Techdirt: The ongoing saga that is the monkey selfie lawsuit has continued to move forward, with the lawyers for photographer David Slater filing their brief in response to PETA's. As you probably recall, PETA had teamed up with a primatologist named Antje Engelhardt claiming to be "next friends" for the Indonesian macaque monkey named Naruto, who is alleged to have taken the following selfie with David Slater's camera.
8 comments:
I can't believe that PETA is still pursuing this completely ridiculous copyright case after so long. I remember reading about this on this blog last year and I thought it would quickly be dismissed, but of course PETA had to be stubborn. The idea that a monkey could hold copyright is crazy, and the pursuit of this case is childish. As a vegetarian and someone who cares about animal rights it's honestly really disapointing to see PETA waste both time and resources that could be spent actually helping animals. Over the past few years they've become more well known for overly sexualized add campaigns and causing problem than making any kind of change. Although these outlandish campaigns capture the world's attention they do little to nothing to benefit any animals. This monkey doesn't know or care about this frivolous lawsuit, so as an organization PETA should really reevaluate their priorities. As of right now all they're doing is making a lot of noise and embarrassing themselves.
From the perspective of a person who has never herd about this case, this article wasn't really that helpful or informative. I think there could have easily been a little description of the background information that might have explained a little bit more. Other than that however, this situation in general is a little ridiculous and I agree with Megan. Its hard to believe that an organization as big a PETA would want to pursue this case. What benefit does it serve them? What benefit does it serve either party? The information that this article brought up about Antje Engelhardt and how she dropped out of the case is interesting because as stated in the article, this factor definitely changes PETA's strength in the case (not that either party had a good argument) but, it is interesting how that now means that PETA has no personal connection to the case. Will they drop the case now? will they continue fighting? It would be interesting to hear from PETA and make it clear why exactly they care so much about who owns the photo. Overall, I think this article didn't really do a good job of explaining what the entire situation was about, but it certainly sparked a little interest.
This issue has never failed to be wildly entertaining. It is hilarious that an organization as large as PETA would relentlessly pursue such a trivial issue as whether or not a monkey can hold copyright. I consider myself to be a strong supporter of animals rights, but this is just unnecessary. Most animal rights activists pursue issues like the unethical treatment of livestock, or the over fishing which threatens several aquatic ecosystems, abuse and neglect of house pets, or the environmental cost of our culture's over-consumption of meat. But no, PETA decided to pursue legal rights for animals (which, as the article points out, and which should be common sense, the US government does not allow animals to hold copyright claims). As someone who visibly supports animal rights, it is embarrassing to be associated with this organization. PETA needs to take a close look at what the future of lawsuits and crusades like this one entail and return to the priorities of most animal rights activists. Instead of worrying about a selfie, produce a documentary on sustainable livestock farming, or promote organizations like the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch, which monitors fish populations in order to inform consumers and businesses about sustainable seafood choices. There are better causes than those that PETA is currently pursuing.
There seems to be a serious lack of understanding from the author's perspective in this article in what PETA is actually attempting to accomplish in this case, and also a lack of understanding in the power that PETA holds as an internationally recognized animal rights organization. This is quite clear simply in the way that the author addresses the qualifications of PETA's lawyers, which reads, "PETA's big time (seriously) lawyers" as if to suggest that PETA wouldn't actually be a large or capable enough organization to justify having a team of well-qualified lawyers. It's a difficult to read an article like this with so much bias from the author's point of view, because it simply makes it much more difficult to agree with the author's point of view. Not to mention the fact that PETA is notorious for creating a stink about a variety of issues simply because it will draw media attention to their cause. By writing an article about the case and mentioning PETA's name outright in the headline, the author is doing exactly what PETA wants in the first place.
To be honest, I was quite surprised to see there is still an issue surrounding the monkey selfie. At this point, I wonder why PETA is continuing to push the case. I understand that they want animals to have more rights, but what do they think this monkey having copyright would look like? The monkey doesn’t know this photo exist. The monkey isn’t going to sell the photo to a company that makes funny fridge magnets and then start saving up for a car. A wild monkey doesn’t need its creations to be protected within an economy that it isn’t a part of. I feel like PETA making an issue out of this just makes the animal rights movement as a whole look ridiculous. It makes sense to try to change policy to minimize the degree to which humans exploit animals and harm them, but this monkey is not being hurt by this photo being in the public domain. Whatever point PETA is trying to make, they aren’t making it, and they are hurting the general perception of animal rights activists in the process.
Oh my god, who really cares about this. There are just so many issues with this silly Copyright Case. The present ruling seems like a pretty clear application of the law, and it is illogical to me why PETA would continue to press the issue. More troubling to me though, is the large amount of frivolous court cases that continue to bog down our Judicial system with plainly outrageous claims, such as this one. It is beyond me how anybody could fight for the “Monkey’s Rights”, let alone give a damn. The article states that David Slater, the photographer of the picture, also cannot lay copyright claim to the photo. I am by no means informed on copyrights issues, but it seems intuitive to me that the photographer would have ownership over the photo. Yes, I get it, the monkey took the picture with Mr. Slater’s camera, but I still don’t see how that would translate to the Monkey owning the picture. Mainly, because you know, it’s a monkey.
Well you know, no matter what, I’m sure the monkey is still smiling.
I think its clear that PETA's position in the case is extreme, but I'm certain they are self-aware, and I agree with Brennan, that the tone of the article is dismissive of PETA's power and motivation. The position might be ridiculous, but I'm almost certain that it's being done for publicity and as a way to affect and shift discourse. There are many organizations out there, PETA included, who's essential mission I appreciate, but whose positions and methods are often too extreme for me to support. But, honestly, I still think we need them. Ideology in public discourse and democracy often seems to operate like a pendulum... it rarely finds a steady middle ground, but instead swings back and forth toward, but generally never really reaching the extremes because of the constant push and pull. Groups like PETA never really seem to achieve their ultimate ends, but they do shift the pendulum in their own direction. And I think in PETA's case, that a good thing.
This whole monkey selfie thing is probable one of the most amazing happenings ever. My own thought is that both the monkey and the owner of the iPhone are the true owners of the cell phone. This is because the photo is of the monkey on the man’s cellphone. However, I believe technically speaking, the human is the owner of this work of art. This is because he owns the device that it was taken on, and physically holds the file. On the other hand, the monkey did take the selfie making him the “artist”. What I think should happen is that the monkey should get the copyright because he is both the subject and artist of the work, and that the cell phone owner should get a portion of the earnings because this would not be a thing without his equipment. That all being said, I am also very happy that articles about this beautiful copyright case are making this blog.
Post a Comment