• 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

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...

Kinda gives you an idea of the kind of intelligence that people who are obsessed with taking selfies have. :mrgreen:
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter the camera belong to him and animals do not have copyright privs just like the lower court ruled.
animals aren't people.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

the owner of the camera can. that is why the lower court ruled against peta to begin with.
it has been ruled this way time and time again. animals do not have those kind of rights.
 
JasperL said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

Good point.
So, give the monkey a check.
 
ludin said:
It doesn't matter the camera belong to him and animals do not have copyright privs just like the lower court ruled.
animals aren't people.
Click to expand...

And as I pointed out earlier, the U.S. Copyright office ruled that the image could not be copyrighted because the human photographer did not create the image/art. So the question has three options, not just the two you're assuming.

1) Human photographer owns the copyright.
2) Animal owns the copyright.
3) An image created by an animal cannot be copyrighted because it has no human creator.

Here's the Wiki link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

Slater has argued that he has a valid copyright claim based on the fact that he engineered the situation that resulted in the pictures, by travelling to Indonesia, befriending a troop of wild macaques, and setting up his camera equipment in such a way that a "selfie" picture might come about. The Wikimedia Foundation's 2014 refusal to remove the pictures from its Wikimedia Commons image library was based on the understanding that copyright is held by the creator, that a non-human creator (not being a legal person) cannot hold copyright, and that the images are thus in the public domain. 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...
 
ludin said:
the owner of the camera can. that is why the lower court ruled against peta to begin with.
it has been ruled this way time and time again. animals do not have those kind of rights.
Click to expand...

Except that's NOT the position of the U.S. Copyright Office. Copyright claims don't flow to ownership of the equipment used to create a piece of art, in this case a photograph, but the creator of the art which with a photo is the person snapping the image. The legal question is whether or not the human photographer effectively created the art by setting up the shoot, making the remote shutter device available to the monkeys, set the camera up to take clean images, with the right exposure, etc.

I'd say yes, but you're ignoring the issue here which really is not whether the monkey can copyright the image but whether the photographer can.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If your point is that the PETA lawsuit had a shred of validity, then yes, I've missed the point.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really referring to the PETA lawsuit, which is why the post you quoted and responded to didn't reference that part of the dispute, but the bigger issue and more interesting to me issue of whether or not art created by animals CAN BE COPYRIGHTED at all. That's why I block quoted the Wiki entry that included this key summary:

"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."
 
JasperL said:
And as I pointed out earlier, the U.S. Copyright office ruled that the image could not be copyrighted because the human photographer did not create the image/art. So the question has three options, not just the two you're assuming.

1) Human photographer owns the copyright.
2) Animal owns the copyright.
3) An image created by an animal cannot be copyrighted because it has no human creator.

Here's the Wiki link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
Click to expand...

The lower court already ruled against PETA something you keep forgetting about.
 
fmw said:
I'm surprised our legal system has fallen to this kind of nonsense. Well, not surprised. Bothered.
Click to expand...

they have already addressed this time and time again.
animals do not have right to copyrights.

the camera belongs to the guy he owns the picture so said the lower courts.
he was stupid to settle this out of court.

the courts have ruled time and time again that animals are not people and therefore have no copyright protection laws.
this was stupid that the judge even allowed it to get this far.

neither peta nor the monkey have standing in court.
 
ludin said:
The lower court already ruled against PETA something you keep forgetting about.
Click to expand...

No, not forgetting about, just pointing out the ruling on PETA's claim does NOT mean the photographer owns a copyright on that image. You said he does by virtue of owning the camera. That's false, incorrect, wrong.
 
JasperL said:
No, not forgetting about, just pointing out the ruling on PETA's claim does NOT mean the photographer owns a copyright on that image. You said he does by virtue of owning the camera. That's false, incorrect, wrong.
Click to expand...

peta didn't even have standing to bring the suit and neither does the monkey.
the guy owns the camera. it is his possession.

why this clown caved into them i don't know. it just opens up more people to lawsuits.
 
ludin said:
they have already addressed this time and time again.
animals do not have right to copyrights.

the camera belongs to the guy he owns the picture so said the lower courts.
he was stupid to settle this out of court.

the courts have ruled time and time again that animals are not people and therefore have no copyright protection laws.
this was stupid that the judge even allowed it to get this far.

neither peta nor the monkey have standing in court.
Click to expand...

False. http://www.fillmoreriley.com/uploads/ck/files/Naruto v Slater Order.pdf

And he "settled" most likely because the Copyright office had denied him protection, the photo was being distributed for free on wiki commons, and he was making almost no money on the non-protected photo, so spending more money to defend the lawsuit didn't make sense.
 
ludin said:
peta didn't even have standing to bring the suit and neither does the monkey.
the guy owns the camera. it is his possession.

why this clown caved into them i don't know. it just opens up more people to lawsuits.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring the ruling of the U.S. Copyright office, making things up that the court said when it didn't say those things, and then reasserting a conclusion - he 'owns' the photo - when no court or the Copyright Office has ruled he does. I guess he "owns" it in some respects, but Wiki commons is distributing it as non-protected as we speak, so tough to sell a photo anyone can LEGALLY download for free.

And how many famous photos of animals don't have a human actually taking the picture? There's this instance and how many others? So exactly who is being opened up to a lawsuit here? Not 99.999999% or so of nature photographers, that's for sure....

If the human activates the camera, he or she is the creator and can copyright the image. Ownership of the camera is not relevant to that.
 
fmw said:
I'm surprised our legal system has fallen to this kind of nonsense. Well, not surprised. Bothered.
Click to expand...

fmw, can you explain why you think this is some failing of the legal system. thanks in advance.
 
Vern said:
fmw, can you explain why you think this is some failing of the legal system. thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Sure. Apes do not have legal rights, nor can they own anything. The case should have been dismissed by the judge with some strong words to the complainant.
 
JasperL said:
You're ignoring the ruling of the U.S. Copyright office, making things up that the court said when it didn't say those things, and then reasserting a conclusion - he 'owns' the photo - when no court or the Copyright Office has ruled he does. I guess he "owns" it in some respects, but Wiki commons is distributing it as non-protected as we speak, so tough to sell a photo anyone can LEGALLY download for free.

And how many famous photos of animals don't have a human actually taking the picture? There's this instance and how many others? So exactly who is being opened up to a lawsuit here? Not 99.999999% or so of nature photographers, that's for sure....

If the human activates the camera, he or she is the creator and can copyright the image. Ownership of the camera is not relevant to that.
Click to expand...

You know you tend to make up a ton of stuff without researching it.

A Ninth Circuit judge pressed the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals on Wednesday on how an ape has been harmed by the alleged copyright infringement of a famed "monkey selfie,” saying repeatedly during a hearing the group can’t claim the ape was "injured by the simple infringement of the Copyright Act itself."
U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith said there’s no allegation that the crested macaque ape, named Naruto, was harmed by photographer David Slater when he self-published a book that featured an image of Naruto taking a self portrait, or selfie.

The circuit judge’s comments came during a hearing on PETA’s appeal of U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick III’s January 2016 decision tossing PETA's September 2015 copyright infringement suit against Slater.

In his ruling, Judge Orrick found that animals don’t have standing to sue under the Copyright Act, and rejected PETA’s arguments that the law is at best ambiguous as to whether an animal can be considered an “author” of a work. PETA filed an appeal, which has been backed by an expert primatologist, and on Wednesday a three-judge panel heard oral arguments on the issue.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

https://www.law360.com/articles/943495/9th-circ-judge-rips-peta-s-monkey-selfie-appeal

https://www.law360.com/articles/742904/-monkey-selfie-judge-says-animals-can-t-sue-over-copyright

aw360, San Francisco (January 6, 2016, 8:18 PM EST) -- The California federal judge overseeing the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' lawsuit accusing a nature photographer of violating a monkey's copyright on the primate's selfie said Wednesday that he doesn't see any protections for animals in the Copyright Act.
 
ludin said:
You know you tend to make up a ton of stuff without researching it.

A Ninth Circuit judge pressed the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals on Wednesday on how an ape has been harmed by the alleged copyright infringement of a famed "monkey selfie,” saying repeatedly during a hearing the group can’t claim the ape was "injured by the simple infringement of the Copyright Act itself."
U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith said there’s no allegation that the crested macaque ape, named Naruto, was harmed by photographer David Slater when he self-published a book that featured an image of Naruto taking a self portrait, or selfie.

The circuit judge’s comments came during a hearing on PETA’s appeal of U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick III’s January 2016 decision tossing PETA's September 2015 copyright infringement suit against Slater.

In his ruling, Judge Orrick found that animals don’t have standing to sue under the Copyright Act, and rejected PETA’s arguments that the law is at best ambiguous as to whether an animal can be considered an “author” of a work. PETA filed an appeal, which has been backed by an expert primatologist, and on Wednesday a three-judge panel heard oral arguments on the issue.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

https://www.law360.com/articles/943495/9th-circ-judge-rips-peta-s-monkey-selfie-appeal

https://www.law360.com/articles/742904/-monkey-selfie-judge-says-animals-can-t-sue-over-copyright

aw360, San Francisco (January 6, 2016, 8:18 PM EST) -- The California federal judge overseeing the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' lawsuit accusing a nature photographer of violating a monkey's copyright on the primate's selfie said Wednesday that he doesn't see any protections for animals in the Copyright Act.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of words to type without a single one of them backing up your repeated assertion that the photographer owns the copyright because he owned the camera. You said the district court ruled as such, which was false. The CA9 hasn't ruled. The copyright office said that images produced by non-humans cannot be copyrighted, and in their explanation refer indirectly to this case as an example.

And you allege I make up a ton of stuff without researching it but do not refute a single assertion of mine. There isn't a line in the above that demonstrates I've made a single incorrect statement. You quote me, and ignore every word of mine to disprove claims I HAVE NOT MADE.
 
JasperL said:
That's a lot of words to type without a single one of them backing up your repeated assertion that the photographer owns the copyright because he owned the camera. You said the district court ruled as such, which was false. The CA9 hasn't ruled. The copyright office said that images produced by non-humans cannot be copyrighted, and in their explanation refer indirectly to this case as an example.

And you allege I make up a ton of stuff without researching it but do not refute a single assertion of mine. There isn't a line in the above that demonstrates I've made a single incorrect statement. You quote me, and ignore every word of mine to disprove claims I HAVE NOT MADE.
Click to expand...

It's really funny that you already posted the Copyright Office's response and he is still arguing against it. The 9th judge he seems so eager to support knows copyright law better than the Copyright Office. An office which has consistently argued that you need to create the picture with your hands and that a painting belongs to the guy who painted will now be arguing that works can belong to you even if you didn't actually take the image.

This is why ludin is so great to debate. He really doesn't understand that the PETA couldn't prove that the animal was harmed. The Copyright Office has literally stated that the image can't be copyrighten anyways. In other words, there appears to be zero indication that this guy legally has rights to the image right now.

This guy has literally done what guys who do selfie books do. They grab a bunch of public domain pictures, put them on a book and say it's theirs. Only problem is that these images have been reproduced a million times. Good luck being able to prove that a picture belongs to you when the law office argues that it's creation process means it cant be copyrighten.

This was sent from Putin's computer using Donald's credentials.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom