Monkey Business: PETA Sues On Behalf Of The Monkey Selfie; Claims Copyright Belongs To The Monkey

from the this-case-is-bananas dept

Remember the monkey selfie? That is the photo that was taken by a macaque monkey in Indonesia, using a camera left on the ground by photographer David Slater. It first became a story back in 2011 when the photographs of the monkey became a bit of an amusing filler piece for some newspapers. But because we're always interested in the copyright elements of this, we focused on whether or not there was any copyright at all in the photograph. This has become a story that, apparently, will never die. It started when we received a takedown notice over the monkey selfie, leading us to explain, in great detail, why the image is in the public domain. Slater himself eventually chimed in with a ridiculous and wrong understanding of copyright law, in which he insisted that he actually deserved the copyright. But he was wrong.

The story seemed to die down for a while, but became a thing again last year when Wikipedia also refused to take down the public domain image. As we noted, the whole fight highlighted how ridiculous the belief is that everything must be owned. Even more ridiculous was that David Slater then threatened the public interest group Public Knowledge over the monkey selfie... and then we received a totally laughable cease & desist based on a questionable scheme claiming some sort of "personality rights" for the monkey under the laws of Guernsey (don't ask).

While all of this was going on, Sarah Jeong wrote a pretty funny satire piece about why the monkey should get the copyright... but it appears that the publicity hounds at PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), who are known for their ridiculous publicity stunts, decided that this was a cause worth taking up and have now filed a lawsuit on behalf of the monkey against the photographer David Slater. Think of it as abusing the legal system for publicity.

Okay, while we've gone over the legal arguments in great detail in the past, let's do a quick recap. There are three general arguments about the copyright in the photo: (1) Slater has the copyright (2) the monkey has the copyright or (3) no one has the copyright and the image is in the public domain. (1) is clearly not true. In order to get the copyright you need to take the picture or have the copyright assigned to you, which would require the photographer to go through the process of assigning the copyright to you. Slater said from the beginning that he left the cameras on the ground and the curious monkeys took the photograph, so by his own words, he made it clear that he was not the photographer and does not get the copyright. On (2), copyright law is pretty clear that only humans can get copyrights, and thus the monkey cannot have the copyright, nor can it assign the copyright to a human, because it never had it in the first place. So the remaining option is (3) the image is in the public domain.

In fact, last year the Copyright Office itself weighed in on this with its Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, which pretty clearly states no copyright on monkey selfies: So that brings us today's news, in which PETA has filed a copyright lawsuit, in the name of the monkey against the photographer, claiming that the monkey holds the copyright and that Slater has infringed. We agree that Slater does not hold the copyright, but the idea that the monkey does is wrong too. Also... um... how the hell does PETA have the right to represent the monkey or standing to file this lawsuit? But, yes, the filing is in the name of the monkey, which is -- according to PETA -- Naruto. From the lawsuit:

Naruto has the right to own and benefit from the copyright in the Monkey Selfies in the same manner and to the same extent as any other author. Had the Monkey Selfies been made by a human using Slater’s unattended camera, that human would be declared the photographs’ author and copyright owner. While the claim of authorship by species other than homo sapiens may be novel, “authorship” under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., is sufficiently broad so as to permit the protections of the law to extend to any original work, including those created by Naruto. Naruto should be afforded the protection of a claim of ownership, and the right to recover damages and other relief for copyright infringement, as asserted on his behalf by the Next Friends.

The lawsuit then requests that the court not only give the (non-existent) copyright to the monkey, but then allow PETA to administer the copyright on the monkey's behalf. The lawsuit doesn't even attempt to get around the whole "not by a person" thing other than to claim that these monkeys are really special. They may be, but it doesn't change the law.

Also, it barely seems worth mentioning, but PETA seems to also ignore that the statute of limitations on copyright law is... three years. And the photograph was taken over four years ago. As Matt Schruers notes, it appears that the plaintiff, Naruto, was, well, "monkeying around" all this time, rather than filing a lawsuit in the allowed time period. Amazingly, PETA got a decently large and well known law firm, Irell & Manella, which handles lots of copyright cases, to file this joke of a lawsuit.

This case can and should be tossed out for a whole variety of reasons from standing to statute of limitations to simple basic copyright law. But, again, if it's all just yet another publicity stunt by PETA, it's not clear that they care. But, using the judicial system for publicity stunts is generally frowned upon. Whether or not this monkey business is sanctionable is something that a judge may have to explore eventually.

Filed Under: copyright, david slater, monkey selfie, monkeys, public domain
Companies: irell & manella, peta

Law Firms Removing Their Name From SOPA Supporters' List; SOPA 'Support' Crumbling

from the well-look-at-that dept

So we were just discussing how a bunch of companies who were listed by the US Chamber of Commerce as SOPA/PIPA supporters are demanding to be taken off the list, noting that, while they had agreed to a generic statement about fighting the sale of counterfeit goods, they don't support crazy broad legislation like SOPA/PIPA. It seems that others listed as "supporting" SOPA are scrambling to get off the list as well. The Judiciary Committee's official list had included a bunch of big name law firms as being in support of the law as well -- which is a little strange, since law firms usually don't take official positions on things like this. They may express opinions on such matters on behalf of clients, but outright supporting legislation is a different ballgame altogether.

A group of lawyers (most of whom have a long history of working with the entertainment industry) did send a letter to the Judiciary Committee to say that they agreed with Floyd Abrams' analysis of SOPA. That's it. They didn't say their firms supported SOPA -- and, in fact, there's an asterisk with the signatures noting that the names of their firms are solely for identification purposes. Yet the Judiciary Committee took those names anyway and put them on the supporters list. Expressing a legal opinion on a bill is extraordinarily different from supporting the bill. But the Judiciary Committee ignored that and listed them as supporters anyway.

From what we've heard, many of those law firms are not happy, and have been demanding removal from the Judiciary Committee's official list. Among those who have already complained/been taken off the official list are Morrison & Foerster, Davis Wright Tremaine, Irell & Manella, Covington & Burling. I would hope that the Judiciary Committee removes all the names and issues a rather public apology for blatantly including the names of firms who clearly made no statement in support of the proposed legislation. This is a pretty egregious move on the part of House Judiciary Committee staff. They're so eager to list supporters that they've been naming firms who do not support the bills. And then they've been using those claims to pretend there's widespread support...

So, between the US Chamber of Commerce stretching what many companies thought they were supporting and pretending it meant support for SOPA/PIPA, and the Judiciary Committee's over-eagerness to assume that a legal analysis of one part of the bill by a few lawyers meant their huge law firms supported the bill... it's looking like the facade of widespread corporate support for SOPA is crumbling pretty quickly...

Filed Under: house judiciary committee, law firms, legal analysis, pipa, protect ip, sopa, support
Companies: covington & burling, davis wright tremaine, irell & manella, morrison & foerster, us chamber of commerce