Techdirt: Ted Frank is a well-respected lawyer who has heroically dedicated much of his career to stopping bad legal practices, including sketchy settlements in class action lawsuits. Now he's taking action in another case involving a sketchy settlement: the monkey selfie case. As we highlighted earlier this week, while it was no surprise that PETA and photographer David Slater worked out a settlement agreement to end the ridiculous lawsuit PETA had filed, it was deeply concerning that part of the settlement involved PETA demanding that the original district court ruling -- the one saying, clearly, that animals don't get copyrights -- should be thrown out.
9 comments:
Well it looks like PETA is at it again. Claiming to be an advocate for Animals while behind the scenes making a profit off of someone to keep their bank accounts filled. Another organization that does that is Westboro Baptist Church, who uses litigation to win in court financial awards that help fund their work. Both of these are altruistic organizations. On their face, they look like they are doing good work (although only WBC will claim that it’s work is good) but they have ulterior motives behind it. PETA could care less about Naruto, even if they claim to be his “friend” and acting on his behalf in court. This also presents another more pressing issue, one of reduction of artistic freedom to document or create a body of art. In this case, the mere act of taking a selfie with a monkey who is unable to say no. I’m curious, does PETA get permission from all of their animals that are used in their ads? Probably not. PETA is only using this case for publicity, claiming to be a friend of the animal. I agree with the District Court, Animals, while they may have rights that protect against endangerment or cruelty, do not get to claim copyright. An animal is not a body of work created to be enjoyed by others in the way a piece of music, a photography collection, or a painting, or play may be. I think PETA needs to go back to school and learn what copyright means and what they should be doing as an organization to protect animals.
Every time that I walked to work this summer I had to walk through large concrete pylons before entering the building because our lab has had problems in the past with PETA followers trying to drive vehicles into the building. So am I surprised to see an article like this passing through the green page? NO. I do agree with Mr. Blackwood when he states that PETA has a positive mission but when you take a step back and look at their actions it doesn’t take a genius to realize that they aren’t really worried about the animals, but instead they worry about filling their own pockets. I honestly wonder how these people think resorting to extenuating measures will be a positive form of press for their organizations. Stating that an animal can claim copyright is probably one of the most preposterous things I've heard from a national organization in a very long time. All it takes to snap a picture is pressing a button. I wonder if your dog knows that he has turned on the TV if he accidentally steps on the remote? NO. So are we as human beings to believe that the monkey knew that what it was doing was taking a picture I’m sure someone could make the argument it knew exactly what it was doing, but common, I need a little more than a couple selfies. Send me a video of the monkey setting up a tripod, mounting the camera and snapping a couple shot while uploading them to his Facebook profile, then we will talk.
Why? Why is this a thing? What a ridiculous notion. PETA is time and time again proven to not actually care about animal welfare. That monkey has no hard feelings, and is in no harm from his picture being used. This lawsuit is for personal gain and quite frankly has to be because what would the money go to if not PETA? Its not like the monkey needs to be rolling in cash. It is a waste of time and resources on all fronts. I don't understand how people support this organization. I suppose from a very naive view, it looks perfect. People actually standing up for animals and doing what it takes to help them. But the more you dig into PETA, the darker it gets. So what if a monkey took a picture? My rabbit knew how to turn on my air conditioner when it got to hot in my room. Does that mean i have to give up the rights to the cool air that was produced by the button being pressed? What a ridiculous notion. This has to end. PETA needs to change or go away. Because eventually their antics and violence they use to get their way is going o kill someone. And that supports no ones welfare.
Ah yes, it's that time of year again. At least once a semester an article about this monkey selfie comes back around to leave me with so many questions. How was this ever a thing? How is this still a thing? Does PETA legitimately think that they have some sort of case here or are they simply grasping at straws to waste people's time and resources? Don't get me wrong, I love animals just as much as the next person. I'm a vegetarian, I do my best to use cruelty free products, I regularly donate to the Old Friends Senior Dog Sanctuary. However, I do not support PETA or an animal's right to own its own selfie. PETA has become an increasingly embarrassing group over the years and does not represent the animals rights movement as a whole. They're desperately looking for media coverage and diverting people's attention from real issues by trying to get an animal rights to something that it will never even know about. I can only hope that soon they will drop this and maybe try to actually help animals for once.
This case is why American society is seen as a over litigatious society. Part of me want to believe that this is joke lawsuit that you would see on a comedy about lawyers. But unfortunately this is the world we live in I guess. I question how PETA can look at the organization an that see it as freaking cartoon character that belongs on South Park. PETA keeps claiming that they are on the side of animals but the more and more that story's such as this come to light I just see PETA being on the side of trying to keep themselves "relevant." And the problem with this is that I kinda seems like their plan has managed to work even if it makes them laughing stock for rational people and the fact just gives me a headache. All I can ask now I guess is can someone please make the headache stop, please?
I remember the first monkey photo article I ever read. It was a little over 2 years ago, and, despite my perceived advancement in the arena of life, my opinion on this topic has not changed. PETA is a terrible organization that has drifted far from it’s intentions to be an animal rights activist and has become a basic media addict. When you euthanize the animals surrendered into your care, you cannot argue for animal rights. The reason this case has lasted so long is because PETA keeps pushing for the media coverage. I consider myself to be an animal rights activist. I believe there are bigger fish to fry than applying copyright law to animals. Copyright is a human societal contraption, I doubt any animal particularly cares. Instead of paying the three years of legal fees involved in this case, PETA could have used that money to fight animal agriculture, testing on animals, pet-owner abuse, or the literal death of our oceans. I am so frustrated every time this issue receives more press. If you’re actually interested in aiding the cause of animal rights – look into Sea Shepard or Mercy for Animals.
I am truly amazed that this is a case that I wrote a comment for my freshman fall, and this is a case I am still commenting on today, two years later. I thought this was the most ridiculous thing in the world two years ago, and it's even more ridiculous now. I have to agree with pretty much everyone else that commented on this article and say that this is just proof of how far from its original objective PETA has gone. This monkey has no idea what a selfie is. Naruto accidentally picked up this phone and pressed some random buttons. He was not intentionally creating art, and I am absolutely certain that he remains unaware to this day. One would think that if the PETA representatives stopped to think for two seconds about this issue, and the fact that the case cannot proceed because the monkey cannot testify, they would become aware of how completely ludicrous this entire issue is. What would Naruto gain from winning this case? Higher quality bananas? No - all of the money would go right into PETA's pockets. PETA is now just looking out for PETA.
I thought we were done with this monkey business. (Sorry, but I had to.) There are two basic ideas that come out of this article. The first is that PETA has claimed the place as Naruto’s next friend, or legal guardian. A claim that, in essence, has no legal bearing. At least according to the article, so it seems, anyone or any organization could appoint themselves as the monkey’s next friend. The second issue, and the one that I have more of a problem with, is that the author questions Naruto’s ability to consent and enter into an agreement. I’m not saying that a monkey can read, understand, and sign a legal document. However, animals are smarter than we give them credit for. My dog, for instance, understands when I ask him “do you want to go outside?” or “where’s your ball?” Naruto may not understand the complexities of copyright law (few do), but I wouldn’t be so quick to say that he can’t consent to something.
I cannot believe how ridiculous this is and how long this lawsuit had been lasting. Just watched a CNN news video clip, some expert lawyer says the general rule is whoever takes the picture, owns the copyright. In this case, the monkey stole the camera and took selfies (presumably because Naruto likes the clicking sound). However, animals do not have copy right, period. This way this picture will be in public domain. What PETA has done is way out of line and makes people wonder what it is that they are really after. Are they really concerned about breach of copyright of the monkey or are they in for profit? If they so over-the-top determined that the monkey knows photography and took the selfie knowing what a selfie is and therefore should own the copyright, then like the article said, the monkey should approve the settlement of this lawsuit, like a person, a real victim in this ridiculous situation.
Post a Comment