Judge In Nutty PETA Monkey Copyright Trial Skeptical Of PETA's Argument, But Let's Them Try Again
from the monkey-business dept
As you know, we've been covering PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)'s absolutely insane lawsuit claiming to represent the monkey who took this selfie:
However, the case took a turn towards the absolutely surreal when PETA stepped in, claimed that it represented the monkey (which it decided is named "Naruto") and that the monkey did, in fact, hold the copyright. It also sued Slater, who despite saying mean things about us in particular, we side with in this case in at least saying that PETA has zero claim, and it's ridiculous that they've dragged Slater into court. Since then, the legal arguments have been increasingly surreal.
Yesterday in San Francisco, Judge William Orrick, held a hearing over the request by Slater (and his publishing partner Blurb, who is a co-defendant) to dismiss the case entirely, because it's about a freaking monkey copyright. The judge, apparently, was somewhat amused by the whole situation, but did not appear even remotely sympathetic to PETA's arguments (for which, I should remind you, the organization is using a very well-known IP law firm, Irell & Manella). Judge Orrick didn't dismiss the case outright, but rather gave PETA a chance to amend the suit after noting some issues with it as it stands. PETA now has to decide if it's even worth it to submit a new complaint, recognizing that the judge may not be particularly open to their whole "animals can get copyright" arguments.
Reporter Sarah Jeong, who attended the hearing, noted some of the more insane arguments from PETA's lawyers (again, from a big, well-recognized law firm), including the idea that "if there's an author, it follows that there must be a copyright" (that's flat out false), and if there's "value" in the image, that also means there must be a copyright. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. And thankfully, the judge appears to recognize that. Oh, and how can I forget the argument that this is just like how slaves couldn't own patents before the 14th Amendment. Except this case is nothing like that (at all).
Anyway, the case isn't over yet. PETA might decide to walk away, but since this is all just a giant publicity stunt for PETA (don't worry, we didn't forget that!), that seems unlikely. It's likely that they'll try again and get laughed out of court.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, david slater, monkey selfie, naruto, peta, public domain
Companies: blurb, peta
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Copyright serves no non-human purpose
First, this is one of my favourite pictures in life. Period. Whenever I hear the word "selfie," I just see that monkey.On the substance though... look, I'm way more sympathetic to PETA as an organization and even the idea of non-human animal personhood these days. I've gone through a huge conversion on animal issues. I'm honestly unsure if some non-human animals should actually be considered persons (depends what we mean by person...).
But, grant that for the sake of argument -- this lawsuit still makes absolutely no sense.
Let's recognize that legal personhood has a nasty history of being used to exclude humans and deny them legal rights, and let's admit for the sake of argument this is true at times for non-human animals.
What possible purpose could copyright ever serve a monkey?
Copyright is about providing an incentive to create. Does anyone, even anyone at PETA, seriously believe that monkeys wouldn't take selfies without copyright? (I never thought I would have to ask that question...)
Even if monkeys are persons... copyright is about humans. This is about human technology, human laws, and more importantly, about an incentive for humans to create. What possible use could any animal have for human laws about... well... imaginary property?
Even if you believe monkeys need an incentive to create, it wouldn't be through human copyright. I'd suggest a banana...
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This case can be expected to drag on for some time
I rest my case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This case can be expected to drag on for some time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is how Planet of the Apes got started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is how Planet of the Apes got started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...I'm sure someone in PETA will be a monkey's uncle before this is all through...
Start to worry if they apply for a guardianship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AI
I believe that gets into work-for-hire land which copyright already covers. If you're a wage-slave/employee and you do something on your own time that turns out to be valuable, your employer owns it. Should'a been a contractor instead (and read that contract carefully).
Can't have those slaves earning enough to buy their freedom now, can we, especially when we're being dinged mercilessly for their benefit package?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I very much doubt the monkey even knows any of this is happening, much less what a lawyer is or why it'd need or want one. As the article says, this's all just PETA PR grandstanding, pretty much all they ever do or have ever done. The monkey's never going to get anything out of it, much like any class action suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you bring up a good point..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've said it once, I'll say it again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You need this in your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, better read it now ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a pervading sense of callous exploitation going on right now with regards to the wholesale devastation of ecosystem's, genetic manipulation, and "ownership" of form's of life wherein they have no rights to even their own bodies, which, while you can debate the necessities of farming practices, agriculture, research, and development, is troubling on many different level's. Animals aren't stupid, Crows for example have their own culture and customs, have a language with over 250 different "words" in two different dialects, teach their young, craft tools, and mourn their dead. Oh but their just crows. Fuck em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah, it's a lot more fun to shoot them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The photo shows why copyright law is unnecessary
1) The monkey had no knowledge of copyright law
2) The picture is a creation worthy of protection and adds to all the stuff copyright is supposed to encourage
Therefore copyright DID NOT provide incentives for the creation. Which means that in this case, copyright was irrelevant and society has no benefit for granting a monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright serves no non-human purpose
On the substance though... look, I'm way more sympathetic to PETA as an organization and even the idea of non-human animal personhood these days. I've gone through a huge conversion on animal issues. I'm honestly unsure if some non-human animals should actually be considered persons (depends what we mean by person...).
But, grant that for the sake of argument -- this lawsuit still makes absolutely no sense.
Let's recognize that legal personhood has a nasty history of being used to exclude humans and deny them legal rights, and let's admit for the sake of argument this is true at times for non-human animals.
What possible purpose could copyright ever serve a monkey?
Copyright is about providing an incentive to create. Does anyone, even anyone at PETA, seriously believe that monkeys wouldn't take selfies without copyright? (I never thought I would have to ask that question...)
Even if monkeys are persons... copyright is about humans. This is about human technology, human laws, and more importantly, about an incentive for humans to create. What possible use could any animal have for human laws about... well... imaginary property?
Even if you believe monkeys need an incentive to create, it wouldn't be through human copyright. I'd suggest a banana...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright serves no non-human purpose
(I loved following your argument by the way!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, granting "human rights" (including copyrights) to animals is a step I wouldn't make, for several reasons.
The very first one, which is the core of the other reasons, is that "the Law" is a whole. If animals are to benefit from it, they should comply to the whole. If they "want" copyrights (or if anyone wants copyrights to apply to them), we'll have to start suing animals for murder, theft, etc. (Heck, in that situation the monkey could have been sued if he broke or stole the camera. Would that also make sense?) Not to mention taxes. (Unless we make specific tax exemption rules for "animal persons".
At the same time, we'll have to stop slaughtering them for food or experimentations. (And I doubt all PETA members are vegan.)
I can understand the concept of "animal cruelty" being a crime (I even subscribe to it), but even this concept does NOT consider the animal as a "person".
Second, we'll have to decide where to draw the line, if any. If apes and/or monkeys are ok to consider as "persons", what about other animals? Dolphins? Dogs and cats? Rats? Elephants? What about insects? Spiders? Plants even? (They might not be mobile, but they are definitely living organisms.)
I'll finish with a third point (we could discuss it for hours otherwise): even assuming "animal as persons" in law, how would we apply this in practice?
For domestic animals, I can imagine the base idea.
Wild animals are a whole other matter: they don't recognize borders, so which national law would apply? The one they happen to be in at the time they are "caught" for a "crime" or "victimized" or "create a copyright work"? Or would they be given an arbitrary "citizenship"? How about legal representation? Is it "first come, first served" for any lawyer/organisation who wants the case? Would they get "public defenders" in case nobody shows up to its defense?
Some people mentioned that children have rights despite not fully understanding the law, but that's mostly on the assumption that they'll grow up into understanding it and accept it. Even so, they only benefit limited rights as they don't have full personal autonomy and responsibility. (Although that is also quite a broken assumption given that the average adult barely understand enough to avoid most legal problems...)
Animals can't be assumed to eventually understand and complying with the law.
So, simply put, this makes no sense until animals prove they can integrate to human society as full "persons". If that happens, we'll amend the law to include whatever animal reached that point into the legal definition of a "person".
For now, let's just stop this farce, and have the judge laugh this case out of court. Please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PETA
Boy, was I wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PETA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]