Primatologist Tells Court That Macaque Monkeys Are, Like, Super Smart, So They Should Totally Get Copyrights
from the oh-really-now? dept
The case of the monkey selfie keeps getting weirder and weirder. I'm not going to rehash the whole damn story again -- just click the monkey selfie link above and scroll through the posts. Here's the super short version though: A British photographer named David Slater left his camera on the ground in an Indonesian jungle, where a macaque monkey (which we're now, much later, told is named Naruto, though there's some dispute over this) approached the camera and took a selfie. There were all sorts of debates online about whether or not there was any copyright in the photo and, if so, who owned it, with Slater repeatedly insisting that he did (and occasionally having representatives threaten us). A few years later, out of the blue came PETA, claiming that it represented the monkey (Naruto) and was suing Slater for copyright infringement for publishing a book with the photos. A judge, rightly, tossed out the lawsuit, pointing out (as we had argued from the very beginning) that a monkey has no right to a copyright, and the law only applies to human persons. PETA and its actually well-known and until now mostly respected law firm, Irell & Manella, have appealed the ruling.And, now, believe it or not, PETA has gotten a primatologist and apparent "macaque expert" named Agustin Fuentes to file an amicus brief supporting the idea that a macaque monkey taking a selfie should hold the copyright in the image. Fuentes may be a macaque expert, but he's not much of a copyright expert... and it shows. The brief mainly focuses on how smart macaque monkeys are, as evidence that being smart somehow means it deserves the copyright.
Naruto, like other macaques, had likely made the connection between manipulation of the camera as an item and the sound of the shutter and the changing image in the lens as the shutter clicked. This may have been interesting for Naruto as he was noted as performing this behavior many times. It is likely that he had seen the human manipulation of the camera and heard the sounds it made and, as is common for macaques, became curious to investigate it on his own. This in no way assumes Naruto had any cognizance of the concept of a photograph but rather that the actions and noises made by the camera were enticing and that through explorative manipulation Naruto was able to cause the camera to make such sounds/actions. Naruto intentionally engaged in interactions with the camera.That's all nice and stuff, but is has fuck all to do with the question of copyright. The purpose of copyright is to provide the incentives to create works so that the public can enjoy them. It's the intent of copyright to create a limited monopoly such that the author of the work can use that artificial monopoly to earn money for some period of time, and those profits help incentivize the creation.
Yet here, Fuentes basically admits that it's not the copyright that's the incentive here, but the neat clicking sound and what happens when the shutter is pressed.
Particularly relevant for this case, macaques can frequently understand basic correlations between acts of object manipulation and specific results. There is no question that macaques manipulate material objects with an expectation of specific outcomes. They understand, for example, that by hitting snail shells with rocks, they can crack open and retrieve the snail. Naruto’s behavior in creating the photographs in dispute is consistent with a macaque’s interest in and capacity for sophisticated object manipulation. Naruto certainly understood that he was intentionally engaged in actions with an object that was stimulating. He could recognize the association between his actions and the shutter movement and sound. These photographs are not the result of an accident; they result from specific and intentional manipulation of the camera by Naruto.Again, even if true, that means absolutely nothing for the copyright question. The laws apply to people, not to animals, unless expressly written that way. That's a basic tenet of the law. The only weak attempt to tie this back to the copyright question is basically Fuentes and his lawyer arguing that "the law changes based on new data."
Some of the Supreme Court’s most significant modern decisions have hinged, at least in part, on attempts to understand emerging science and empirical data.This is also true... but irrelevant. It absolutely does not matter. And, on top of that, he's introducing no new "science" here other than "macaque monkeys are smart." So what? That has no bearing on whether or not a monkey gets a copyright -- to which the answer is as pretty definitive: Hell no.
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: agustin fuentes, copyright, david slater, monkey selfie, naruto, primatologist, public domain
Companies: peta
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and Incentivize the Creation of Random Noises..."
Even assuming for the sake of argument that they expert is right, that the actions were intentional, the fact remains that the 'intent' as described by said expert was not to create a picture, but rather to make noise. Press button, get noise.
Given the purpose behind copyright is to provide incentive to create more works(pictures, music or otherwise), rather than create more camera clicks, even after giving this argument far more weight than it deserves it still fails to explain why the monkey deserves a copyright over the photo in question.
If the point of the monkey's action was to create noise it would have likely done the same thing with a completely dead and/or broken camera so long as it made the same noise. Copyright had nothing to do with it's motivation and a more 'expansive' copyright wouldn't have had any impact on it's actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But Macaque Monkeys need to get paid!
Without copyright, how would macaque monkeys get paid? And thus what incentive would they have to create additional copyrightable works?
And please don't argue about artistry or creativity of macaque monkeys. The creative works of macaque monkeys are at least on a par with most of what Hollywood churns out.
Not only wouldn't the macaque monkeys get paid, but neither would the monopolist gatekeepers who exploit and represent them. Just like with other artists and creators.
Without the income from copyright, how would macaque monkeys enjoy the finer things in life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But Macaque Monkeys need to get paid!
I wonder how copyright views the outcome the Infinite monkey theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Would some work comparable to Shakespeare and produced that way be copyrightable? And more interestingly, would it infringe on others' work if it's close enough?
To take it from comical, to more piratical realm, let's say you have a program / artificial intelligence which makes creative works. Is AI a person? And are those works copyrightable / infringing on others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and Incentivize the Creation of Random Noises..."
That monkey has STOLEN from them! We need that monkey to provide compensation for such a horrible act of theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and Incentivize the Creation of Random Noises..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and Incentivize the Creation of Random Noises..."
This is the 21st century, and it is unclear which one the police would lock up today. So you need to be clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and Incentivize the Creation of Random Noises..."
The monkey.
But maybe the camera owner too, for aiding and abetting theft by leaving the camera where the monkey could get it. If they're going to lock people for secondary liability in criminal copyright infringement, then why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and Incentivize the Creation of Random Noises..."
Yes. Can't be too careful after all, who knows what that monkey might get up to, and with the camera owner's history of negligently facilitating grant theft camera everyone is probably safer if he's behind bars as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and Incentivize the Creation of Random Noises..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, and Incentivize the Creation of Random Noises..."
When the video contradicts the police, it's clear that the video must be lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does the opposite apply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does the opposite apply?
But all that doesn't doesn't matter. Pure self-interest will force politicians to disallow such a notion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a sec...
Changed my mind, go Team Monkey!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a sec...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a sec...
"Your Honor, we copyright holders are all shit-flinging monkeys. It therefore stands to reason why our hairier brothers must also enjoy similar protection."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, fine.
If they want to enjoy rights, they most certainly also have to obey the obligations of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ok, fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ok, fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ok, fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abolish copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the next step...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still confused.
Isn't this exactly the type of shenanigans that got some of the Prenda folks into trouble? Claiming to represent people that they don't.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still confused.
He has a twin sister, Maruto. How do they know he's not stealing her copyright?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still confused.
That's how he signed them as his representatives.
These monkeys are really intelligent, haven't you heard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still confused.
PETA lawyer: Now, Mr Naruto, by saying "Oo-oo, Ee-ee" you are granting unto PETA, all rights to any and all of your still pictures, in perPETAuity, in exchange for this banana. Do you accept?"
Naruto: Oo-oo, Ee-ee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would like to see the faces of whoever seeks to get paid here when they start recieving boxes of bananas in the mail, hopefully some that have been underway for a few weeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suggest that anyone using that photograph pay up...by sending turds to their local PETA office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sooooo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spoken Like an Artist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell, the monkey didn't even go through a psych evaluation to see if it should have a carer given power of attorney over it's financial affairs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oracle, Warner Bros, Sony, Universal, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, MPAA, RIAA, BPI and hollywood (and others) all stripped of every single copyright they ever owned.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're a corporate front designed to show 'outrage' to get cheap publicity.
They were paid millions by Nintendo to get 'outraged' by Cookin' Mama when it was released.
Again paid large sums of money by McDonalds when they introduced the 'big tasty burger' in the UK....
the list goes on and on. 100% fake organization only there to try to get some column inches in the news....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who do you propose is paying them in this case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But surely in order to be a corporate front, they have to exist, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To what end? What corporations benefit from the publicity that PETA gets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the primatologist didn't tell us...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the monkey gets copyright..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It shows how broken copyright is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It shows how broken copyright is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you species-ist? Monkeys are already in some of the highest levels of government in the world. How can you possibly deny them their rights?
Seriously go watch honest trailers Zootopia on YouTube and educate yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want some money too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want some money too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Valley Speak headlines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Valley Speak headlines
Like, totally?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The monkey is smart compared to what ...
b) human beings
c) PETA lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next week's story
The following week Getty Images will be sued for claiming they own the copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monkey see, monkey do.
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its only going to get worse
One of the females, Kiani has a thing for selfies. She loves both taking them and looking at the results. Vanity is clearly not just a human trait
So yes, there a literally hundreds of monkey selfies out there.
Cue the Lawyers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]