The only kind of release I can think of that a monkey can produce will come from its behind... so yes, that's a perfect thing to fling at the lawyers.Originally Posted by Peter Mounier
The only kind of release I can think of that a monkey can produce will come from its behind... so yes, that's a perfect thing to fling at the lawyers.
A monkey owns all of my copyrights...
Watch it prove to be work for higher.
or with just a little work this could be funny...
It's a good thing the macaque took the pictures from where the camera was setup. Because if he took it up into the trees, then David Slater could claim he was working for higher.
The monkey also made pictures of the camera owner. I think a null declaration of copyright is in order.
.
I was under the impression that all selfies are taken by monkeys.
I visited San Diego Zoo in the early 70's and came upon a gorilla throwing green shit, direct from his source and hitting the audience. Fortunately I got the idea real quick and was able to enjoy the show as much as the gorilla was.The only kind of release I can think of that a monkey can produce will come from its behind... so yes, that's a perfect thing to fling at the lawyers.
It was hilarious and not a camera to be found...
But my memory is clear. Later a camel spit at me, he also missed.
Tin Can
Primates are notorious for flinging sh... stuff. And so are lawyers.
PETA are notorious for flinging similar ... stuff, if perhaps from different openings. OK, perhaps a bit judgmental, but this case seems stretch, to say the least.Primates are notorious for flinging sh... stuff. And so are lawyers.
PETA are correct that nothing in §102(a) of the US Copyright Act specifically require human authorship. And nothing in that section requires that a work be made by something living or that the thing even reside on this planet.
In December 2014, in Chapter 300 of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, the Copyright Office stated “the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work.” The decisional law cited for this position is pretty old (late 19th century), and apparently PETA are unconvinced that it is controlling. Their attorney, Jeffrey Kerr, claims “Copyright law is clear: It’s not the person who owns the camera, it’s the being who took the photograph.” I’d say he’s pulling this out of an orifice that has previously been discussed ...
It also looks as though Slater’s dispute with Wikimedia has yet to be resolved, and I assume that it won’t be unless the matter goes before a judge. Hard to say what might happen, but Slater’s case seems more plausible than PETA’s, probably hinging on how much of the creative effort was Slater’s, as several IP lawyers have pointed out. Does your assistant own copyright absent a written assignment to you? Whether any conceivable judgment could justify the cost of litigation is another matter.
The Daily Mail has a fairly good summary.
Well, if the courts rule that those monkey's own image copyright then I guess they'll have human rights including the right to vote. Maybe they'll do a better job of electing officials than we do.
By US law, a copyright infringement case will not be heard in Federal court unless the item is officially copyrighted first. How can the monkey do that? PETA or a proxy would have to do it, and it seems unlikely the US Copyright office will allow it.It also looks as though Slater’s dispute with Wikimedia has yet to be resolved, and I assume that it won’t be unless the matter goes before a judge.
.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks