Australian Court Ridiculously Says That AI Can Be An Inventor, Get Patents

from the i'm-sorry-dave,-you-shouldn't-do-that dept

There have been some questions raised about whether or not AI-created works deserve intellectual property protection. Indeed, while we (along with many others) laughed along at the trial about the monkey selfie, we had noted all along, that the law firm pushing to give the monkey (and with it, PETA) the copyright on the photo was almost certainly trying to tee up a useful case to argue that AI can get copyright and patents as well. Thankfully, the courts (and later the US Copyright Office) determined that copyrights require a human author.

The question on patents, however, is still a little hazy (unfortunately). It should be the same as with copyright. The intent of both copyrights and patents is to create incentives (in the form of a "limited" monopoly) for the creation of the new creative work or invention. AI does not need such an incentive (nor do animals). Over the last few years, though, there has been a rush by some who control AI to try to patent AI creations. This is still somewhat up in the air. In the US, the USPTO has (ridiculously) suggested that AI created inventions could be patentable -- but then (rightfully) rejected a patent application from an AI. The EU has rejected AI-generated patents.

Unfortunately, it looks like Australia has gone down the opposite path from the EU, after a court ruled that an AI can be an inventor for a patent. The case was brought by the same folks who were denied patents in the EU & US, and who are still seeking AI patents around the globe. Australia's patent office had followed suit with its EU & US counterparts, but the judge has now sent it back saying that there's nothing wrong with AI holding patents.

University of Surrey professor Ryan Abbott has launched more than a dozen patent applications across the globe, including in the UK, US, New Zealand and Australia, on behalf of US-based Dr Stephen Thaler. They seek to have Thaler’s artificial intelligence device known as Dabus (a device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience) listed as the inventor.

Honestly, I remain perplexed by this weird attempt to demand something that makes no sense, though it seems like yet another attempt to scam the system to make money by shaking others down. Once again, AI needs no such incentive to invent, and it makes no sense at all to grant it patents. An AI also cannot assign the patents to others, or properly license a patent. The whole thing is stupid.

It is, however, yet another point to show just how extreme the belief that every idea must be "owned" has become. And it's incredibly dangerous. Those pushing for this -- or the courts and patent offices agreeing with this -- don't seem to have any concept of how badly this will backfire.

And, of course, the reality underlying this, which only underscores how dumb it is, the AI isn't actually getting the patent. It would go to the guy who "owns" the AI.

Beach said a non-human inventor could not be the applicant of a patent, and as the owner of the system, Thaler would be the owner of any patents that would be granted on inventions by Dabus.

At least some people are recognizing what a total clusterfuck it would be if AI-generated patents were allowed. The Guardian quotes an Australian patent attorney, Mark Summerfield, who raises just one of many valid concerns:

“Allowing machine inventors could have numerous consequences, both foreseeable and unforeseeable. Allowing patents for inventions churned out by tireless machines with virtually unlimited capacity, without the further exercise of any human ingenuity, judgment, or intellectual effort, may simply incentivise large corporations to build ‘patent thicket generators’ that could only serve to stifle, rather than encourage, innovation overall.”

Unfortunately, as the article notes, it's not just Australia making this dangerous decision. South Africa just granted DABUS a patent last week as well.

Filed Under: ai, australia, dabus, incentives, monkey selfie, patent law, patents

AI Writes Article About AI: Does The Newspaper Hold The Copyright?

from the the-monkey-gets-it dept

For many years, we wrote about the infamous monkey selfie copyright situation (and lawsuit) not just because it was hellishly entertaining, but also because the legal questions underlying the issue were likely to become a lot more important. Specifically, while I don't think anyone is expecting a rush of monkey-authored works to enter the market any time soon, we certainly do expect that works created by computers will be all over the damn place in the very, very near future (and, uh, even the immediate past). Just recently, IBM displayed its "Project Debater" offering, doing an AI-powered realtime debate against a human on the "Intelligence Squared" debates program. A few days after that, the Guardian used OpenAI to write an article about itself, which the Guardian then published (it's embedded about halfway down the fuller article which is written by a real life human, Alex Hern).

In both cases, the output is mostly coherent, with a few quirks. Here's a snippet that shows... both:

This new, artificial intelligence approach could revolutionize machine learning by making it a far more effective tool to teach machines about the workings of the language. Deep-learning systems currently only have the ability to learn something specific; a particular sentence, set of words or even a word or phrase; or what certain types of input (for example, how words are written on a paper) cause certain behaviors on computer screens.

GPT2 learns by absorbing words and sentences like food does at a restaurant, said DeepFakes’ lead researcher Chris Nicholson, and then the system has to take the text and analyze it to find more meaning and meaning by the next layer of training. Instead of learning about words by themselves, the system learns by understanding word combinations, a technique researchers can then apply to the system’s work to teach its own language.

Almost... but not quite.

Anyway, in the ensuing discussion about all this on Twitter, James Green asked the "simple" question of who is the "author" of the piece in question. The answer, summed up by Parker Higgins is:

This is why I think the monkey selfie case was so important. In determining, quite clearly, that creative works need a human author, it suggests that works created by a computer are squarely in the public domain. And while this seems to lead some (mainly lawyers) to freak out. There's this unfortunate assumption that many people (especially lawyers) seem to make: that every creative work must be "owned" under copyright. There is no legal or rational basis for such an argument. We lived for many years in which it was fine that many works entered life and went straight into the public domain, and we shouldn't fear going back to such a world.

This certainly isn't a new question. Pam Samuelson wrote a seminal paper on allocating ownership rights in computer-generated works all the way back in 1985 (go Pam!), but it's an issue that is going to be at the forefront of a number of copyright discussions over the next few years. If you think that various companies, publishers and the like are going to just let those works go into the public domain without a fight, you haven't been paying attention to the copyright wars of the past few decades.

I fully expect that there will be a number of other legal fights, not unlike the monkey selfie case but around AI-generated works, coming in the very near future. Having the successful monkey case in the books is good to start with, as it establishes the (correct) baseline of requiring a human. However, I imagine that we'll see ever more creative attempts to get around that in the courts, and if that fails, a strong push to get Congress to amend the law to magically create copyrights for AI-generated works.

Filed Under: ai, articles, copyright, monkey selfie, ownership, public domain
Companies: guardian, openai

Ninth Circuit Stops Monkeying Around And Denies En Banc Review Of The Monkey Selfie Case

from the it-ain't-over-till-its-over dept

Whatever will we do without the Monkey Selfie case rearing its not-actually-copyrighted head every few months? We might finally get to find out, now that the Ninth Circuit has declined to rehear the appeal en banc. This denial now makes clear that monkeys lack standing to sue for copyright, at least within the Ninth Circuit. Someday (hopefully not soon) we may find out what other Circuits have to say about primate copyrights, but for now we can finally be confident that they lack standing to sue over them here.

Provided that no cert petition is granted, of course. And given that this is a case that has thus far steadfastly refused to end, it is way too soon to be confident that this is truly the last we've heard from Naruto or any of his alleged next friends. We should at least know whether a cert petition's been filed in about three months or so, though (see Rule 13), so stay tuned...

Filed Under: 9th circuit, copyright, david slater, monkey selfie, naruto, standing
Companies: peta

The Monkey Selfie Case Continues, But The Dancing Baby One Does Not

from the never-ending-copyright-litigation dept

Thankfully this is not a post about the Monkey Selfie case, which should have ended by now but has not. Instead it's about Lenz v. Universal, the Dancing Baby case, which shouldn't have come to an end yet, but has. This week the EFF announced that the case has been settled.

The problem though isn't that it the case has been settled. It had been remanded for trial, which would have been a long, expensive slog to not accomplish what the case really needed to accomplish: put teeth back into the Section 512(f) remedy that the DMCA is supposed to afford to deter illegitimate takedown demands. The problem is that the opportunity to provide that benefit was extinguished when the US Supreme Court denied cert and refused to review the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of that provision. So we'll be stuck with this precedent until another case can prompt another look by the court and the serious issue of censorship-via-takedown notice can finally get the judicial attention it deserves.

Maybe it will even be a case where a monkey has taken a video of himself dancing along to music, because the rights of monkeys have so far been a lot more successful in attracting en banc attention from the Ninth Circuit than the speech rights of people. And maybe it won't even take 10 years of litigation (that's 32 in monkey years) to find out.

Filed Under: 512f, copyright, dancing baby, fair use, lenz, monkey selfie, public domain, stefanie lenz
Companies: eff

The Monkey Selfie Lawsuit Will Never, Ever Die: Appeals Court Judge Wants A Do Over

from the fucking-9th-circuit dept

Last fall, I joked (no, really, it was a fucking joke!) that the monkey selfie saga "will never, ever be over." I stand by that prediction, even if Cathy Gellis wrote here last month with what she falsely believed was "the last update from the monkey selfie case". She wrote that because the 9th Circuit -- after rejecting a problematic settlement between PETA and photographer David Slater because Naruto, the apparent monkey in the middle had clearly not approved of any settlement -- had clearly and decisively rejected PETA's ridiculous argument. The court found no reason to believe that PETA (being a "next friend" of the monkey) should get the monkey's copyright for taking the selfie. The court said -- as we've said from the very beginning -- that monkeys don't get copyright.

Several provisions of the Copyright Act also persuade us against the conclusion that animals have statutory standing to sue under the Copyright Act. See Davis v. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989) (“It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.”). For example, the “children” of an “author,” “whether legitimate or not,” can inherit certain rights under the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 201, 203, 304. Also, 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.” Id. § 203(a)(2)(A). The terms “children,” “grandchildren,” “legitimate,” “widow,” and “widower” all imply humanity and necessarily exclude animals that do not marry and do not have heirs entitled to property by law. Based on this court’s decision in Cetacean and the text of the Copyright Act as a whole, the district court did not err in concluding that Naruto—and, more broadly, animals other than humans—lack statutory standing to sue under the Copyright Act.

And thus, the case was over. Done. Over. Complete. Closed. But, no. This is the monkey selfie case and it will never, ever end.

On Friday, the case came back to life. The court declared that another judge in the 9th Circuit is requesting that the court rehear the case en banc. This means that rather than just a typical 3 judge panel, an 11 judge panel would rehear the case (in other circuits, en banc often means all the judges, but the 9th is so big, they just go with 11). Often one of the parties in a case will ask for a case to be reheard en banc. In this case, it was a judge. This happens, though rarely. This doesn't mean the case will get heard again. There needs to be a vote. But, in the meantime, the court is asking the various parties to file briefs on whether or not the case should be reheard.

We're unlikely to find out who made this request, but it's worrisome that there's a judge who thinks the case should be reheard. It certainly suggests there's a judge who believes animals can get copyright. Indeed, it suggests that there may be a judge in the 9th Circuit who believes the important Cetacean case -- which was crucial to this ruling in that it says that without it being expressly noted by Congress, animals do not get the right to sue in court -- may not be good law.

And while that may not seem like a big deal it could be a very big deal -- and not just for the likes of PETA deciding to go around suing everyone on behalf of animals, but because a change in such a case might impact a totally different, but increasingly important area of law: whether works created by artificial intelligence will get covered by copyright law.

Hopefully, the 9th circuit is not taken in by this one judge and decides not to rehear the case en banc -- or if, monkeys forbid, that it does decide to continue this monkey business, it upholds the original ruling by the appeals court. Either way, it feels like this case is cursed. The curse of the monkey selfie.

Filed Under: 9th circuit, copyright, david slater, en banc, monkey selfie, naruto

We Interrupt The News Again With Hopefully The Last Update From The Monkey Selfie Case

from the with-next-friends-like-these dept

And now for the moment you've all been waiting for: a decision from the Ninth Circuit in the Monkey Selfie case.

Upshot: the case remains dismissed, and the defendants get to recover attorney fees for the appeal. There's also relatively little to say on the copyright front. This case has turned almost entirely into litigation about standing and proven to be a significant wrench in the works for any future litigation anyone, but PETA in particular, might want to bring on behalf of animals.

First, the court skewers PETA over the quality of its "friendship" with Naruto, casting significant side-eye towards PETA's apparent settlement of the lawsuit, which led to its attempt to dismiss the appeal, while at the same time leaving some question as to whether Naruto himself was down with this settlement and plan to dismiss his appeal. From footnote 3:

We feel compelled to note that PETA’s deficiencies in this regard go far beyond its failure to plead a significant relationship with Naruto. Indeed, if any such relationship exists, PETA appears to have failed to live up to the title of “friend.” After seeing the proverbial writing on the wall at oral argument, PETA and Appellees filed a motion asking this court to dismiss Naruto’s appeal and to vacate the district court’s adverse judgment, representing that PETA’s claims against Slater had been settled. It remains unclear what claims PETA purported to be “settling,” since the court was under the impression this lawsuit was about Naruto’s claims, and per PETA’s motion, Naruto was “not a party to the settlement,” nor were Naruto’s claims settled therein. Nevertheless, PETA apparently obtained something fromthe settlement with Slater, although not anything that would necessarily go to Naruto: As “part of the arrangement,” Slater agreed to pay a quarter of his earnings from the monkey selfie book “to charities that protect the habitat of Naruto and other crested macaques in Indonesia.” See Settlement Reached: ‘Monkey Selfie’ Case Broke New GroundForAnimal Rights, PETA, https://www.peta.org/blog/settlementreached-monkey- selfie-case-broke-new-ground-animal-rights/ (last visited Apr. 5, 2018). But now, in the wake of PETA’s proposed dismissal, Naruto is left without an advocate, his supposed “friend” having abandoned Naruto’s substantive claims in what appears to be an effort to prevent the publication of a decision adverse to PETA’s institutional interests. Were he capable of recognizing this abandonment, we wonder whether Naruto might initiate an action for breach of confidential relationship against his (former) next friend, PETA, for its failure to pursue his interests before its own. Puzzlingly, while representing to the world that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way,” see PETA, https://peta.org (last visited Apr. 5, 2018), PETA seems to employ Naruto as an unwitting pawn in its ideological goals. Yet this is precisely what is to be avoided by requiring next friends to have a significant relationship with, rather than an institutional interest in, the incompetent party—a point made by ChiefJustice Rehnquist in Lenhard v. Wolff, 443 U.S. 1306, 1312 (1979). See infra page 9 for exact language.

But repudiating PETA's "next friend" standing doesn't end the inquiry. There is a 2004 case from the Ninth Circuit, Cetacean Community v. Bush, which established the precedent that animals might be able to sue for themselves, even without a "next friend" to do the suing for them. The court decides it has to defer to that precedent, although so reluctantly as to undermine its persuasive effect in future cases.

Reaching that conclusion didn't end the inquiry, however. Cetacean Community means that animals might be theoretically able to sue for themselves in the Ninth Circuit, but it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a viable claim. To figure out whether they do, we have to look at the applicable statute, which in this case is the Copyright Act. And here the court concludes that Naruto, being a monkey, has no standing to sue for copyright infringement.

Several provisions of the Copyright Act also persuade us against the conclusion that animals have statutory standing to sue under the Copyright Act. See Davis v. Mich. Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989) (“It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.”). For example, the “children” of an “author,” “whether legitimate or not,” can inherit certain rights under the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 201, 203, 304. Also, 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.” Id. § 203(a)(2)(A). The terms “children,” “grandchildren,” “legitimate,” “widow,” and “widower” all imply humanity and necessarily exclude animals that do not marry and do not have heirs entitled to property by law. Based on this court’s decision in Cetacean and the text of the Copyright Act as a whole, the district court did not err in concluding that Naruto—and, more broadly, animals other than humans—lack statutory standing to sue under the Copyright Act.

So there you go. Our long national nightmare of not knowing whether any random monkey might be able to sue for copyright infringement has been resolved. We may now go about our lives confident in the knowledge that they cannot, at least not in the Ninth Circuit.

Filed Under: 9th circuit, copyright, david slater, monkey selfie, naruto, next friend, public domain, standing
Companies: peta

We Interrupt Today's News With An Update From The Monkey Selfie Case

from the it-ain't-over-till-it's-over dept

In today's fast-paced news cycle it's easy to overlook the important things: the copyright status of the monkey selfie.

Today we have learned nothing new about it, except that the case is not over yet. Which is itself significant, because the parties in the case had jointly moved to dismiss the appeal, and today that motion was denied. In its order denying the motion [pdf, embedded below] the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that while it had the power to dismiss an appeal if the parties so requested it, it did not have the obligation to do so if there were countervailing interests. And in this case, the Ninth Circuit found, there were countervailing interests requiring it to fully adjudicate the matter.

It cited several other cases as analogs. As in Albers v. Eli Lily, "this case has been fully briefed and argued by both sides, and the court has expended considerable resources to come to a resolution. Denying the motion to dismiss ensures that 'the investment of public resources already devoted to this litigation will have some return.'" Furthermore, as was the case in Ford v. Strickland, "a decision in this developing area of the law would help guide the lower courts."

Also, referencing Albers and Khouzam v. Ashcroft, the court noted that denying the dismissal of appeals prevents the parties from "manipulating precedent in a way that suits their institutional preferences."

As one of our colleagues once warned in a similar context, “courts must be particularly wary of abetting ‘strategic behavior’ on the part of institutional litigants whose continuing interest in the development in the law may transcend their immediate interest in the outcome of a particular case.” Suntharalinkam v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 822, 828 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing).

In other words, enough of this procedural monkey business. The appeal remains a live matter, and at some point the court will presumably substantively rule on it.

Filed Under: copyright, monkey selfie, ninth circuit

Monkey Selfie Photographer Says He's Now Going To Sue Wikipedia

from the this-will-never-end dept

Thought the monkey selfie saga was over? I'm beginning to think that it will never, ever, be over. If you're unfamliar with the story, there are too many twists and turns to recount here, but just go down the rabbit hole (monkey hole?) of our monkey selfie tag. Last we'd heard, PETA and photographer David Slater were trying to settle PETA's totally insane lawsuit -- but were trying to do so in an immensely troubling way, where the initial district court ruling saying, clearly, that monkeys don't get a copyright would get deleted. Not everyone was comfortable with this settlement and some concerns have been brought before the court. As of writing this, the court seems to be sitting on the matter.

We knew exactly why PETA didn't want its big loss to remain on the books, but it initially appeared that Slater was more neutral. However, he's now claiming that he's preparing to sue Wikipedia -- in which case having the earlier ruling off the books (where it makes it clear that a monkey can't get a copyright) would probably be helpful. This bit of news about a planned Wikipedia lawsuit was a throwaway line in... well... a pretty bad episode of This American Life, which takes on the monkey selfie story, but does a surprisingly awful job of it. I'm a huge fan of This American Life, and in the past when they've done stories where I'm intimately familiar with the details, I think they've done a really excellent job.

But, on this story, TAL falls flat on its face. It presents the story of David Slater mostly through his own telling of it, and frames Wikipedia declaring the image to be in the public domain to be a fairly radical position. I'm actually surprised that TAL didn't talk to a copyright lawyer about this (they quote Slater's lawyer, but specifically on questions related to PETA's case -- and not the copyright status of the image). Indeed, I'm surprised that the reporter, Dana Chivvis, didn't appear to speak to anyone at Wikipedia itself. She kicks off the discussion of Wikipedia's role in the monkey selfie case with this bit of utter nonsense that does not reflect Wikipedia's view at all:

In other words, anyone could use it, without David's permission, for free. To David, that was just stealing. He makes a living from selling his pictures, so it was really helpful to have one that was such a hit. But now, anyone could download it from Wikipedia and hang it on their wall. Or print it in their publication.

Wikipedia's opinion is that information on the internet should be free.

Where to start? This is just so full of wrong, it's embarrassing. Whether or not Slater makes his living from that photo has no bearing on the legal question of who holds the copyright. And Wikimedia's reason for declaring the monkey selfie in the public domain is not that "information on the internet should be free." Its position is that the law is well established that non-human creators don't get copyright, and thus the image is in the public domain. This isn't some crazy "ooh man, everything should be free" argument. It's a legal argument based on the entire history of copyright law. While (thankfully!) Slater and/or TAL left us out of this story (Slater frequently blames us in combination with Wikipedia for the sin of accurately reporting on the law, but somehow we got spared in this story), it does a terrible job presenting the actual legal arguments about the public domain question. Wikipedia does support making knowledge available to the public, but that's unrelated to the legal question of whether the image is in the public domain -- but the way Chivvis presents it, it's as if Wikipedians just randomly declare images in the public domain because they think everything online should be free. That's wrong. And it's just bad reporting.

Chivvis does do a much better job getting into the legal issues with PETA's dumb lawsuit and accurately presenting the issues at play there, but that's a separate issue from whether or not the image is in the public domain (even if the issues are somewhat entangled). She also leaves out the key part of the settlement being a desire to delete the original ruling in the case -- or the fact that the court does not appear to have accepted the settlement, and the case is technically still open (she claims that it's all settled).

There is just a quick aside about Slater's plan to sue Wikipedia at the end, right before the supposed "kicker" to the story: Slater claims that "Naruto" -- the monkey PETA claims it represents and who it claims took the photo -- is not, in fact, the monkey who took the selfie. This isn't a new argument, as it's been raised before (by Slater and others) that Naruto is the wrong monkey.

Either way, suing Wikipedia for accurately claiming the monkey selfie image is in the public domain would not be a wise move on Slater's part. He's almost certain to lose if it goes that way. He's also threatened to sue us in the past over this same issue, and that would be even dumber (again: we just reported on the copyright status of an image based on his own statements about how the image came to be -- he has since changed his story to make it appear that he had more of a role in the photo, but that was not his original story at all). Note that in original story, Slater said he left the camera "unattended" and the camera "attracted the attention" of a macaque. It was only later, after people pointed out that under those conditions, he doesn't have a copyright that the story began to morph into one where Slater had a bigger role (which is also heard in the TAL broadcast).

Either way, Slater continues to tilt at this windmill, and it's not going to change the law. PETA's lawsuit was dumb and hopefully it really is over (though, hopefully the original ruling remains on the books). I really feel sorry that PETA decided to pick Slater as the victim of one of its stunts as it's a shitty experience to be sued. But for Slater to think the lesson to take from all of this is to sue others would be disappointing.

Filed Under: copyright, dana chivvis, david slater, monkey selfie, public domain, this american life, wikipedia
Companies: peta, wikimedia, wikipedia

Lawyer: Without The Monkey's Approval, PETA Can't Settle Monkey Selfie Case

from the has-the-monkey-settled? dept

Ted Frank is a well-respected lawyer who has heroically dedicated much of his career to stopping bad legal practices, including sketchy settlements in class action lawsuits. Now he's taking action in another case involving a sketchy settlement: the monkey selfie case. As we highlighted earlier this week, while it was no surprise that PETA and photographer David Slater worked out a settlement agreement to end the ridiculous lawsuit PETA had filed, it was deeply concerning that part of the settlement involved PETA demanding that the original district court ruling -- the one saying, clearly, that animals don't get copyrights -- should be thrown out.

It took just a few days for Frank, on behalf of CEI, to file a wonderful and hilarious amicus brief with the court. There are a bunch of reasons why vacatur is improper here, but the real beauty of this brief is in pointing out that Naruto -- the monkey -- has been left out of the settlement, and thus not "all parties" have agreed. No, really.

PETA continued to assert that it acted as Naruto’s next friend before this Court, after Dr. Engelhardt voluntarily dismissed her appeal before briefs were filed.... The defendants argued that because Dr. Engelhardt was the only person pleaded to have any relationship with Naruto, PETA could not demonstrate the “significant relationship” required to establish next friend standing.... In response, PETA again asserted in writing and at oral argument that it acts as Naruto’s next friend....

Incredibly, PETA now represents that it entered into settlement with the defendants alone—without Naruto.... The settlement instead “resolves all disputes arising out of this litigation as between PETA and Defendants.”... This statement makes no sense. PETA did not have claims against the defendants. PETA argued repeatedly it was a next friend, a nominal party. For what their worth, all claims arising out of this litigation belong to the sole plaintiff, Naruto....

The underlying complaint does not plead a case or controversy between PETA and defendants, and this alone bars vacatur. Without standing, PETA may not move for vacatur. It does not matter that the defendants half-heartedly moved for vacatur under their settlement agreement “without joining or taking any position as to the bases for that request.”... The losing party—Naruto—must carry the burden of proving “equitable entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of vacatur.”...

No Naruto, no standing, no vacatur.

No Naruto, no standing, no vacatur. What a world we live in.

PETA’s too-clever-by-half argument simply does not work. PETA cannot claim to be a qualified next friend, then pretend to be unqualified when it suits them for the limited purpose of vacating an unfavorable precedent. Their position is especially untenable because PETA still “contends that it can satisfy the Next Friend requirements, or should be permitted the opportunity to do so before the district court, if the appeal is not dismissed.”

Alternatively, Frank argues that since Naruto is not technically a part of the settlement, perhaps the appeals court should reject the settlement and issue its opinion anyway:

Alternatively, if the Court takes PETA’s argument literally, and if PETA agreed only to stop acting as next friend for Naruto, leaving the monkey without an advocate, such a selfish settlement would not extinguish Naruto’s appeal. A stipulation signed only on behalf of the next friend (a nominal party) cannot moot the underlying controversy with the actual party. To the extent that PETA insists this occurred, they have simply ceased to adequately represent their supposed friend Naruto. If so, PETA’s stipulation should be disregarded.

Frank also takes a stab at PETA's whole "next friend" argument and why it's so silly in a footnote. First, he notes that if the court is concerned that Naruto is now "friendless" at the court, it could appoint a guardian ad litem, with the following footnote mocking PETA's claim to "next friend" status.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has as much of a personal relationship with Naruto as PETA pleaded (i.e., none), so might plausibly serve the role as well as PETA has. However, any next friend or guardian should have a bona fide personal and non-ideological interest in the incompetent person—putting aside the question of whether animals may be persons under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 17.

And, of course, who knows if Naruto (or some other "next friend") won't sue again:

In any event, if Naruto’s claims were indeed not settled by PETA, vacatur should be denied because “Naruto” (that is, someone claiming to be his “next friend”) would remain free to file suit again for further acts of alleged infringement.

While this is a bit of a throwaway line, it's actually important -- and it's one that David Slater should pay attention to. Allowing PETA to toss out the lower court settlement might not end his legal troubles over this matter. Anyone else alleging to be Naruto's "next friend" might go right back to court.

Finally, Frank notes that just because the parties have announced a settlement, that doesn't mean the court can't reject it and issue a ruling -- providing guidance to other courts in the circuit on this issue.

In Americana Art, the panel chose to issue an affirming opinion notwithstanding the dismissal because of the “opportunity to provide additional guidance to the district courts.”... PETA previously stated to this Court that the case presents “a question of first impression [and] the issue is not a trivial one.” ... Given the judicial resources already expended at the district-court and appellate level, the Court can rationally conclude, especially given that PETA is attempting to elide the question of whether it is or is not a “next friend,” that, if the Court is already close to a decision in this straightforward case, it should provide “guidance to the district courts” by issuing a decision that would not require much additional expenditure of judicial resources

I would be pleasantly surprised if the 9th Circuit actually keeps the case going and issues an opinion -- but at the very least, it shouldn't ditch the district court ruling.

Filed Under: copyright, david slater, monkey selfie, naruto, precedent, public domain, settlement, ted frank, wtf
Companies: cei, peta

Monkey Selfie Case Reaches Settlement -- But The Parties Want To Delete Ruling Saying Monkeys Can't Hold Copyright

from the this-is-bad dept

For many years now, we've been covering the sometimes odd/sometimes dopey case of the monkey selfie and the various disputes over who holds the copyright (the pretty clear answer: no one owns the copyright, because the law only applies to humans). David Slater, the photographer whose camera the monkey used, has always claimed that he holds the copyright (and has, in the past, tried to blame us at Techdirt for pointing out that the law disagrees). A few years back, PETA, the publicity-hungry animal rights group, hired big time lawyers at Irell & Manella to argue (1) the monkey holds the copyright, not Slater, (2) PETA somehow magically can stand in for the monkey in court -- and sued Slater over it. Slater and I disagree over whether he holds the copyright, but on this we actually do agree: the monkey most certainly does not hold the copyright.

The district court ruled correctly that works created by monkeys are in the public domain and that PETA had no case. PETA appealed. Last month, we wrote that the case was likely to settle, because both sides were highly motivated to get it out of court. On Slater's side, he had told some reporters that the legal fight has left him broke (which bizarrely lead to a bunch of people blaming me, which still makes no sense), while PETA desperately wanted to settle because the hearing in the case made it abundantly clear that the appeals court was not buying its argument. Indeed, it appears that the judges hearing the case could barely contain laughter at the bananas argument made by PETA's lawyers.

So it comes as little surprise that the parties have released a joint statement saying they've settled the case and asking the court to dismiss the appeal. Part of the agreement is that Slater says he'll donate 25% of any future proceeds from the monkey selfie pictures to organizations that protect the habitat of macaque monkeys in Indonesia, which seems like a good cause.

But... there is a pretty clear problem with the proposed settlement. Not only are they asking the court to dismiss the case due to the settlement, the parties have also agreed to ask the court to vacate the district court's ruling saying that animals cannot copyright works they create. Basically, PETA and its high-priced lawyers lost really badly on a fundamental issue of copyright... and now they want to erase that precedent so they or others can try again. PETA is arguing, incredibly, that if the original ruling stands, it will unfairly bind the monkey Naruto:

Here, the settlement is between PETA and Defendants. Accordingly, under Bonner Mall, PETA maintains that Naruto should not be “forced to acquiesce” to the district court’s judgment that he lacks standing under the Copyright Act where the appeal will be mooted by an agreement by PETA and PETA’s Next Friend status is contested and undecided. Rather, PETA maintains that it would be just and proper to vacate the judgment of the district court.

Wait. So PETA doesn't want Naruto -- the monkey that it claims to represent on no real basis, and who has absolutely no clue any of this is actually happening -- to be "forced to acquiesce" to the ruling? That's utter bullshit.

Of course, it's almost certainly not the real motivation here. The more likely reason is simply that PETA doesn't want that precedent on the books and there will likely be other cases in the very near future on other non-human created works. PETA's lawyers, Irell & Manella, may very well be trying to position themselves as the go-to lawyers on issues like who holds the copyright on AI-created works (answer again: no one), and having this ruling on the books, even at the district court level, would be inconvenient.

Hopefully the court will see through this and leave the ruling as is. Otherwise it seems likely that we'll be seeing a lot more of these kinds of cases. In the meantime, PETA also put a silly statement on its blog calling the case "groundbreaking." It was not groundbreaking. It was a stupid, nonsensical argument that was clearly not correct, and was basically laughed out of court. PETA says that this "sparked a massive international discussion about the need to extend fundamental rights to animals...." Except it did nothing of the sort.

Most of the press coverage you'll see about the case are just sort of laughing it off -- saying "oh that silly monkey selfie case has settled." But very few of them are reporting the request to vacate the lower court ruling. It's a bad idea and hopefully the court does not allow it to happen.

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