Monkey should own copyright of selfies, PETA says in suit 2

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2015/09/22/peta-sues-to-give-monkey-copyright-of-selfie-photos



David Crary, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:03:04 EDT PM




A macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs should be declared the copyright owner of the photos, rather than the nature photographer who positioned the camera, animal-rights activists contend in a novel lawsuit filed Tuesday.

The suit was filed in federal court in San Francisco by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. It seeks a court order allowing PETA to administer all proceeds from the photos for the benefit of the monkey, which it identified as six-year-old Naruto, and other crested macaques living in a reserve on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi.

The photos were taken during a 2011 trip to Sulawesi by British nature photographer David Slater. Through San Francisco-based self-publishing company Blurb, he has published a book called Wildlife Personalities that includes the "monkey selfie" photos.

However, the photos have been widely distributed elsewhere by outlets, including Wikipedia, which contend that no one owns the copyright to the images because they were taken by an animal, not a person. Slater, who is exploring legal action against some of those outlets, said he was "very saddened" by PETA's lawsuit because he considers himself an advocate of animal rights.

Last year, the U.S. Copyright Office issued an updated compendium of its policies, including a section stipulating that it would register copyrights only for works produced by human beings. It specified that works produced by animals, whether a photo taken by a monkey or a mural painted by an elephant, would not qualify.

However, Jeffrey Kerr, a lawyer with PETA, said the copyright office policy "is only an opinion," and the U.S. Copyright Act itself does not contain language limiting copyrights to humans.

"The act grants copyright to authors of original works, with no limit on species," Kerr said. "Copyright law is clear: It's not the person who owns the camera, it's the being who took the photograph."

Citing Slater's own written accounts of his encounter with the macaques, the lawsuit asserts that Naruto "authored the monkey selfies by his own independent, autonomous actions in examining and manipulating Slater's unattended camera."

Slater has been openly dismayed by the prolonged dispute over the photos, and says the British copyright obtained for the photos by his company, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., should be honoured worldwide.

"The facts are that I was the intellect behind the photos, I set the whole thing up," he said in an email. "A monkey only pressed a button of a camera set up on a tripod -- a tripod I positioned and held throughout the shoot."

Last year, as the dispute simmered, Slater offered copies of a "monkey selfie" photo to purchasers willing to pay only for shipping and handling, and said he would donate $1.70 per order to a conservation project dedicated to protecting Sulawesi's macaques. But he also has defended his right to make money from the photos.

"I sincerely wish my five-year-old daughter to be able to be proud of her father and inherit my copyrights so that she can make my work into an asset and inheritance and go to university," he wrote in his email. "I have very little else to offer her."

PETA has on occasion pursued lawsuits that were widely viewed by other legal experts as offering little chance of success -- for example, a 2011 lawsuit accusing the SeaWorld parks of keeping five killer whales in conditions that violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on slavery. A federal judge dismissed the suit, saying the 13th Amendment applied only to humans.

Regarding the new lawsuit, Kerr said PETA "has a very strong case" that Naruto should be declared the photo's owner. The selfies were introduced as exhibits in the suit.

Joining PETA in the suit is Antje Engelhardt, a primatologist from Germany who has studied the Sulawesi macaques.

David Favre, a Michigan State University law professor who often writes about animal rights, said by email that the copyright issue raised by PETA "is a cutting edge legal question."

"They have a fair argument," he wrote, "but I would have to say it is an uphill battle."

Cheryl Dancey Balough, a Chicago lawyer who specializes in copyright Law, said a key question -- if the lawsuit moves forward -- is whether Slater's creative contribution to the selfies rises to a level that warrants a copyright.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor who supports animal rights, expressed misgivings about the litigation.

"It trivializes the terrible problems of needless animal slaughter and avoidable animal exploitation worldwide for lawyers to focus so much energy and ingenuity on whether monkeys own the copyright in selfies taken under these contrived circumstances," he said.

PETA got to be revoked of tax exempt status for supporting terrorist thugs ALF and ELF.

Sorry...double eat a bag of dlcks post

Well honestly I think this is ridiculous and as usual money from the Taxpayers will be spent .
And I have one question whom is going to get the money if Peta wins?

I could see if an Animal was being treated cruelly to not allow someone to make a profit off it . Yet by their own ads that state they are bringing awareness to the plight of poor animals, they are intentionally making a profit off of those pictures. I mean they are bringing to our awareness of what is going on as they solicit money from us. IMO

PETA can go eat a bag of dlcks....

does the monkey own the camera? did he buy the camera with his own money? nope. ...

should be an easy case really....that is if they get a judge who has commen sense and not some libtard planning to run for office later

PETA is a bunch of whackos.

I think it's a conspiracy by PETA.

Get the monkey a copyright.

Then offer the monkey a banana for the copyright.

Make money from copyright.

Use money to

Free range dlcks.

the Minkey dood it!

Chef-Inspecteur Clouseau.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6muq1smaVCQ

I agree this is a waist of money . I think this is the second suit being filed .

What ever you guys are doing with your free time that's up to you. But really free range di... lol

I belong to PETA, which for me is People Eating Tasty Animals. If it has a face, it has at some point in time hit my BBQ.

In this case, the primate did not have explicit permission to use the camera, and so has no 'rights' to gain from a picture it had no permission to take. Man, some lawyers are stupid.

Using PETA's idiotic logic for a moment though, ok let's give the monkey picture rights. It makes say $500. Where does the cash go? PETA says for care of the animal and habitat improvement. Ok. HOW do they KNOW what the wishes of the monkey are vis a vis his habitat?

Maybe he wants a hot tub, and a dozen bikini clad females. Can PETA get THAT for $500? If they can't, are they not now teasing and damaging the animal's psyche by not providing it enough cash for it to realize its dreams??? What if the monkey wants the money to go for a bag of weed or a bottle of Jack Daniel's?? Will PETA prevent the monkey from exercising free will, or will they encourage alcohol and drug use amongst the lower primates as personal primate choice?

Sorry, it's nothing more than the camera version of the old adage about enough monkeys sitting at typewriters would eventually wind up randomly typing out the Bible. All the monkey did was press the right button on something it picked up.

Anybody else ever have PETA picket their local Kentucky Fried Chicken? Dont know about where you live, but here in the South, it aint wise to get between a man and his fried yardbird

Well they tried to picket the Iditarod and they try to cause chaos every year for this race. Doesn't go anywhere...

Nah I am sorry I Had this vision of a Peta protestor out in the bush protesting some hunter as they are getting their winter meat of Moose..
Don't think that will ever happen but boy that could be some good footage

Yea now that ya mention it, I remember reading about PETA and the Iditarod.
As far as a PETA member messing with a moose hunter, Alaska is wayyyyy too big...that member would never be seen again...well, maybe some bits and pieces would be found in some bear scat

That really would be a peta!

I swear I am going to have to buy a waterproof laptop when I come in here.

or not be drinking coffee..

can you say computer condome?

The whole thing is really silly . But I am sure that some of the lawyers are making money out of it and unfortunately it is making news.