PETA Has Lost Its Monkey's 'Next Friend' In Its Crazy Copyright Case

from the the-monkey's-uncle-is-missing dept

The ongoing saga that is the monkey selfie lawsuit has continued to move forward, with the lawyers for photographer David Slater filing their brief in response to PETA's. As you probably recall, PETA had teamed up with a primatologist named Antje Engelhardt claiming to be "next friends" for the Indonesian macaque monkey named Naruto, who is alleged to have taken the following selfie with David Slater's camera. Slater has claimed to hold the copyright on the photo for a long time, though he's wrong. But PETA is much more wrong in arguing that it can step in and claim both (a) that there is a copyright on the image and (b) that the monkey holds it. Slater is just wrong about the copyright existing.

Either way, the PETA case was easily tossed out of the district court based on the fact that monkeys can't get copyrights under US law (US laws don't apply to animals unless specifically stated -- this is why farms aren't legally considered murder camps, no matter what some vegetarians might say). And, of course, PETA appealed. And we expect it will go about as well as the district court case. But it may go even worse.

That's because in the reply, Slater's lawyer points out that not only can a monkey not hold a copyright, but also that PETA has even less standing than before, because the primatologist, Antje Engelhardt, has decided she's no longer a next friend of our buddy Naruto, the smiling monkey.

On appeal, the crazy got crazier. Dr. Engelhardt withdrew from the case. That leaves PETA, which does not allege any relationship with the monkey, as the monkey’s sole next friend.

[....]

Two putative next friends filed this action: PETA and Dr. Engelhardt, a primatologist who alleged that she has “known, monitored, and studied Naruto since his birth.” ER 23. It may well be that the relationship with Naruto Dr. Engelhardt alleged is “significant” under Coalition of Clergy v. Bush. However, Dr. Engelhardt moved to withdraw from the case, informing the Court that she “will not continue as a next friend to Appellant in this proceeding.” This Court granted Dr. Engelhardt’s motion, thus leaving PETA as Naruto’s lone putative next friend.

This is a fairly big problem for PETA and its big time (seriously) lawyers from the (previously respectable) law firm of Irell & Manella.

Unlike Dr. Engelhardt, PETA did not allege any relationship with Naruto, much less a significant one. That is a problem on appeal. PETA is now in a position very much like the ballot initiative defenders in Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013): a party necessary for standing at the district court is not participating in the appeal. “[S]tanding must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance.” Id. at 2661 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

All of the Naruto relationship allegations in the Complaint concern Dr. Engelhardt; none involve PETA.... PETA alleges no connection to Naruto, an Indonesian monkey who lives roughly 10,000 miles from PETA’s headquarters in Virginia.

In other words, even if Engelhardt had standing, PETA doesn't.

The filing also contains its fair share of monkey jokes, so we'll just end this post with a few of those:

Under controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, monkey see, monkey sue is not good law under any Act of Congress unless the legislative text plainly grants non-human animals standing to sue.

[....]

The only pertinent fact in this case is that Naruto is a monkey suing for copyright infringement.

Either way, one hopes that the court makes quick work of this case as well, but it is 9th Circuit, which perhaps deserves copyright on its... creative interpretations of copyright law at times. Hopefully this isn't one of those cases.

Filed Under: animals, antje engelhardt, copyright, david slater, monkey, monkey selfie, public domain, standing
Companies: irell & manella, peta

The Selfie Monkey Strikes Back: Lawyers Claim Of Course Monkeys Can Sue For Copyright

from the because-they-can't dept

The monkey selfie story is the gift that keeps on giving. When we last left the monkey, who PETA insists goes by the name "Naruto," the website Blurb and the didn't-take-the-monkey-photos-photographer David Slater had both pointed out to the court the simple fact that monkeys can't sue for copyright infringement and the lawsuit that PETA filed on behalf of the monkey was completely ridiculous. If you don't recall, these monkey selfies are unquestionably in the public domain, even if Slater still argues that he holds the copyright on them. He didn't take the photos, as his own statements indicate, and thus the photos are in the public domain (longer explanation at that link). But the idea that the monkey might own the copyright is something that Slater and I completely agree on: it's not even in the realm of possibility. Until PETA sued it was only in the realm of satire.

Anyway, PETA's lawyers at the (formerly) prestigious law firm of Irell & Manella have struck back with a filing defending the lawsuit, which they insist is, like, totally real and legit. Which it's not. That Irell & Manella would let itself get played by PETA for a stupid publicity stunt that serves no purpose other than to waste the court's time, really speaks poorly of that firm. Their argument is based on the silly idea that "well, someone must own it, and thus, it should be the monkey." This is wrong on both points, but we'll get there. First, the argument:

This case presents an issue of first impression: Whether human authorship is required for protection of works under the Copyright Act. There is no dispute here that Naruto took the photographs spontaneously and without human assistance. In every practical (and definitional) sense, he is the “author” of the works. Defendants argue that animals have no standing under the statute—that they cannot be “authors.” Yet none of the Defendants suggests that they have any entitlement to ownership of the works. Defendant Blurb implies that any work created by an animal falls into the public domain; Defendant Slater does not argue here that he owns the copyright. These positions are both inconsistent with other statements made by Defendants and wholly inconsistent with the premise of the Copyright Act—every copyright must have an author. And both Blurb and Mr. Slater ignore the fundamental question posed here: Does the Copyright Act permit Plaintiff’s ownership of the works or give him standing to assert claims under that statute? The answer to both questions is “Yes.”

This is wrong on multiple levels. First, even though I totally disagree with him, Slater claims that he holds the copyright. He's also been creatively revising his story since it first came out to suggest that he played a larger role than originally implied in getting the monkey ("Naruto" or not) to take the photo. Second, this belief that (a) there must be a copyright and (b) someone must hold it is wrong. As we've discussed, this is a bit of dangerous thinking, that every bit of cultural output must be "owned" via copyright law. But that's not what the law says at all. It is entirely possible for new works to be created that are in the public domain, and this is clearly one of them.

As for the idea that a monkey can hold the copyright, that has long been debunked. We've said it a bunch of times already, but the Copyright Office itself has made it clear that a work must be created by a human being to be eligible for copyright. David Schwartz, the Irell & Manella lawyer who really is a lawyer, who actually graduated from Duke Law School and clerked for Judge Kozinski, then doubles down on the crazy by arguing that since copyright law was intended to benefit the public by creating incentives for creativity, it's obvious that they meant to cover monkeys.

The text of the statute itself does not compel the conclusion that authorship may be vested exclusively in humans. To the contrary: Since enacting the Copyright Act of 1790, Congress and the Supreme Court have instructed that the copyright laws should be interpreted liberally in order to safeguard the “general benefits derived by the public” from works of authorship.... Copyright protection advances that goal by allowing authors to “disclose” their works without losing control of them.

Think about this for a second. He's trying to claim, first, that Naruto the monkey (who many people dispute even took the photo), not only put such creative thought into the "authorship" of the photo, but also that the monkey requires the exclusivity provided by copyright to properly incentivize the production of the photograph.

Just what kind of monkey crap is that? Copyright law is an incentive to create and then, yes, to distribute. But the monkey doesn't need such an incentive. The monkey was not and is not thinking "gee, if only I could protect this image, well, that's a reason to take this photograph." It's a monkey.

Every copyright must have an “author.” If there is no author, there is no copyright

Yes, and the courts have long recognized that an "author" is a human. Thus, you've just made the case that there is no copyright here. Because there isn't. The photograph is in the public domain.

A key part of PETA's argument that copyright holders don't need to be people is... that corporations can hold copyrights:

In allowing both corporate authors and anonymous authors, the Copyright Act stands in stark contrast to how Congress decided to provide for other intellectual property rights, such as patents. Under the Patent Act, the “inventor”—i.e., patent law’s equivalent of a copyright “author”—specifically excludes corporations and other non-natural persons.... Thus, if Congress wanted to exclude non-human authorship rights, it knew how to do so and would have enacted parallel features into the Copyright Act.

It seems unlikely that this argument will go very far.

Finally, the lawyer seems to argue with a straight face that the public domain is antithetical to the concept of copyright by saying it's impossible to imagine that Congress wanted to support the public domain when it created copyright law. Really.

Without an author, there can be no “fixation,” no “work of authorship,” and thus, no copyright.... Thus, if an animal cannot be an “author,” then any work which “owes its origin” to an animal will not have copyright protection.

Such a result is antithetical to the public interest, and hence, the intent of the drafters of the Copyright Act.

Um, no. That's not antithetical to the public interest at all, unless you believe that the drafters of the Copyright Act didn't believe in the public domain, which they clearly do. The motion was written by someone who appears not to know the first thing about actual copyright law and the concept of the public domain. Again, this is a total embarrassment for Irell & Manella -- a firm that is engaged in lots of big copyright cases. Everyone knows that PETA plays stupid publicity stunts. But for an actual high profile law firm to make arguments like these is an embarrassment.

Filed Under: copyright, david schwartz, david slater, monkey, monkey selfie, naruto, ownership, public domain
Companies: blurb, irell & manella, peta

Monkey See, Monkey Sue... Defendants Ask Judge To Toss Out Ridiculous Monkey Copyright Lawsuit

from the good-going dept

So at the end of September, we wrote about the absolutely insane lawsuit in which PETA -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals -- bizarrely claimed to be representing "Naruto" (whose name we only just learned with that lawsuit), as the "copyright holder" of the image below. Naruto, of course, is the macaque monkey who is famous for taking this photo: Now, we've been writing about this monkey selfie for years now, mostly focusing on why the photo is clearly in the public domain. This issue comes up periodically, with the photographer whose camera "Naruto" used, David Slater, often taking random potshots at Techdirt for explaining basic copyright law to the public. Slater, as you may recall, still likes to insist that he holds the copyright on the photo, and twice has had companies apparently representing himself make dubious legal threats in our general direction.

Still, in a fight between PETA and Slater, we're totally on Slater's side. PETA has even less of a right to the copyright in the photo than Slater -- and Slater has none. Either way, PETA's lawsuit against Slater (along with Blurb, the publishing platform that Slater used to publish a book with the photo) has moved forward with both Slater and Blurb filing motions to dismiss. And given just how ridiculous this lawsuit is, these briefs fit right in. You can tell the lawyers had fun writing these. Slater's motion to dismiss is short and sweet (only 4 pages) and has a truly beautiful opening:

A monkey, an animal-rights organization and a primatologist walk into federal court to sue for infringement of the monkey’s claimed copyright. What seems like the setup for a punchline is really happening. It should not be happening. Under Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004), dismissal of this action is required for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Monkey see, monkey sue is not good law – at least not in the Ninth Circuit.

Not surprisingly, Slater's lawyer doesn't even get into the whole public domain/copyright question at all. Instead, they just focus on the fact that a monkey has no standing to state a claim, and thus the case should be dismissed:

“[I]f Congress and the President intended to take the extraordinary step of authorizing animals as well as people and legal entities to sue, they could, and should, have said so plainly.” Cetacean Community, 386 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Citizens to End Animal Suffering & Exploitation, Inc. v. New England Aquarium, 836 F. Supp. 45, 49 (D. Mass. 1993)). In Cetacean Community, the Ninth Circuit rejected the notion that non-human animals could have standing under four Acts of Congress, including two that Congress enacted for the protection of animals: the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 386 F.3d at 1177-78. The standing inquiry for animals under Cetacean Community is very simple: unless Congress has plainly stated that animals have standing to sue, the federal courts will not read any legislation to confer statutory standing to animals. Id. at 1179.

Congress has not plainly stated that non-human animals have standing to sue for copyright infringement. Nothing in Title 17 of the United States Code even hints at that possibility. Indeed, imagining a monkey as the copyright “author” in Title 17 of the United States Code is a farcical journey Dr. Seuss might have written. The “children” of an “author” can inherit certain rights “whether legitimate or not” and that includes “children legally adopted” by the author. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 201, 203 and 304. An author’s “widow or widower owns the author’s entire termination interest unless there are any surviving children or grandchildren of the author, in which case the widow or widower owns one-half of the author’s interest.” § 203(a)(2)(A). Accepting Plaintiff’s standing argument would present the bizarre possibility of protracted family and probate court battles when the offspring of non-human authors scrum over the rights to valuable works.

Meanwhile, the filing from Blurb is four times as long at 16 pages, and goes into a bit more depth, but is basically making the same argument -- and the lawyers can't resist a few monkey jokes of their own. The very first line makes that clear: "This is a copyright case filed on behalf of a monkey." And from there, Blurb makes a few different arguments, including the fact that a photo taken by a monkey cannot receive copyright protection:

As a threshold matter, Naruto lacks Article III standing to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. Even if Naruto took the Monkey Selfies (a fact contradicted by allegations in the Complaint), he has suffered no injury, much less one that is redressable by this lawsuit. The U.S. Constitution and the Copyright Act contemplate copyright protection only for humans. Accordingly, the action should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of a justiciable case or controversy.

Dismissal is also appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of statutory standing and failure to state a claim. The Copyright Act affords no rights or protections to animals, the courts have repeatedly found that human authorship is required for copyright protection, and the U.S. Copyright Office has outright rejected any assertion that Copyright Act protects “photograph[s] taken by a monkey.” Accordingly, Next Friends cannot establish that Naruto owns a valid copyright, much less that it was infringed by Blurb. The entire Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.

The Blurb filing also highlights (as some press reports have) that PETA swears that Naruto is a male macaque monkey -- while nearly all reports prior to this (including all explanations from Slater) have been that the monkey is female.

Of course, PETA will hit back on this, but we'll see if the judge lets this monkey business go on for much longer.

Filed Under: copyright, david slater, monkey, monkey selfie, peta, public domain
Companies: blurb, peta

Our Reply To A Totally Bogus Monkey Selfie Cease & Desist

from the monkey-see,-monkey-do,-monkey-needs-to-learn-the-law dept

Dear Icondia,

I am in receipt of your letter, dated December 22nd, but received earlier this week, in which you assert a number of things and demand that we "cease and desist" from "all infringing activities" concerning the now rather famous "selfie" image taken by a macaque monkey using a camera supplied by photographer David Slater. I am assuming you're familiar with this image -- as is much of the world -- but as a reminder, it is this one: We, as a news publication that frequently discusses intellectual property issues, have been covering this story since those photos first went viral in 2011, focusing specifically on the intellectual property questions raised by the photos, and the fact that under the law, they are unquestionably in the public domain. In fact, yours is not the first request to take down these photos, as a previous representative of Mr. Slater's, Caters News Agency, sent us a shorter demand letter in 2011. At the time we explained why we had no obligation to take down the photos.

That is still true today, even as you present your rather unique legal theories. I gather, from your website, that your organization was set up to try to cash in on the Image Rights (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Ordinance, 2012, specifically, in trying to make a big deal out of a new (and tremendously problematic) intellectual property concept known as "personality rights." It also appears that the world has not beaten a path to your door over this law, as one analysis shows that in the years since this new law passed only 51 registrations have occurred, three of which are related to this particular macaque monkey.

This law does not apply to us for a variety of reasons, just a few of which we will detail below. If we need to lay out even more reasons as to why your argument is absolutely frivolous -- such as in court -- we are prepared to do so.

First, we are a US-based company with all of our servers in the US, and the laws of the US apply to us. The laws of Guernsey do not. In the US, the image is quite clearly in the public domain, as we have discussed for years. While I recognize that some people employed by your firm have some rather unique legal theories for why this photo may not actually be in the public domain, the US Copyright Office disagrees with you. This past August, the US Copyright Office released a draft of its Compendium of Copyright Practices, which notes, rather directly, that a photograph taken by a monkey is not subject to copyright, but rather would be in the public domain. It is on page 54 of the document, though I'll post a screenshot here of the relevant portion (which I can easily do because, as a work of the federal government, this document is also in the public domain): On December 22nd -- the same day you sent your letter -- the Copyright Office further updated the Compendium so that it is no longer in draft -- and is now officially in its 3rd edition. You can see the document here. The Copyright Office actually extended its discussion on this matter, but as you can see on page 68, Section 313.2, it still notes that a "photograph taken by a monkey" is not copyrightable subject matter under US law. While it is unlikely you saw this official edition in time for sending out this letter, the draft edition was available for many months.

As the image is unquestionably in the public domain in the US, we are not infringing on the "exclusive image rights" of the image. Thus we will not cease and desist from posting that image. We need neither permission nor a license to continue to do so and we do not believe that either you or Mr. Slater have any legitimate property rights in that image.

Even if, for argument's sake, there was a possibility of a US copyright in the image, we would still not be taking the image down, as our use of it is unquestionably fair use. The times where we have posted the image have all involved significant amounts of journalistic commentary about the image (and, mainly, how the image is in the public domain). News reporting, commentary, and criticism are all quintessential examples of fair use, and our use of the image clearly meets those criteria.

Now, let's take this a step further, and assume (solely for argument's sake) that the law of Guernsey somehow applied to us -- which it does not. Again, the law would not apply to our use. First, the personality rights law that you rely on allows for someone to register their own personality. The image here is of the macaque monkey, not David Slater or Wildlife Personalities, and thus only the macaque monkey in question could potentially qualify to register the image. But, as with copyright law, the law in question states that it only applies to a "natural person" which means "a human being." Thus, you immediately run into the same issue as to why this image is in the public domain -- it was not authored by a human being and thus is not only not subject to copyright law, but similarly not subject to Guernsey's "personality images."

Second, even if we were to ignore that particular issue, which seems rather fatal to your argument, the image in question does not appear to meet the criteria necessary to make the claims you are making. Section 28 of the Guernsey law you are trying to apply here requires that the image must be "distinctive" meaning that it is "recognised as being associated with the registered personality." However, the "personality" in question appears to be "Wildlife Personalities Limited." While that may be David Slater's company, the image in question is not widely associated with that organization, and is certainly not recognized as such. In fact, nearly all of the public discussions in the last few years about the image are about how the image is in the public domain and emphatically not linked to Slater or any company he may have. The image is recognized as being associated with the monkey itself, but again, the law clearly states that such personality rights only applies to "human beings."

Third, and more importantly, even assuming (again, for argument's sake) (1) that the image is not in the public domain, (2) that we are somehow subject to the laws of Guernsey and (3) that the image in question is properly registered under Guernsey's laws, the law still would not apply to our use. That's because Section 32 of the law makes it rather clear that it is not infringement to use such an image for "reporting current events or news commentary." Here's the section of the law, in case you haven't read it in a while:

Fair dealing with a registered personality's image for the purposes of -

(a) reporting current events or news commentary (including criticism or review), or
(b) publishing or broadcasting any other bona fide journalistic material which is a subject of general or public interest,

does not infringe that registered personality's image rights.

In short, under no possible interpretation of any law are we infringing on anyone's usage in posting the image as part of our discussion concerning how it is, unquestionably, in the public domain. Thus, we have to reject your assertion that we are somehow infringing on the image, while similarly refusing to sign your "settlement agreement" as we have nothing to settle and nothing to agree to.

I would wish you luck in your quixotic quest to create this new type of "personality right" but, frankly, I find it an offensive and dangerous expansion of theories that seek to lock up public domain information and a clear attempt to infringe on free speech rights here in the US and around the globe. If you have any further questions about any of this, I would be happy to discuss them with you or put you in contact with our legal counsel who I'm sure would be more than happy to review these points in even greater detail with you.

Mike Masnick
Techdirt / Floor64 Inc.

Filed Under: copyright, david slater, fair dealing, fair use, guernsey, monkey, monkey selfie, personality rights, public domain
Companies: icondia, wildlife personalities limited

Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright

from the want-to-try-that-again dept

Oh boy. The "Monkey Selfie" is back. Yes, that picture that we first wrote about three and a half years ago, including a detailed analysis of why the picture is almost certainly in the public domain, is still creating a stir. It got some attention again a few months ago when some new news reports falsely argued that people were saying the monkey held the copyright. However, we noted that the photographer whose camera was used, David Slater, was still claiming that the copyright was his. A day later, we wrote about a great writeup by Sherwin Siy, Public Knowledge's VP of legal affairs (and a copyright expert), discussing the weird belief some have that someone must own the copyright on everything.

For reasons unknown, earlier this week, Slater suddenly decided to send Siy and Public Knowledge an ill-informed, poorly reasoned legal threat about that post. The letter Slater sends is fairly incredible, both in its reasoning and in its target. Not only do the claims in the letter misrepresent the law, but they misrepresent Siy's post and the use of the image. Here is Slater's letter:

From: David Slater
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:10 PM
Subject: Infringement notice
To: pk@publicknowledge.org

Dear Public Knowledge,

I am writing to inform you that I have read your blog post authored by Sherwin Siy:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/nobody-cant-hold-a-copyright-which-means-sometimes-nobody-holds-a-copyright

It is factually incorrect and damaging to me.  It encourages the public to infringe my copyright of the monkey images.  The text, in my opinion, is willfully damaging and disrespectful to me.  This accords with your mission statement.

The exclusion of any proper accreditation to the image, or even mention of my name in relation to the image, infringes upon my moral rights to the image and is contrary to any Fair Use dealing.  Furthermore, it affects the commercial value of the image to me.  It is also being used to benefit Public Knowledge and your mission at the expense of my own.  This is contrary to fair use and also your mission which claims to uphold the fair use doctrine.

The article is unbalanced and unfair and is infringing my publicity rights and rights to commercialize the image/s.

I do not believe you made any attempt to contact me, preferring instead to cherry pick sources that you know to be biased and encouraging theft of my images and destruction of my reputation and personality rights.

The image is registered with the USCO and is a part of a registered Image Rights under Guernsey Ordinance 2012.

Your site acknowledges it's core mission is to protect fair use and the public domain.  Your site, in my opinion, is abusing fair use and damaging the concept of public domain.

A public domain image is one in which a living author has voluntarily relinquished rights to the image.  Any debate claiming acts of nature were resonsible for the image MUST be resolved in a court, and only AFTER judgement shall an image be qualified as public domain.

Public Knowledge nor Sherwin Siy nor Wikimedia have the right to decide.  Any action attempting to wilfully infringe copyright to make a claim for public domain, including textual references that encourage others to infringe, shall be liable for prosecution under the legal jurisdiction of my choice.

Public domain is NOT a place such as Wikimedia's Creative Commons or the internet.

You have cherry picked sources of information from Buzzfeed, Techdirt and the 1709blog, that simply agree with your mission to remove property rights from professional artists like myself using ridicule, poorly sourced material and  unfounded reasoning.
In so far as your contributor's claim that it is myself who claims Wikipedia is the source of the monkey owning copyright, please state your reasoning.  Note that Wikipedia states the author of the images is the monkey itself, with blatant removal of the true author's copyright watermarks.  Authors are entitled to copyright.

I wish to see any evidence you have of any license you have purchased for the use of my image.

If you have purchased a license I will still require some amendment to the article.

I am willing to overlook your infringement if you rectify the article with another article that reports the facts of the story.  I will work with you to do this and you will grant me the ability to comment on the article in draft form prior to publication.  Publication should be within the calendar month of this e-mail.

 I will await your acceptance for 24 hours in which to agree to rewrite the article. I will take your absence of any reply and acceptance of my terms as your acceptance of guilt and will forward your details to my lawyers in the US and UK..

Sincerely,

David J Slater

And here is Siy's -- quite even-handed -- response:

From: Sherwin Siy <ssiy@publicknowledge.org>
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: Infringement notice
To: David Slater

Dear Mr. Slater:

Thank you for your email of December 10, regarding my August 6th blog post about the macaque photos taken with your camera.

To be brief, we have not purchased any license for the use of the photograph, and do not plan on doing so. We will also not be removing or substantively amending the post. We do not have any plans to allow you to publish your thoughts on this matter on our website. We may be commenting upon this matter, including this correspondence, on the site in the near future.

As you can tell from the post, I do not believe that you hold a valid copyright in that particular image. This allows us to reproduce the image without first seeking your permission, or listing you as a contributing factor to its creation.

You say that the photo has been registered with the “USCO;” I take this to mean the United States Copyright Office. In August, not long after I published my blog post, the Copyright Office issued an updated draft of its Compendium of Copyright Practices (http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-full.pdf), the manual for its internal practices, including registration. Of particular note is its commentary on the “human authorship” requirement in section 306 (page 54 of the linked .pdf), which says that the Office will refuse to register a claim of copyright if a human being did not create the work. Lest you think I am stretching their point, their first specific examples of a non-human authored work (among other examples such as elephant murals, wave-shaped driftwood, or the natural appearance of animal skin) is

·      A photograph taken by a monkey.

Even beyond the question of whether you have a valid copyright in that image is my, and my employer’s, exercise of our fair use rights. You will note that our use of the photograph was in the context of discussing that photograph. News reporting, commentary, and criticism are all quintessential examples of fair use, and this clearly falls within them. Whether or not our use of the image “benefits our mission” is largely irrelevant to that determination, too. If uses of copyrighted works were only fair when they were useless to the user, it would be a singularly useless doctrine.

You say

A public domain image is one in which a living author has voluntarily relinquished rights to the image.  Any debate claiming acts of nature were resonsible for the image MUST be resolved in a court, and only AFTER judgement shall an image be qualified as public domain.

This is not true. It would be absurd for every instance of the use of public domain works to be litigated. The fact that certain works have no copyright holder (because the term of copyright has expired, because the work is not the creation of a human author, or because the work was not sufficiently fixed or sufficiently creative) means that there would be no one to definitively contest the usage in court. Publishers reprinting copies of The Murders in the Rue Morgue should not, and need not, wait for a court to grant them permission; users of creative works authored by the federal government of the United States do not have to go to court for permission each time they wish to use those images. If a particular person believes that a work is not in the public domain and that their rights have been infringed by a use, they are, of course, free to raise that question in court.

You also say this:

In so far as your contributor's claim that it is myself who claims Wikipedia is the source of the monkey owning copyright, please state your reasoning. 

I confess to being a bit confused by this; I presume this comes from my statement in the blog post that

Basically, there’s a bit of a red herring going around, saying that Wikimedia claims that the monkey owns the copyright.

For the simple sake of avoiding any further confusion, let me clarify this by saying that I simply meant that a number of commentators (not you) were incorrectly following a tempting possibility that the monkey might hold a copyright. I certainly did not intend to imply that you were one of those commentators, or a red herring.

Having dealt with the legal questions, I would also like to discuss some of your other, non-legal complaints. You say that my blog post was “willfully damaging and disrespectful” to you. It was not. While we clearly disagree on the scope and applicability of the law, I never insulted you or mocked you.  You might note that, at the bottom of the post, I, in the interest of being even-handed, even say you have a “colorable” argument for copyrightability—more credit than many of my learned colleagues have given you. The point of the post was to articulate a legal distinction that many missed—that the question was not whether or not a macaque could hold a copyright, but whether or not you could have a photograph in which no one held a copyright. Your actions and character were not disparaged, or even mentioned, because they were not relevant to that discussion.

I will note, however, that whether I was disrespectful or not has no bearing on any legal matters at hand here. While I believe I was more than fair in my treatment of your reputation in that post, I did then, and do now, have every right in the world to be disrespectful of you in public.

I hope that this letter resolves any dispute we might have. If it does not, we may be reached for service of process at the mailing address below. I eagerly await your reply.

Best regards,

Sherwin Siy
Vice President of Legal Affairs
202-861-0020  |@SherwinPK
Public Knowledge |@publicknowledge |www.publicknowledge.org 
1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036

Siy's response, of course, covers all of the important stuff. However, I wanted to further comment on Slater's troubling belief that the public domain only applies to works that someone has proactively relinquished into the public domain. This goes right back to the point of Siy's original article: the troubling belief by some that everything must be owned in some form or another. This implicit belief is not only not the law, but it's immensely problematic. Culture works by openness and sharing. The history of culture is one in which people reused, reshared and remixed the works of others. The massive increase in locking down works via copyright laws has certainly limited that ability over the past hundred years or so, but it has not taken away the concept of the public domain entirely, as Slater seems to believe.

Slater can't seem to fathom that the photograph doesn't belong to him, no matter how many legal experts have explained it to him. Even worse, he can't seem to fathom that things like the public domain and fair use are not only important, but are also part of what's made him be able to do what he does. Those who dismiss or misunderstand things like fair use and the public domain are ignoring the cultural body of work that made them who they are today.

Filed Under: copyright, david slater, mean people, monkey, monkey selfie, public domain, sherwin siy

Crazy Public Domain Monkey Selfie Trademark Filing Gets Crazier: Filed By Someone Pretending To Be Haim Saban

from the so-add-in-publicity-rights dept

So, we recently posted a bizarre story in the form of a law school exam question involving the attempt to trademark a public domain monkey selfie using a photoshopped Gap catalog image. If that doesn't make sense to you, go read the original story. My fingers are too tired to re-explain the whole thing here. Just know that it's as bizarre as it sounds.

And, now it gets even more bizarre. As we noted, the original trademark application appeared to come from Saban Capital Group, the company controlled by media mogul Haim Saban. Saban's lawyers reached out to explain that... the trademark application appears to come from someone pretending to be Haim Saban or his company. Whoever it is (and we've reached out to them) has apparently set up a fake "Saban Capital Group" in the British Virgin Islands, and has filed over 200 trademark applications, some in the name of Saban Capital Group (and some as others). In retrospect, there are some hints that something is not right if you dig deep into the trademark application, including the hotmail email address and the fact that the application is signed by "Tiwhk." Also, it's being sent from Ann Arbor Michigan, rather than LA where Saban Capital Group is actually based. But, almost all of that can be explained away as just some old fashioned way of doing things and/or from a remote/subsidiary address or something.

And, really, who the hell files trademark applications in someone else's name? The whole idea is bizarre, so it didn't even cross my mind.

Saban's (actual) lawyers agree, noting that the real Saban would not "actually do something as foolish as this," and they have no idea who is actually doing it -- but whoever it is has apparently filed over 200 trademark applications. The real Saban Capital Group's lawyers say they're investigating and suggest that the filer/s "appear to be infringers, or counterfeiters, or hoaxers or all of the foregoing" and they "intend to prosecute them to the full extent of the law." I don't see 200 applications, but there are a few others, such as this one, using Chinese characters, which the application claims means "Big Mouth Monkey" which they want to put on clothing (they show it on a pair of shoes). I have, in fact, confirmed that it does, in fact, say "Big Mouth Monkey" with someone who can read Chinese. So, at least that is accurate. And there's this one for a stylized version of the name "Paul Homme" (I have no idea who that is). Or this one for "BIG FACE" (no further explanation needed).

Either way, I've emailed the Hotmail address behind these filings, but as of this posting have not heard back. The real lawyers for Saban seem perplexed by the whole situation as well -- as do multiple trademark experts I've spoken to. No one's quite sure why anyone would file trademarks under someone else's company's name, but it adds yet another element to the crazy law school exam question we had in the original post. Here might be a case where actual trademarks are being violated (that of Saban Capital Group). Hell, I would bet some high priced lawyers might even try to figure out a way to argue that publicity rights are implicated here, though I'm not sure I'd recommend that...

Either way, we'd like to apologize to Haim Saban and (the real) Saban Capital Group for implying that they would file a questionable trademark on a public domain monkey selfie for use on clothing (including wedding dresses) as demonstrated by a photoshopped Gap catalog photo. And, "Tiwhk," if you're out there, please contact us. We'd love to know your side of the story...

Filed Under: counterfeit, haim saban, monkey, public domain, publicity rights, selfie, trademark
Companies: saban capital group

Public Domain Monkey Selfie Now In A Trademark Application, Using Photoshopped Gap Images [Updated!]

from the spot-the-infringement? dept

Update: And this story gets even crazier. Please see this update in which the real Saban Capital Group claims this is being done by an impostor Saban Capital Group.

Okay. If you want a law school exam question, let's start with this one:

A London photographer visiting Indonesia, leaves his camera on the ground, leading a macaque monkey to pick it up and take a selfie: Despite protestations from the photographer (the monkey has remained silent), most experts agree that the photograph is in the public domain. Years later, Saban Capital Group, formed by former rock star/entertainment industry mogul Haim Saban (or not, as this update notes) has attempted to register a US trademark on this semi-familiar looking image: The plan (according to the application) is to put this on all sorts of clothing, including (no joke), wedding dresses.

In order to show how Saban is using the mark in commerce, it has offered up this image: Of course, it turns out that that's really just taking the public domain monkey selfie and photoshopping it onto a Gap catalog photo (Saban does not own the Gap). So, to recap: we have a (most likely) public domain monkey selfie image, which someone else is seeking a trademark on, using another company's photoshopped photos. In this scenario, please describe how much the lawyers are going to bill to sort this all out?

Special tips of the hat to Eriq Gardner for spotting the trademark application and the folks at Five Useful Articles for noticing the photoshopping of Gap clothing (and for inspiring me to try to turn this into a law school exam question).

Filed Under: clothing, copying, copyright, haim saban, monkey, public domain, selfie, selfie monkey, trademark
Companies: saban capital group

How That Monkey Selfie Reveals The Dangerous Belief That Every Bit Of Culture Must Be 'Owned'

from the no-monkeying-around dept

As we wrote yesterday, the infamous monkey selfie has returned to the news, thanks mostly to Wikimedia's new transparency report, which discusses the supposed copyright claim over the following monkey selfie: Unfortunately, as we noted, the original story in The Telegraph claimed that Wikipedia "editors decided that the monkey itself actually owned the copyright." As we explained in great detail three years ago, this was false. The monkey doesn't hold the copyright: no one does. It's in the public domain. In fact, if the reporter had been careful, he would have noted that even Wikipedia properly notes that the image is in the public domain. It did not claim that the monkey owns the copyright.

However, since a major newspaper (falsely) wrote that Wikipedia had decided the monkey holds the copyright, the whole thing went viral all over again. All over Twitter I saw people claiming that the monkey held the copyright. Unfortunately, this is somewhat pernicious, starting with the Telegraph reporter, Matthew Sparkes, who made the false claim. As Sherwin Siy notes in a very good post, it's very troubling that people now come to automatically believe that someone has to hold the copyright on a photograph. That's just not true:

The claim isn’t that monkeys have IP rights—it’s that no one owns the copyright in the photo. A lot of people seem to take issue with this, insisting that, if the monkey doesn’t own the copyright, the photographer must—that someone has to own a copyright in the photo.

But that just isn’t true.

This is the definition of the public domain—things that are not protected by copyright. We’re used to thinking of the public domain as consisting of things that were in copyright and then aged out of it after a length of time, but that’s just a part of it. There’s also works created by the federal government, and things that simply can’t be protected—like ideas, methods of operation, or discoveries.

I think a big part of the problem here is that we've been trained incorrectly to believe that everything new must be covered by copyright. This is part of the most pernicious aspects of copyright maximalism today -- the idea that everything is covered by copyright. Only a few decades ago, nearly all created works were not covered by copyright and were public domain, free to be shared. It was only with the 1976 Copyright Act that the US switched from an "opt-in" policy to a "nearly everything is covered" policy, leading many people to (wrongly) believe that with any photo someone must hold the copyright.

That's a dangerous assumption for culture, highlighted by the fact that so many people default to insisting that someone must hold the copyright over this photo.

Meanwhile, for an even more amusing take on all of this, don't miss Sarah Jeong's defense of monkey copyrights satirical post:

It’s hard enough to eke out a living as an artist without the Copyright Office butting in and claiming it is literally impossible for you to own copyrights, just because you’re a monkey. What on earth is this “Copyright Office”, anyways? What right do they have to say whether a monkey’s work is worthy of copyright or not?

According to Slater’s own account, the Indonesian macaques were “already posing for the camera” when one of them started taking photos. Not all of them were good – as it turns out, some monkeys are much better photographers than other monkeys. The “monkey selfie” in question is a diamond in the mud: a truly remarkable portrait, perfectly focused and strategically positioned to capture a mischievous yet vulnerable smile. If that macaque had an Instagram account she’d have, like, a million followers.

But she doesn’t, and the sorry state of our copyright law – as interpreted by the Copyright Office and exploited by Wikipedia – is to blame. Due to the backwards treatment of animal creators everywhere, monkey art (and monkey photography in particular) continues to languish. How is an aspiring monkey photographer supposed to make it if she can’t stop the rampant internet piracy of monkey works?

That's only a snippet. The whole thing is well worth a read.

Filed Under: copyright, monkey, ownership, public domain, selfie

DailyDirt: Getting To Space Ain't Easy

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The failure rate of space programs makes space travel a bit of a risky venture. Sitting on enough explosive materials to escape the Earth's gravity isn't the safest-sounding job, but there are still plenty of willing volunteers to try it. Here are just a few stories on some recent space missions.

• The Russian Phobos-Grunt spacecraft isn't going to make it to Mars -- and some waterbears that were along for the ride won't make it back. Over the last year, about 10% of space missions that launched have failed (seven out of about 74). [url]
• Iran's space program tried to send a monkey to space, but the monkey didn't survive the trip. Iran's space program will probably get a bit more attention when it succeeds... [url]
• Fortunately, the International Space Station will be occupied by astronauts as planned, following a successful launch of a Soyuz re-supply mission. The ISS will resume a full 6-person crew in mid-December. [url]
• To discover more links on space exploration, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: astronauts, exploration, iran, iss, monkey, nasa, russia, soyuz, space, travel, waterbears