Never mind. I answered my One question...
Posted on 09/22/2015 9:05:36 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
A macaque monkey who took now-famous selfie photographs should be declared the copyright owner of the photos, rather than the nature photographer who positioned the camera, animal-rights activists contend in a novel lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The suit was filed in federal court in San Francisco by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. It seeks a court order allowing PETA to administer all proceeds from the photos for the benefit of the monkey, which it identified as 6-year-old Naruto, and other crested macaques living in a reserve on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi.
The photos were taken during a 2011 trip to Sulawesi by British nature photographer David Slater. Through San Francisco-based self-publishing company Blurb, he has published a book called ‘‘Wildlife Personalities’’ that includes the ‘‘monkey selfie’’ photos.
However, the photos have been widely distributed elsewhere by outlets, including Wikipedia, which contend that no one owns the copyright to the images because they were taken by an animal, not a person. Slater, who is exploring legal action against some of those outlets, said he was ‘‘very saddened’’ by PETA’s lawsuit because he considers himself an advocate of animal rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonglobe.com ...
Heh, this just proves that SOME people did evolve from apes.
I had to double check it wasn’t “The Onion.”
Next thing you know, they will be suing for primates to vote. Of course, in the 2008 and 2012 POTUS elections primates would be smarter than the electorate.
PETA doles out the cash as it sees fit? Sorry, no. Pay him in bananas.
In other news, PETA thinks owning pets is slavery. I.e. their opinion on anything animal related is worthless.
One of these days PETA will get their camel’s nose under the tent regarding animal rights. I believe that is their goal. They are a dangerous organization.
I’ve never seen a “selfie” that didn’t look like it was taken by a monkey. Me! Me! Me! Look at ME!!!!
But the monkey signed over the rights to me. I have his signature. Don’t believe me, just ask him.
So the monkey will be able to make decisions and perhaps sell the rights to the photos, create a series, do an exhibit, send the exhibit on tour? Will it need to get the Indonesian equivalent of a SSN and file and pay taxes on the money it makes on the photos? Will it be able to claim any dependents? Can it write off the camera?
Obviously some idiot somewhere will declare the monkey gave him power of attorney over the monkey’s affairs at a generous salary.
Bottom line; these people are barking mad and seek nothing more than to equate humans with animals so humans may be treated as animals. They seek nothing more than the demise of civilization.
Will the monkey get his royalties in checks or by direct deposit?
Zookeeper: He’s an innocent primate.
Kramer: So am I!
It seeks a court order allowing PETA to administer all proceeds from the photos for the benefit of the monkey,
hmmmmmmmmm. Well we certainly know what their ulterior motive is.
If the monkey files the proper paperwork and pays any fees involved it can have the copyright. Until then piss off PETA.
This monkey is on its way to becoming a blogger.
Albeit, one with more intelligence than most bloggers.
One of the morons in my office thinks the money should win. Typical liberal placing humans at the same level as animals. She wonders why she is unmarried and childless at 52.
Never mind. I answered my One question...
PETA exists only to promote PETA, and their most persistent mode of self promotion is to publish one absurd statement after another; which the MSM dutifully gobbles up and publishes.
ahahahaha THANK YOU!
They already have that... it’s call the SEIU
As silly as it sounds (and I disagree with it in this case) there can be a very interesting discussion of the legal rights for beings who cannot speak for themselves.
This includes the legal rights of
* monkeys, dolphins, etc. (and cows, chickens)
* people who have died (executing their will according to the law)
* people in comas
* unborn babies
Who can speak for them (in a legal sense) and what legal rights do they have vs the rights of beings who can speak for themselves?
What a cadre of lunatics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.