Loading...

Can PETA sue on behalf of that monkey that took a selfie and might therefore own the copyright to the photograph that came from the camera David Slater set up? - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title Can PETA sue on behalf of that monkey that took a selfie and might therefore own the copyright to the photograph that came from the camera David Slater set up?, we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : Can PETA sue on behalf of that monkey that took a selfie and might therefore own the copyright to the photograph that came from the camera David Slater set up?
link : Can PETA sue on behalf of that monkey that took a selfie and might therefore own the copyright to the photograph that came from the camera David Slater set up?

Can PETA sue on behalf of that monkey that took a selfie and might therefore own the copyright to the photograph that came from the camera David Slater set up?

You may be familiar with the monkey selfie copyright story. It's been around for years. But it's in the news today because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in a case that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals brought against Slater on behalf of the monkey. PETA claims to know the particular monkey, Naruto, and to be in a position to represent him. The judges noticed that the text of the copyright statute doesn't square up with the idea that a monkey could own a copyright:

“There is no way to acquire or hold money. There is no loss as to reputation. There is not even any allegation that the copyright could have somehow benefited Naruto,” said Judge N Randy Smith. “What financial benefits apply to him? There’s nothing.”

At one point, Judge Carlos Bea considered the question of how copyright passes to an author’s heirs. “In the world of Naruto, is there legitimacy and illegitimacy?” Bea asked. “Are Naruto’s offspring ‘children’, as defined by the statute?”

Meanwhile, Slater is said to be too poor to attend the hearing or to pay his lawyer or to afford the camera equipment he needs to carry on as a photographer. But Slater’s publisher has a lawyer. One of his arguments is that Naruto is the wrong monkey:

“I know for a fact that [the monkey in the photograph] is a female and it’s the wrong age,” he said. “I’m bewildered at the American court system. Surely it matters that the right monkey is suing me.”

It's sad if the loss of control of this popular photograph has derailed Slater's career. I understand feeling aggrieved, but he could have let it go and tried to leverage a career on all free publicity and interest in his work. But perhaps he couldn't. Without the copyright, what's the point in setting up more animal selfies, and what are the chances he'll get another miracle smile from an animal?

You may be familiar with the monkey selfie copyright story. It's been around for years. But it's in the news today because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in a case that the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals brought against Slater on behalf of the monkey. PETA claims to know the particular monkey, Naruto, and to be in a position to represent him. The judges noticed that the text of the copyright statute doesn't square up with the idea that a monkey could own a copyright:

“There is no way to acquire or hold money. There is no loss as to reputation. There is not even any allegation that the copyright could have somehow benefited Naruto,” said Judge N Randy Smith. “What financial benefits apply to him? There’s nothing.”

At one point, Judge Carlos Bea considered the question of how copyright passes to an author’s heirs. “In the world of Naruto, is there legitimacy and illegitimacy?” Bea asked. “Are Naruto’s offspring ‘children’, as defined by the

Loading...

statute?” Meanwhile, Slater is said to be too poor to attend the hearing or to pay his lawyer or to afford the camera equipment he needs to carry on as a photographer. But Slater’s publisher has a lawyer. One of his arguments is that Naruto is the wrong monkey:

“I know for a fact that [the monkey in the photograph] is a female and it’s the wrong age,” he said. “I’m bewildered at the American court system. Surely it matters that the right monkey is suing me.”

It's sad if the loss of control of this popular photograph has derailed Slater's career. I understand feeling aggrieved, but he could have let it go and tried to leverage a career on all free publicity and interest in his work. But perhaps he couldn't. Without the copyright, what's the point in setting up more animal selfies, and what are the chances he'll get another miracle smile from an animal?

Thus articles Can PETA sue on behalf of that monkey that took a selfie and might therefore own the copyright to the photograph that came from the camera David Slater set up?

that is all articles Can PETA sue on behalf of that monkey that took a selfie and might therefore own the copyright to the photograph that came from the camera David Slater set up? This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article Can PETA sue on behalf of that monkey that took a selfie and might therefore own the copyright to the photograph that came from the camera David Slater set up? with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2017/07/can-peta-sue-on-behalf-of-that-monkey.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: