Man sued by monkey (macaque)

smurfjed

A photographer left his camera unattended in Indonesia, a macaque picked up the camera and took an awesome selfie. The photographer published that photo in a book and assumed the copyright for it.
Now he is getting sued in the USA by PETA who insist that the macaque owns the rights to the photo. 
Its not as if PETA can give the money to the macaque or even discuss how he would like to spend it, so to me the whole thing is bizarre.
The photographer now claims to be broke due to legal fees.
So who do you think should own the photograph rights?

Tabnabs

Man sued by PETA so...?

kunst nugget

Fook Peta. They are nothing but a bunch of publicity hungry arseholes.

Hector Bellend

This is nuts.

Monkey nuts

Canis Lupus

Good old PETA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

gramar

The photographer left the camera with the specific intention that the monkeys pressed the button and took a photo of themselves. This implies consent by the monkeys who willfully took their own picture so legally the image should belong to the photographer but now it's a case of monkey see monkey sue.

Professor Moriarty

Looking forward to the trial and the macaque's testimony.

whoopsadoodles

Is this not a few years old?

glynf

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Looking forward to the trial and the macaque's testimony.

Can see it now... Lots of screeching followed by throwing a healthy sized lump of ****e at the jury.

kunst nugget

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

Is this not a few years old?

It's an ongoing case since around 2015.

whoopsadoodles

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's an ongoing case since around 2015.

Just did a bit of digging, the PETA v Photographer case is going since 2015. Prior to that, in 2014, Wikipedia had posted the images and Slater (photographer) tried to claim copyright and have them removed. He was unsuccessful.

The photos were taken in 2011.

gramar

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

Just did a bit of digging, the PETA v Photographer case is going since 2015. Prior to that, in 2014, Wikipedia had posted the images and Slater (photographer) tried to claim copyright and have them removed. He was unsuccessful.

The photos were taken in 2011.

It's been going on for monkey's years so.

biko

I wish PETA would focus more on ethical treatment of animals and less on publicity stunts.

Peregrinus

Well, in fairness, PETA didn't start this. Slater, the photographer, started it by suing others who reproduced the photograph, claiming that he had the copyright it it. The US copyright office has ruled that, in its view, there can be no copyright in a photograph taken by an animal, a view which is (to put it mildly) not helpful to Slater's case. Slater has nevertheless continued his proceedings against, among others, the Wikipedia Foundation. (The photograph is available on Wikimedia Commons.) Slater hopes that the courts will not uphold the Copyright Office view.

PETA, like Slater, rejects the US Copyright Office view that there can be no copyright in a photograph taken by an animal. However, unlike Slater, they take the view that the copyright belongs not to the person who set up the opportunity for the animal to take the photograph, but rather to a trust for the benefit of the community of animals involved.

When last I checked, PETA had lost their proceedings, because the judge took the US copyright office view, but had appealed, and the appeal was yet to be heard. If the appeal court confirms that there can be no copyright in a photograph taken by an animal, that will also dispose of Slater's proceedings against Wikipedia and others.

Hector Savage

How is this nonsense even entertained in court ?
Why don't judges just dismiss the case ?

To think a man is broke by this f*cking nonsense is bizarre.
Thank christ I don't live in America.

Are Am Eye

This court action will die on the vine.

Glenster

I saw this on the guardian yesterday.

He's a very moany bloke. Going on about leaving the copyright as an inheritance to his daughter. Says that the picture has saved the macaque from extinction.

Talking about how if everyone who used the picture paid him a dollar he'd be a multi millionaire. (I assume he means 6 year olds posting it on their twitter feed.)

Get over yourself mate.


Edit: He also tried to get the picture taken down by Wikipedia!!!! Obviously a moron.

loudymacloud

glynf wrote: »

Can see it now... Lots of screeching followed by throwing a healthy sized lump of ****e at the jury.

and that was just from the photographer

WoollyRedHat

I hope this is drawn out to it's natural conclusion where the monkey is put in the stand. For fairness and equality sake half the lawyer cross-examining the case should be a monkey. Speaking of monkeys, there should be some monkey representation on the jury otherwise it should be called a mistrial.

corner of hells

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I hope this is drawn out to it's natural conclusion where the monkey is put in the stand. For fairness and equality sake half the lawyer cross-examining the case should be a monkey. Speaking of monkeys, there should be some monkey representation on the jury otherwise it should be called a mistrial.

I , for one , would make it my business to attend that trial.

There might even be a film later , soundtrack of course with hits from " the Monkees".
🎶 then I saw her face , now I'm a believer"🎵

BuyersRemorse

Wikipedia are the arseholes in this. Didn't want to pay a fee for using the photo, so they dug up one of their corporate lawyers to argue the 'Monkey copyright' angle. It was on Channel 4 news a few years ago.

Sam Kade

So the monkey gets the money like in the pink panther

alchemist33

If this was chimpanzee it would have been settled out of court months ago. But with a macaque, nooooo. They're probably the most litigious of the primates.

WoollyRedHat

alchemist33 wrote: »

If this was chimpanzee it would have been settled out of court months ago. But with a macaque, nooooo. They're probably the most litigious of the primates.

That's because chimpanzees are constantly making false claims. Que bonobo.

Are Am Eye

They tried to settle it on the steps of the court. But the monkey was
on the roof.

Gravelly

Another publicity scam by PETA (people eating tasty animals). They are a fairly sad bunch.

kunst nugget

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

That's because chimpanzees are constantly making false claims. Que bonobo.

Yeah, they're not gibbon the time of day in court.

gramar

He'll go apeshít if the ruling goes against him.

MOH

Hector Savage wrote: »

How is this nonsense even entertained in court ?
Why don't judges just dismiss the case ?

To think a man is broke by this f*cking nonsense is bizarre.
Thank christ I don't live in America.

Neither does the photographer. He's from Wales. The picture was taken in Indonesia. I'm not entirely clear why US copyright law is relevant.

Glenster wrote: »

I saw this on the guardian yesterday.

He's a very moany bloke. Going on about leaving the copyright as an inheritance to his daughter. Says that the picture has saved the macaque from extinction.

Edit: He also tried to get the picture taken down by Wikipedia!!!! Obviously a moron.

Yeah, he's so moany. Utter moron for trying to prevent people using the picture he went to great lengths to capture, for free. He should really just fly around the world at his own expense taking photos and donating them to the public for free. He's such a selfish tosser.

(the article is here)

gramar

MOH wrote: »

Neither does the photographer. He's from Wales. The picture was taken in Indonesia. I'm not entirely clear why US copyright law is relevant.



Yeah, he's so moany. Utter moron for trying to prevent people using the picture he went to great lengths to capture, for free. He should really just fly around the world at his own expense taking photos and donating them to the public for free. He's such a selfish tosser.

(the article is here)

How much is boards paying for the use of the photo on this page?

greencap

kunst nugget wrote: »

Yeah, they're not gibbon the time of day in court.

The entyre swing is bananas.

MOH

gramar wrote: »

How much is boards paying for the use of the photo on this page?

I've no idea? Although I'd guess if they were contacted by someone claiming to own the copyright they'd probably pull it.

I was also just wondering whether the news articles yesterday about how the guy is broke had paid anything to use the photo.

The kick in the nuts is that copy of the picture actually has WikiCommons claiming copyright, which is bizarre.

Glenster

gramar wrote: »

How much is boards paying for the use of the photo on this page?

I can see the picture on my computer screen right now, how much do I owe him?

Glenster

MOH wrote: »

Yeah, he's so moany. Utter moron for trying to prevent people using the picture he went to great lengths to capture, for free. He should really just fly around the world at his own expense taking photos and donating them to the public for free. He's such a selfish tosser.

(the article is here)

He should get a real job.

Gravelly

Glenster wrote: »

He should get a real job.

Ouch - you'll have the photographers out to get you after that - they'll torture you by making you stand in one spot for ages, sucking in your gut and grinning.

Professor Moriarty

Gravelly wrote: »

Ouch - you'll have the photographers out to get you after that - they'll torture you by making you stand in one spot for ages, sucking in your gut and grinning.

Will it be gorilla warfare?