CCC Forum

This is one of those stories where the world seems to have gone mad and it centres around whether an animal can own the copyright to an image. Back in 2011 a photographer, David Slater, was following a troupe of macaques in Indonesia. He realised that if he set up his camera on a tripod, the curiosity of the animals could lead to them pressing the shutter and taking a selfie. A now famous image was the result. Unfortunately for Slater, Wikipedia and the Techdirt blog refused to recognise his copyright and used the the shot without permission. The websites' reason for not recognising copyright? Although Slater had set up the camera, he had not actually pressed the shutter release himself.

Slater decided to defend his copyright and got the lawyers involved. Something which he now regrets. It has lead to a series of court cases which have left him broken financially. The law can be arcane, especially where there is no precedent, and some of the questions being raised are bizarre. The turning point for Salter came in 2015 when animal rights organisation PETA sued him on behalf of the monkey. As just one example of how strange events have become, Slater claims that PETA has not correctly identified the monkey in the shot. He is being sued by the wrong monkey.

The "E" in PETA stands for "ethical". I do wonder about the ethos of a well funded organisation taking on an individual in the courts, particularly when the animal has not been harmed. Slater himself claims that the image could contribute to help save the macaques by promoting ecotourism. The one thing which is lacking in all of this is common sense and it is the lawyers who are the only ones who are benefitting.

More on this story at The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... vid-slater.

UPDATE

DPReview reports that the case is close to being settled after PETA was questioned critically during last month's hearing about the validity of its claim. I would express a hope that common sense will prevail, except the action should never have been brought in the first instance.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/608600600 ... ie-lawsuit

It is a crazy world we live in, isn't it?

Been watching this case develop with interest. According to The Guardian newspaper "The lawsuit filed in 2015 by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sought a court order allowing PETA to administer all proceeds from the photos for the benefit of the monkey". A later statement from PETA says "if it wins the case, it will use the money to help people study the monkeys and protect their habitats". So the monkey gets the money, then he doesn't. Hmm, I think he needs a lawyer!

Compsec wrote:Been watching this case develop with interest. According to The Guardian newspaper "The lawsuit filed in 2015 by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sought a court order allowing PETA to administer all proceeds from the photos for the benefit of the monkey". A later statement from PETA says "if it wins the case, it will use the money to help people study the monkeys and protect their habitats". So the monkey gets the money, then he doesn't. Hmm, I think he needs a lawyer!

Hmm, a feature of this case appears to be the value both sides have placed on the image. Slater says he earned a few thousand pounds, which sounds about right, but talks of £40m. I do not know how much PETA has spent on court costs, but inevitably it will be more than Slater has received. If PETA was really concerned for the welfare of the macaques, it could have instead used the money to aid them directly. Lawyers are hardly an endangered species, but so far are the main beneficiaries of this nonsense.

The case has been settled, with what looks like a face saving outcome for PETA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-sout ... s-41235131

Just when you think one of the more stupid court cases in recent times is over, it turns out that it it is not. The reason? The courts appear to think that PETA brought a frivolous case and are wary of creating precedent for similar actions in the future. My sympathies are with David Slater who has been on the receiving end of PETA's actions.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/965103135 ... settlement

This charade now appears to be over, finally. The US courts have determined that an animal cannot hold copyright and PETA has been admonished for bringing the case. The court stated that it was pursuing its own interests rather than those of "Naruto" and abandoned its original position as a "friend" when an earlier decision went against it. In a further twist of this bizarre episode, the court said that "Naruto" could now have a claim against PETA for the withdrawal of its advocacy on his behalf.

PETA has the option to appeal, but hopefully will let the matter rest given the criticism it has already received. I can only imagine the effect that this has had on David Slater who has been the real victim.

The story is on PetaPixel and elsewhere: https://petapixel.com/2018/04/24/photog ... lams-peta/.

Having recently visited an animal sanctuary,i spent some thirty minutes explaining the legal arguments of this case to one of the resident monkeys. This particular monkey had no interest in what i was telling him! As far as he was concerned it was utter " monkey business ". However, i managed to take a picture of him in exchange for two bananas ! I own copyright to the image.