Hey, remember that monkey selfie copyright drama a few years ago? Get this – It's just hit the US appeals courts Remember that selfie of the grinning monkey way back in 2014? It was taken by an Indonesian crested macaque named Naruto using the camera of wildlife photographer David Slater. And it is at the heart of a long-running copyright case that's now ended up before the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court in San Francisco. Why? Because it's …
It was a historical corrupt abuse of the fixed-lifespan, state-created-entity, called a Corporation, to ever allow it to be abused as a zombie business entity!
It was a monstrous legal abomination and corruption of US emancipation statute 'law', to ever class the fictional zombie business entity, called a corporation, as a person.
A real person is only ever a living human being; I don't give a frack what the legal liars say in the demonic Blacks Dictionary etc.!
@Infernoz
I heartily agree. Animals, perhaps, especially monkeys have far more in common with people than the artificial construct that is a corporation. A corporation is nothing more than a mechanism by which a business is run/structured. For now, this requires that people are involved with the business. AI may change that, at some point, in the distant further. Who'll get the profits or responsible for the costs when AI starts setting up and running its own businesses?
Back to the point at hand, I don't know if animals should be able to hold copyright; in fact, I'm leaning toward not, but I think the argument that if corporations can be considered people then why not anything else? Especially, if that thing, an animal is more person like than the artificial construct that is a corporation.
from the article, "But back to the issue of whether animals can hold a copyright. PETA points out that corporations are not people, yet they can hold copyright. To which the opposing lawyers pointed out that it was specifically decided by the Supreme Court. So far, there has been no Supreme Court decision that animals are people."
" Animals, perhaps, especially monkeys have far more in common with people than the artificial construct that is a corporation"
Depends on which context. Corporations are made of people. Hence for legal issues about subjects invented by people (like copyright) corporations are much closer to people.
"Corporations are "legal persons".... If they weren't "legal persons", you wouldn't be able to have a legally enforceable contract with one."
utter nonsense. the law/government define what an incorporated entity is, and the legal process by which one is formed, and thus can define how a corporation can make contracts and the liabilities ensuing.
Unfortunately the SCUSA some time ago confirmed corporate personhood. In other words, in the US corporations are legally people. No matter how absurd that is.
Usually abbreviated SCOTUS.
Supreme Court Of The United States.
Not to be confused with the Supreme Court Registrar.
I think the purpose of this case is (or at least should be) to demonstrate how ridiculous the entire premise of copyright really is.
It's bad enough that those who claim "exclusive rights" to that which is clearly not exclusively of their making (i.e. is derivative to any degree, which would be all so-called "creative works" throughout history) have been granted this artificial privilege of a state-protected monopoly on their not-really-exclusive "creations", but for them to then claim the "exclusive rights" to something created by a monkey, just because the monkey used their camera, is beyond ridiculous.
Yes, and a weevil once scuttled out of a bag of flour in my kitchen, making a nice pattern in its wake. I therefore claim the "exclusive rights" to that pattern, because ... my kitchen.
Jesus wept!
If I ever had any respect for PETA it has totally evaporated now. Not even the South Park episode featuring PETA made them look such douches (and that made out that PETA members have sex with animals - http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals).
The Wikipedia page on this subject is one of the most obnoxiously smug and faux-neutral things I have ever read. PETA's contention that a monkey owns the copyright is deeply flawed. It would be flawed even were the monkey a human. They present this as an act of will on the monkey's part whilst others present it as simple happenstance rather than intent on the photographer's part. Neither is true.
David Slater travelled around the world specifically for the purpose of nature photography by which he earns his living, spent days being accepted by the monkeys so that they would tolerate his presence. He purchased the equipment, set up the equipment, waited patiently for the right circumstances travelling with the monkeys and deliberately set the camera up so that the monkeys could trigger it. Is copyright not possible on all those nature documentaries where an animal triggers the camera themself? What about where a camera is positioned over a nest or fastened to a bird? Can copyright not exist if the photographer is not physically operating the camera at the time. David Slater went to a LOT of effort to set things up so this would happen. PETA are fanatics who insist animals must be treated as people even to the absurd extent that they must be regarded as taking deliberate, informed actions when obviously they do not - such as the monkey triggering the camera.
Also, as any photographer will tell you, taking a picture is hardly the beginning and end of the work. David Slater went through all the photographs to select appropriate ones (how many of a monkey's feet and leaves do you think were also taken?), cropped and positioned the photograph, did post-work on the photograph (which is an artistic and technical skill in itself), publicised the photograph. I can guarantee that if it were just some raw original with no work by himself, it would not look remotely as good. Copyright covers any creative input to a work, not just clicking a camera button.
But other than that, no, let's assign copyright to a monkey that pressed a button. And that tapir that wandered through a photography trap at night so we could get some wildlife photography of them in their natural habitat? Better track it down and give it a copyright entitlement as well.
The work of nature photographers such as David Slater is a huge help to conservation efforts and animal welfare in that it shares with people around the world the beauty and wonder of nature. But it relies on copyright in order to exist. Nobody just gives him money to do this - he earns his living through it. We should be happy that there exist ways of making your living that actually enrich society rather than just everybody being a lawyer for example. Not punishing it and trying to harm nature photography. David Slater actually travelled around the world to photograph these monkeys to help raise awareness that they were in danger. PETA, by trying to take away his livelihood, directly harms his efforts to save the very monkeys they claim to care about.
Fuck Peta, quite frankly. Authorship depends on the creating input and the provided resource to create the work. The photographer provided both, the monkey neither. Signed (in a hopeless attempt to counterbalance the reputation damage PETA's stunt is causing) -- a vegetarian and supporter of animal welfare.
"Authorship depends on the creating input and the provided resource to create the work."
An additional point I've not seen raised yet is even if the monkey had worked out that pressing the button made a click noise, how did manage to understand that it was taking a photo? Is it even capable of understanding what a photo is without being taught, never mind the connection between the funny clicky thing and the image produced.
It also reveals how ethically challenged PETA is.
In order for that to be the case their ethical problems would have to have been hidden in the first place. Or do you seriously think that any rational person could mistake a group that thinks it's OK to throw red paint on someone for wearing fake fur even while euthanizing more animals annually than any other group in the world for an ethically sound group?
I don't believe this is anything to do with copyright per se. It's PETA's attempt to begin to establish a legal basis for the extension of human rights & freedoms to animals. If you can successfully argue that a monkey can own copyright, you're part way to showing it's a person. You've got the thin end of the wedge in place and can then start hammering away at it, extending the concept to areas such as rights to life, freedom etc.
I find this deeply disturbing. Human rights - which not even all humans currently enjoy, let's not forget - are far too precious and hard-won. They exist precisely to differentiate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. If you grant animals the same rights as humans, you don't raise the animals up - you devalue the lives of humans. This is very dangerous territory.
Protect animals, by all means. Legislate against cruelty. But leave it at that, for all our sakes.
"It's PETA's attempt to begin to establish a legal basis for the extension of human rights & freedoms to animals"
I'm honestly not so sure. AFAIK (Oblig: IANAL) copyright appears to be about controlling a work so that the creator can profit from it. Part of the reason that content distributors and associations typically litigate on behalf of content creators is because they receive a chunk of the profits on said works for themselves.
One wonders if the Painfully Exasperating & Troublemaking Asses are running out of income in a world where armchair activism merely requires "likes" rather than actual cash. That would make this a common, garden variety cash grab. Occam's razor and all that.
Mine's the leather one, waste not want not.
>>You forgot to say they're also pinko Nazi Commie librul traitors, and any other term you personally don't like.
Ordinarily I'd agree with you challenging someone characterising a group they don't like as "SJW marxists". But honestly this is PETA here and that pretty well describes the majorty of them.
Please explain to me what is Marxist about PETA? You can use any of his writings in addition to Das Kapital, but you must make a coherent argument and not simply name-call.
(No, I don't like PETA. But I am tired of people using "Marxist" to mean "something indefinite I personally dislike.")
>>Please explain to me what is Marxist about PETA?
Their membership on the whole. They have a very heavy overlap with the extreme Left, core support in Antifa (who again need not be communist but largely are).
>>But I am tired of people using "Marxist" to mean "something indefinite I personally dislike
I'm not and largely don't. However, the GP called them that and I'm just observing that in my experience they actually largely are. It's nothing inherent to PETA's mandate that is Marxist. And certainly nothing to do with Animal Rights as I am a supporter of Animal Rights and am pretty Right Wing. But PETA membership heavily slants that way, ime.
PETA are simply insane, human-hating, SJW Marxists
I disagree. Even the reality challenged group that is SJWs look good next to PETA. The typical SJW actually believes that their views are valid and need to be heard, including the shouting down of dissenting voices (which, more often than not, are the voices of reason when SJWs are involved). PETA, on the other hand, are as a group so hypocritical that I have difficulty believing that anyone who remains associated with them for more than a few months could actually believe their rhetoric.
Not to mention such insanities as arguing that Mario's Tanooki suit somehow harms animals. Even the most mentally challenged and hardcore animal rights activist would have trouble actually believing that one.
@Stanislaw
I have no time for PETA. But I profoundly disagree with your argument. It is the notion of black and white differentiation between humans and 'animals' that promulgates, rather than reduces, human inequality. If your notion of what does and doesn't deserve such rights is based on an arbitrary benchmark (human vs non-human), you create a construct that allows people to set that arbitrary line wherever they like. Throughout history, groups of people have been demonised and categorised as 'sub-human', and this distinction used as a way of eroding their rights.
A distinction based on objective measures (things like the ability to experience pain, emotional distress, joy, familial relationships) actually makes it much harder to withdraw those rights from any human being, but also leads to the inescapable conclusion that higher order animals also deserve the same or similar protections.
It can be a rather challenging notion, as if forces an examination of what is, for most of us, an uncomfortable truth we avoid.
If you really want to be challenged on this, read Peter Singer. You will find your world view challenged, which I hope you will find stimulating. (Unfortunately most people find such challenge is unwelcome and summarily dismiss it).
https://www.amazon.com/Writings-Ethical-Life-Peter-Singer/dp/0060007443
Human law does not apply to monkeys any more than Arabian law applies to an Australian in Australia..
The government takes pictures of any number of cars crossing the Dartford crossing every day and uses them for gain.
Surely these pictures are copyright of the cars owners?
Only if the cars trigger the camera. If, however, the cameras took a picture every second then the copyright would belong to the Dartford Tunnel people.
It could be interesting if this went further (and applied to the Right Side of the Pond) because this may mean that the pictures couldn't be sent between departments or different authorities.
Until the day, that is, that there's a small disclaimer written on a notice board saying something like "Use of this motorway is considered acceptance of our terms and conditions regarding copyright of your likeness."
Well the police (OK, Maurice Gatsonides) devised a method for a vehicle to trigger the shutter of a camera, taking two closely spaced photographs of the vehicle... does that mean that they own the copyright to every photo of a speeding car? Or could a car driver say that THEY own the copyright of the photo, and thus control how that photograph is used?
Or could a car driver say that THEY own the copyright of the photo, and thus control how that photograph is used?
Something is not right with that idea, or it could become a nice little earner for everyone who has ever had a ticket for speeding or jumping a red light: you could then sue the police for breach of copyright as you never gave permission for the image to be used as evidence..
Well, the police would have to subpoena the image before presenting it as evidence, as use in a criminal proceeding is NOT an assignable use under copyright law. The copying and distribution of the image in evidence bundles would be an assignable use, however. There are caveats, I believe, which allow evidentiary use of things to override other considerations, or you would have companies claiming that their tax ledgers are copyright.
Under UK copyright law (which, like most of the world, is based on and closely follows the Berne convention, unlike US copyright law) it'd be hard to assign copyright to anyone, including the government or the Dartford Crossing authority for those pictures. Why? Because there are two keys to owning copyright.
First, you have to demonstrate that you are the author, i.e. that you caused the photograph to be created. It isn't enough to simply be the owner of the camera, and it certainly isn;t enough to be the subject of the photograph. The author must make a conscious decision to cause the specific photograph to be created.
Second, that there was a clear 'creative step' involved. The owners of the Dartford Crossing cameras might possibly claim some elements of a creative step, since they chose where to place the cameras, but that's about it. The driver of the car has no such control over placement of the camera and does not make a decision to activate it, either.
This is a bit different to travelling around the globe specifically to set up a series of photographs, choosing where and when to set up a camera on a particular occasion when the subject was available and seemed in the right mood, choosing a lens and setting the camera's operational parameters to suit the specifics of the environment at that particular time. All those are 'creative steps' in the way UK copyright recognises them, because they were deliberate, specific to and had a substantial effect upon the overall intention of crating individual photographs. The ape may have observed the photographer handling the camera, and tried to copy thos actions, but it would be seriously stretching credibility to suggest he had any idea that pressing the shutter release button would cause a photograph of himself to or anything else to be created, hence it's not credible to suggest any creative step on his part.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
