Lawsuit settled over rights to monkey's selfie photo

a reply to: muzzleflash

Him.

"PETA and David Slater agree that this case raises important, cutting-edge issues about expanding legal rights for non-human animals, a goal that they both support, and they will continue their respective work to achieve this goal," Slater and PETA said in a joint statement.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Oh ok, that's the monkey that let a crested macaque have his camera.

It's cool, I'm allowed to call David that.
He's white. It's not offensive.

Hmmm I think I've gone crazy tonight?

It's PETA's fault!

No really, I'm just naturally an idiot.
I can't blame anyone but myself.

originally posted by: Phage
Squirrels have no rights?

Speaking of rights .. I do not think the issue that lead to the settlement was whether or not the monkey could be the rightful copyright holder. No, I believe it was about whether or not the photo was public domain; whether or not it was without copyright holder.

See, it was a lose lose situation for the photographer if there were to be a ruling about *his* copyright (as opposed to last years ruling on the monkey's copyright).

Had he retained the copyright, it would mess with the longstanding practice of tying the copyright to the one who press the shutter (which is a sweet deal considering how many people is sometimes involved in creating a picture) and would instead tie it to the ownership of the equipment.

It could on one hand be used as a basis for arguing that the copyright of a given picture taken with not yet fully paid for equipment should rightfully go the creditor who in many cases retains ownership until last installment, and on the other hand it could be used as an argument by advocates for leaving aforementioned practice in favor of a practice taking into account the entire creative process.

And no photographer wants to go there, I think.


Also, ha, great find, amusing video!

I dunno about you guys, but this case had me going bananas.

I just saved the pic to my iPad, hahahahahahaahahaahahahahahaahhahahahahh

Mine,mine,mine,mine

originally posted by: Phage
Has PETA jumped the shark?

Oh wait, that would be cruel.

Ah, haha. Peta humor. Nice.

originally posted by: DupontDeux
Speaking of rights .. I do not think the issue that lead to the settlement was whether or not the monkey could be the rightful copyright holder. No, I believe it was about whether or not the photo was public domain; whether or not it was without copyright holder.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. US copyright law specifically states that the creations of animals and plants cannot be copyrighted. There was never any way that the monkey was going to get rich, it was just another silly publicity-stunt by Peta.

On the other hand, if the photographer had set the camera's exposure to go off automatically and the monkey had been peering into the camera at that moment (but not touching it), the copyright would be the photographer's (i.e., the owner of the camera). So this was an interesting case to follow. I think the agreement that's been reached is sensible, generous in spirit and fair in nature (no pun intended).

Well it is a step up from the Kangaroo courts we had now the court is just monkeying around .
BTW very nice selfe no wonder they are all wanting the photo defiantly the monkeys good side .
PS stupid haven't these people ever heard of copy and past ?
Or is this the Million dollar monkey picture ?

Of corse now its been posted on the net a million people have it lol .
Made a monkey out of the Judge .

I heard that even though he won, 25% of any money made from the pic has to go towards the people who help protect the monkey. So he really didnt win.

a reply to: Krakatoa
It's simple, the copyright goes to the owner of the monkey. If the monkey have no owner, it goes to the one that taken the picture. No need to go full ape about this.

originally posted by: [post=22657248]Krakatoa

Does the criminal retain copyrights to that image, and could prevent it being used in a court of law against them (a form of self incrimination)?

All copyright does is declare ownership of intellectual material.

If you own something incriminating, whether it's a weapon, photo, or a computer file; it may be used in court as evidence.

originally posted by: gr8skott

originally posted by: [post=22657248]Krakatoa

Does the criminal retain copyrights to that image, and could prevent it being used in a court of law against them (a form of self incrimination)?

All copyright does is declare ownership of intellectual material.

If you own something incriminating, whether it's a weapon, photo, or a computer file; it may be used in court as evidence.

My question still stands though. In the case of a cellphone, for example.

I have my cell phone configured to take a photo of anyone that enters the incorrect PIN number 4 times. Does that mean I hold the copyright or the thief? If the thief owns it, then can it be inadmissible in court on the grounds of self-incrimination?

Same question if the thief does get access to the phone camera and takes a selfie. The thief pressed the shutter button on the stolen camera.

Does it matter?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Somehow I don't think it will hold up in court.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: muzzleflash

Yay for slippery slope argument!

[/quote)

Unfortunately, that is exactly Petas plan. To pursue and push their agenda.

They have attempted to put get memorial put up in spot where cow have died in traffic accidents.

There was thread here the other days trying to convince us to thing of all living creatures as if they were disney creatures.

The fact that we abuse primates as pets does not make the monkey more enlightened.

edit on 12-10-2017 by SmilingROB because: Trying to put back in square quote