Oh, great. Now I guess I'll have to donate 25% of all revenues from the pictures my cat paints.
Posted on 09/11/2017 9:30:29 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Atorneys announced a settlement Monday in a lawsuit over who owns the copyright to selfie photographs taken by a monkey.
Under the deal, the photographer whose camera was used to take the photo agreed to donate 25% of any future revenue of the images to charities dedicated to protecting crested macaques in Indonesia, lawyers for an animal rights group said.
Attorneys for the group and the photographer, David Slater, asked the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss the case and throw out a lower court decision that said animals cannot own copyrights.
Andrew J. Dhuey, an attorney for Slater, declined to comment on how much money the photos had generated or whether the photographer would keep all of the remaining 75% of future revenue.
There was no immediate ruling from the 9th Circuit.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sued on behalf of the macaque monkey in 2015, seeking financial control of the photographs for the benefit of the monkey, named Naruto, that snapped the photos.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It should go to the monkey’s guardian.
So ridiculous. The photographer now says he wishes he had never taken the photo. Somebody decided to fight him as though they were some wonderful virtuous person. Who was this idiot? Chances are, this war was waged by somebody who just hates capitalism, especially when done by a white man. Stupid. I’m so glad he seems to have won a settlement. Hopefully it will be quick and easy collection of that sum, even after the lawyers have been paid for.
Indeed. Talk about a first world problem. LOL
No surprise the 9th Circus Court of Monkeys is involved
Good point — it’s a property issue, not the extortion is turned out to be.
9th Circus.
Oh, great. Now I guess I'll have to donate 25% of all revenues from the pictures my cat paints.
Who owned the monkey? PETA? Since I live in a 9th Circuit state, if I take a picture of a bat, which I did this evening and I sell the picture or copy of it, I owe the bat or have to have it’s permission first?!
PETA had standing in court?
Worse...the fricking monkey had standing!
Course I'm kinda like that.
If this happens, which I believe it will eventually do so, then we'll all have to become vegans.
No more pets. No more animals to eat.
It sounds silly now, but then so did gay marriage in the 70's and tranny rights in the 90's.
Well, that’s the plan. PETA was always about using animal rights as a pretext to shove veganism down our unwilling throats.
My cat is perfectly happy being a pet. What’s this wild hair of PETA? Most people spoil their pets.
these suckhole lawyers say the monkey owned the rights, so how do they get off giving the monkey's 25% of said non-existent rights AWAY to other monkeys?
Insanity in so many ways..
How the hell does PETA even have standing for something that happened in Indonesia?
And how the hell does the 9th Circus court have jurisdiction?
Oh wait, 9th Circus court, Monkeys... it all makes sense now.
And if the monkey had smashed the camera, or stolen it instead of taking the photos, would the court then award the guy who let the monkey use it damages from the monkey’s assets?
From what I remember, it was a monkey in the wild who had grabbed ahold of the camera. I guess this guy drained all of his $$ fighting this.
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.