's name was naruto?
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49480440]So I'm actually legit curious...why and how did a judge actually make a legal ruling that an animal can't own a copyright?[/QUOTE] I assume there is some law already on the books that animals can't own property, the judge probably just determined that applied to intellectual property as well.
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;49480574]We call them 'human' rights for a reason.[/QUOTE] Right but with all that is going on in the legal system, did a legal official really need to make a ruling on the obvious?
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49480625]Right but with all that is going on in the legal system, did a legal official really need to make a ruling on the obvious?[/QUOTE] US uses the common law system and as such, it is important to make decisions for cases that set a new precedent.
One step forward, Two steps back for monkey rights. I didn't know that the law specifically said the human race could only own a copyright. I always under the assumption that the only thing that did mention that was in the case of murder were its defined as one person killing another. Are there any other cases like this?
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49480625]Right but with all that is going on in the legal system, did a legal official really need to make a ruling on the obvious?[/QUOTE] As Headhumpy said, usually where such a thing is not clearly defined in the law, a court ruling can be used to serve as a sort of 'example' or to set a precedent. Since this judge ruled that the monkey cannot hold a copyright, that makes it so that lawyers working on any similar case in the future are able to reference this case and get the same decision from that judge. We see this all the time in the US law system, as it's very much a subjective form of law when it comes to courts. After all, law has to written. You can't legally prosecute someone for breaking a law that never existed on paper. That's only allowed in the unsaid laws of society and culture :v:
I can't believe I'm siding with PETA on this, but yeah, if he took the photo, the copyright should go to the preserve or something so the proceeds can benefit the animals. Or at least put it in the public domain.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;49487741]I can't believe I'm siding with PETA on this, but yeah, if he took the photo, the copyright should go to the preserve or something so the proceeds can benefit the animals. Or at least put it in the public domain.[/QUOTE] fuck no, they're 100% capable of [b]buying the rightsfrom the photographer[/b] to use it for advertising/fundraising/gaining awareness and whatever else. They don't even need to now, because of all the free publicity surrounding the hell the guy has gone through over it there's no circumstance where they should just be able to take it because it could serve them, because that's theft and if it were allowable nobody would go and just take photos without having to pay to lock in copyrights before even showing them off without fear of the time, effort and money they spent even taking it, let alone killing photography as a source of income outside of being hired on contract
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;49487741][b]I can't believe I'm siding with PETA on this[/b], but yeah, if he took the photo, the copyright should go to the preserve or something so the proceeds can benefit the animals. Or at least put it in the public domain.[/QUOTE] I can't believe it either.
Surely the photographer and the monkey can share the rights. The guy can get money for the sale and the monkey gets some amount of peanuts or fruit or something.
Is this real?
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;49491466]Surely the photographer and the monkey can share the rights. The guy can get money for the sale and the monkey gets some amount of peanuts or fruit or something.[/QUOTE] why not just give the monkey some peanuts anyway it looks like a nice boy
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.