To: Steelfish
Since the macaque isn’t capable of defending the copyright, how can we know the macaque prefers peta and not the Johnny Cochran firm? And how can we know that the macaque, not having a way of collecting any copyright fees, isn’t intending to release any claim and intends to permit the photos to exist royalty free for any use?
2 posted on
09/22/2015 6:32:18 PM PDT by
Sgt_Schultze
(If a border fence isn't effective, why is there a border fence around the White House?)
To: Sgt_Schultze
Better hope it’s PETA. I’ve known attorneys who have had cases against the late Johnny Cochran’s firm — and it was a very capable office.
4 posted on
09/22/2015 6:36:55 PM PDT by
BenLurkin
(The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
To: Sgt_Schultze
I’m pretty sure Grumpy Cat’s owner get’s the money from the endorsements and appearances.
Is PETA representing him/her in court against the owner.
You are right. When the animal can articulate its case, then we’re getting somewhere.
6 posted on
09/22/2015 6:43:11 PM PDT by
dp0622
To: Sgt_Schultze
The macaque did not deliberately set out to take its own picture,anymore than any other animal setting off an automated camera would. If any animal has a case, it would be Koko the gorilla, whose work appeared on the cover of
National Geographic
Unlike the macaque, she can also testify, as she is fluent in American Sign Language, and and can comprehend English.
14 posted on
09/23/2015 5:59:21 AM PDT by
jmcenanly
("The more corrupt the state, the more laws." Tacitus, Publius Cornelius)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson