Lawsuit settled over rights to monkey's selfie photo

Attorneys announced a settlement Monday in a lawsuit over who owns the copyright to selfie photographs taken by a monkey before a federal appeals court could answer the novel legal question.

Lawsuit settled over rights to monkey's selfie photo

Well, at least the U.S> court system, is being used for groundbreaking legal precedents! Seriously?!?! I wonder if they argued the point that if a human had stolen the photographers camera and took the selfie without permission, the criminal would retain an copyright on the image?

What happens in the cases of actual cellphone theft, where the camera snaps a photo of whomever entered the wrong pin code X number of times?

Does the criminal retain copyrights to that image, and could prevent it being used in a court of law against them (a form of self incrimination)?

The photos were taken during a 2011 trip to Sulawesi with an unattended camera owned by Slater. Slater said the British copyright obtained for the photos by his company, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., should be honored worldwide.

We live in a really dumb world sometimes. Who really cares who owns a photo of a monkey.

originally posted by: SR1TX
We live in a really dumb world sometimes. Who really cares who owns a photo of a monkey.

Considering that it must be one of the most-reproduced images of the last decade, whoever owns the rights to it stands to become pretty wealthy. And a British copyright would last 70 years from the image's creation, so that's a fairly secure income stream for life. Try telling me that you wouldn't want the royalties from that photo, and I promise I'll try not to laugh.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Every picture taken has the copyright assigned to the photographer of that photo, or in case of timer/ trigger trail cams the owner of the camera. Kudos to you for celebrating a devastating loss to freedoms of self expression and protection.

Squirrels have no rights?

a reply to: audubon

No I do not want the royalties to a photo. I think there is something seriously fked with society that it cannot just enjoy the picture and instead focuses on who benefits financially from it and how does said entity surely screw anyone it can in court years from now if they accidentally or purposefully use it now or 20 years from now. That's stupid.

It's a good thing we die off. We are Evil.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

But, even if the photo was taken by a person that commited a crime? That photo would not have been possible without that crime, would it? That is my point here.

My comment goes deeper than just the surface view of copyright. Is a copyright still valid when it was the result of a crime?

originally posted by: SR1TX
I think there is something seriously fked with society that it cannot just enjoy the picture and instead focuses on who benefits financially from it and how does said entity surely screw anyone it can in court years from now if they accidentally or purposefully use it now or 20 years from now. That's stupid.

No, what's "stupid" is presuming that artistic creations just come into being for the benefit of everyone else, and that the creator has no right to enjoy any kind of benefit from their work. Unless you're proposing that everyone else who does any kind of work also does it for free so that anyone can benefit from it, which would be 100 per cent fair and just (but would also be 100 per cent fantasy).

"PETA and David Slater agree that this case raises important, cutting-edge issues about expanding legal rights for non-human animals, a goal that they both support, and they will continue their respective work to achieve this goal," Slater and PETA said in a joint statement.

a reply to: Krakatoa

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sued on behalf of the macaque monkey in 2015, seeking financial control of the photographs for the benefit of the monkey named Naruto that snapped the photos with Slater’s camera.

“PETA and David Slater agree that this case raises important, cutting-edge issues about expanding legal rights for non-human animals, a goal that they both support, and they will continue their respective work to achieve this goal,” Slater and PETA said in a joint statement.

It's so cutting edge dude.

Soon humans will have no rights (because of ever expanding govt tyranny) and yet animals will have all their rights protected. And I bet that soon animals will have the right to marry a human (thus legalizing it for humans too by default).

JUST WAIT N WATCH!

a reply to: Deaf Alien

We're on the freaking cutting edge here!!!

This is SO HIP.

Where are my sunglasses, damn the future's bright as heck.

Pandas have a right to live in my house.
And Lions and Alligators have a right to eat people.

Dogs, cats, gerbils, and cockatiels have a right to no longer be pets.
And no animals should be in zoos anymore!

Someone get me an attorney.
In fact, get me PETA's entire law firm.

Let's DO THIS!

a reply to: muzzleflash

Yay for slippery slope argument!

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Well, at least the U.S> court system, is being used for groundbreaking legal precedents! Seriously?!?!

Well, on precedents... If PETA won this case it would have set the scene for photographs of animals being owned by the animals, and no-one profiting from such images. Not only would that go down poorly with wildlife documentary makers, it would have compromised opportunistic images, as in the monkey photo.

The question is really why PETA thought their case was a worthwhile use of their resources.

Forgive me everyone.
I'm just so excited about this.

The possibilities are endless.

I'll be the first to propose it:
Plants have Rights too.
That includes Fungi, Bacteria, and Viruses.

Maybe even Rocks and Pebbles have Rights?
The sun, the moon, empty space, every cell in my body has individual rights (how dare I cut those finger nails or that hair?).

I am so ahead of my time.
This is a historic moment.

Has PETA jumped the shark?

Oh wait, that would be cruel.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: muzzleflash

Yay for slippery slope argument!

Slippery slope?
Read my post above - this is a straight drop into the pit of awesome!

originally posted by: paraphi

The question is really why PETA thought their case was a worthwhile use of their resources.

Well, since the Universe is just a simulation, it's clear to me that PETA did this purely to spark the ideas in my head that I posted above.

Which was well worth all the trouble they went through, I might add.

Look, in all seriousness, joking and asinine behavior aside, animals will have tons of rights in the future after we develop voiceboxes for them that translate animal thought waves into English (and maybe French but definitely not Spanish).

It'll be like the dolphin in Seaquest or like any of those silly films where the animals talk, but it'll be real life. And we'll live next to all of them in harmony.

You'll be like Antman and can talk to the ants. Just think about it, that's all I'm saying.
Sci-fi today is Sci-reality tomorrow. I didn't make this stuff up.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: muzzleflash

Yay for slippery slope argument!

Slippery slope?
Read my post above - this is a straight drop into the pit of awesome!

He was awesome for agreeing to the settlement.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Who?
Antman or the Monkey?