Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
Techdirt: Remember the monkey selfie? That is the photo that was taken by a macaque monkey in Indonesia, using a camera left on the ground by photographer David Slater. It first became a story back in 2011 when the photographs of the monkey became a bit of an amusing filler piece for some newspapers.
Wow... You know for a organization claiming to be doing good, I have never once heard a single good thing about PETA. From not being aloud to call themselves an animal shelter (because they kill so many of the animals) to wasting the courts time, PETA is truly and abysmal organization. This is particularly ridiculous. The only part that does not surprise me is that someone actually filed the lawsuit. I am sure PETA gave that law firm enough money to make it worth their while. I hope the result of this is that PETA has to pay for wasting the courts time, and the poor photographer. Regardless of Slater's misunderstanding of copyright, he is being sued by PETA for no good reason. I hope he gets something out of this, or at least does not come away harmed in some way. Also did anyone notice that PETA wants the rights to the picture "on behalf of the monkey". As in the only people taking advantage here is PETA.
I don’t understand how this case is even still an issue or why PETA was even allowed to file the claim in the first place. I guess I wonder why this was ever a case or fighting over this in the first place. According to the article, the statute of limitations for disputing the copyright is over. On top of that, there is an actual clause in copyright law that says that any photo taken by an animal (which then uses a monkey as an example) is in public domain and has no authorship because only humans have authorship. How is this still an issue? Why are people still trying to fight this? Why is the owner of the camera still trying to fight this?
If PETA is using this as a publicity stunt, why is it being tolerated? Why has the case not been thrown out of court already?
Okay, I am one of the largets animal rights proponets you will ever meet, but even I know as well as the next person that almost everything PETA does is for the publicity. And they also aren’t very subtle about knowing that everyone knows they are publicity focus. The more eyes they get on outrageous cause the more eyes go looking through their archives for more examples of insanity and find stuff that actually matters. As for the copyrights: the monkey doesn’t care, the photographer just wants the money, and it’s too late now the photo is already considered public domain. Aside from the copyrights law office saying explicitly no, there is no reason for this to continue! Let peta pull off this stunt and go focus on their actual issues. What the author said earlier though, it is ridiculous for humanity to have this assumption that everything must be assigned an owner, its something we need to grow past.
I love how half this article is the writer being exasperated by how long this copyright pursuit has gone on. And I have to agree with the author that this is one of the most ridiculous things I have seen. It essentially just comes down to people being ridiculously, overly concerned about animal rights. There comes a point when you have to stop fighting for animals and just think for a second about what you are doing. What, in reality, will Naruto the monkey think when the people at PETA tell him he has won the lawsuit. Nothing. He will think nothing because he is a monkey and does not understand laws nor does he understand that owning it means he gets to choose who gets to see it or that he can make money off it. There is a difference between fighting for animals to not be hunted or to have cages that are actually the right sizes for them to live in and fighting for the ownership of a photograph. Like the author said, the law clearly states that anything made by animals is under the public domain because copyright is only for humans because humans have such a huge need for everything to be owned by someone. The idea behind copyright law is to protect people from other people who will make money off their work, but Naruto is not going to be making money off anything because he doesn't know how to use money. Any money he theoretically would make would go to his owners to be used at their discretion in which case if PETA somehow wins this they would get money and Naruto would not.
I had not heard of this debate prior to reading this article, and I think I was living in a slightly better world five minutes ago. This is such a stupid thing, and I cannot believe it's being considered as an actual issue that can and should be taken to court. The picture was taken by an animal, which means it is in the public domain. Who is being harmed by the monkey's picture being used? Is the monkey's work being stolen? Is he upset about it? Maybe the monkey is thrilled that his photography is getting so much attention worldwide. PETA doesn't know.
This probably the most amazing article that the green page has ever seen, and will see for quite some time. The issue of who owns the copyright of this monkey’s selfie might be the most important issue of this school year, if not our generation. Personally, I am very torn between who’s side of this debate I am on. Part of me thinks that the photo is the monkey’s because he took it, and it is of him. However, at the same time there is a person who owns the monkey, and because the monkey can not communicate if he wants to hold the copyright it makes sense that the owner should maintain it. Now here is the bigger question, how much does this actually matter? Like lets be real for a hot second here, how much money do we actually think is going to be made off of this photo? That is all.
6 comments:
Wow... You know for a organization claiming to be doing good, I have never once heard a single good thing about PETA. From not being aloud to call themselves an animal shelter (because they kill so many of the animals) to wasting the courts time, PETA is truly and abysmal organization. This is particularly ridiculous. The only part that does not surprise me is that someone actually filed the lawsuit. I am sure PETA gave that law firm enough money to make it worth their while. I hope the result of this is that PETA has to pay for wasting the courts time, and the poor photographer. Regardless of Slater's misunderstanding of copyright, he is being sued by PETA for no good reason. I hope he gets something out of this, or at least does not come away harmed in some way. Also did anyone notice that PETA wants the rights to the picture "on behalf of the monkey". As in the only people taking advantage here is PETA.
I don’t understand how this case is even still an issue or why PETA was even allowed to file the claim in the first place. I guess I wonder why this was ever a case or fighting over this in the first place. According to the article, the statute of limitations for disputing the copyright is over. On top of that, there is an actual clause in copyright law that says that any photo taken by an animal (which then uses a monkey as an example) is in public domain and has no authorship because only humans have authorship. How is this still an issue? Why are people still trying to fight this? Why is the owner of the camera still trying to fight this?
If PETA is using this as a publicity stunt, why is it being tolerated? Why has the case not been thrown out of court already?
Okay, I am one of the largets animal rights proponets you will ever meet, but even I know as well as the next person that almost everything PETA does is for the publicity. And they also aren’t very subtle about knowing that everyone knows they are publicity focus. The more eyes they get on outrageous cause the more eyes go looking through their archives for more examples of insanity and find stuff that actually matters. As for the copyrights: the monkey doesn’t care, the photographer just wants the money, and it’s too late now the photo is already considered public domain. Aside from the copyrights law office saying explicitly no, there is no reason for this to continue! Let peta pull off this stunt and go focus on their actual issues. What the author said earlier though, it is ridiculous for humanity to have this assumption that everything must be assigned an owner, its something we need to grow past.
I love how half this article is the writer being exasperated by how long this copyright pursuit has gone on. And I have to agree with the author that this is one of the most ridiculous things I have seen. It essentially just comes down to people being ridiculously, overly concerned about animal rights. There comes a point when you have to stop fighting for animals and just think for a second about what you are doing. What, in reality, will Naruto the monkey think when the people at PETA tell him he has won the lawsuit. Nothing. He will think nothing because he is a monkey and does not understand laws nor does he understand that owning it means he gets to choose who gets to see it or that he can make money off it. There is a difference between fighting for animals to not be hunted or to have cages that are actually the right sizes for them to live in and fighting for the ownership of a photograph. Like the author said, the law clearly states that anything made by animals is under the public domain because copyright is only for humans because humans have such a huge need for everything to be owned by someone. The idea behind copyright law is to protect people from other people who will make money off their work, but Naruto is not going to be making money off anything because he doesn't know how to use money. Any money he theoretically would make would go to his owners to be used at their discretion in which case if PETA somehow wins this they would get money and Naruto would not.
I had not heard of this debate prior to reading this article, and I think I was living in a slightly better world five minutes ago. This is such a stupid thing, and I cannot believe it's being considered as an actual issue that can and should be taken to court. The picture was taken by an animal, which means it is in the public domain. Who is being harmed by the monkey's picture being used? Is the monkey's work being stolen? Is he upset about it? Maybe the monkey is thrilled that his photography is getting so much attention worldwide. PETA doesn't know.
This probably the most amazing article that the green page has ever seen, and will see for quite some time. The issue of who owns the copyright of this monkey’s selfie might be the most important issue of this school year, if not our generation. Personally, I am very torn between who’s side of this debate I am on. Part of me thinks that the photo is the monkey’s because he took it, and it is of him. However, at the same time there is a person who owns the monkey, and because the monkey can not communicate if he wants to hold the copyright it makes sense that the owner should maintain it. Now here is the bigger question, how much does this actually matter? Like lets be real for a hot second here, how much money do we actually think is going to be made off of this photo? That is all.
Post a Comment