Peta appealing Monkey selfie ruling

Bunch of nutters.
They're doing their cause no favours...in both cases.
In fact in the vegan case, they're just furthering the opinion of vegans as "just a little bit weird".
Be a vegan...knock yourself out; just leave the (vast majority of the) rest of us out of it.
 
and it took 2 years for judges to reach that decision! :banghead:
 
However - he has reached a compromise of donating 25% of any income to protection of the environment.
I did like his argument that the monkey wasn't the one Peta claimed...
 
Peta are pushing this so hard because a result for them would mean animals are capable f owning property and a whole heap of other rights, if they won this one they know it'll have some far reaching implications for their cause
 
boyfalldown said:
Peta are pushing this so hard because a result for them would mean animals are capable f owning property and a whole heap of other rights, if they won this one they know it'll have some far reaching implications for their cause
Click to expand...


IMO peta should be forced to pay the Photographer 1,000s, have to say sorry we are totally out of order for being idiots,fools and stupid. IMO peta are scum and want to carry on and ruin the Copyright owner.
 
All he had to do was say that "actually I took the photo. The monkey grabbed the camera but I pushed the shutter release". Done. All credit then goes to the photographer.
 
Disgusting. I feel for the photographer as it never should have gone this far. PETA used dirty tactics too, using a US court to try to win. I'm glad common sense has prevailed but this sho never have gone to court, let alone take 2 years to sort out.
 
one for the European Court of Justice ....... they should get on well together as they are all a set of monkeys
 
Dave70D said:
IMO peta should be forced to pay the Photographer 1,000s, have to say sorry we are totally out of order for being idiots,fools and stupid. IMO peta are scum and want to carry on and ruin the Copyright owner.
Click to expand...

I happen to agree completely. But, I don't think PETA's motivation was to gain a few $000 for the monkey. This quote from them gives it away

Peta said it would be the first time a non-human animal has been declared the owner of property, if the lawsuit succeeded.

"The fact that copyright ownership by an animal has not been previously asserted does not mean that such rights cannot be asserted," Peta said.
Click to expand...

Had they won, then they've have had a court ruling that an animal can own property they' would be using that for every campaign they want
 
Last edited:
I hope the togger was awarded costs. Hopefully this will set some kind of precedent, though fom what I've read it probably will not.
 
As I understand it, the case was settled out of court, and the photographer has agreed to pay 25% of future profits to suitable animal charities. I read somewhere that he was in dire financial straits because of PETA, and probably agreed to the 25% to bring it to an end. Doesn't seem fair to have to do that, but at least he didn't have to give it to PETA!
 
Paul-H said:
Good use of their donated funds, just how many thousands would they have spent on this ?
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

I would be furious if one of the charities that I give money to behaved like this.
 
Csaba said:
My thoughts exactly.

I would be furious if one of the charities that I give money to behaved like this.
Click to expand...

TBH I suspect the kind of people who support PETA would be glad to see someone who 'used animals' being abused at their expense.
 
The BBC (and others) have since updated it, but the photographer didn't win the case, the two sides settled. And a settlement where DS agreed to give money to certain charities that he previously weren't required to is hardly winning....

Mozthecat said:
What will this do for Wikipedia's stance on the image I wonder?
Click to expand...

Nothing, even if the settlement is accepted by the court. In fact, one of the reason probably for both sides to agree to the settlement was wanting to vacant the lower court ruling that animals cannot hold copyright, which suited neither side in this case.

Paul Wasensteiner said:
All he had to do was say that "actually I took the photo. The monkey grabbed the camera but I pushed the shutter release". Done. All credit then goes to the photographer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, hello fraud charges and civil suits for getting money previously for claiming the monkey took the photo.

ancient_mariner said:
I hope the togger was awarded costs. Hopefully this will set some kind of precedent, though fom what I've read it probably will not.
Click to expand...

The only precedent that will be set is if the appeal court refused to vacant the lower court judgment as part of the settlement, in which case a clear court ruling that animals cannot hold copyright (in the US).

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...val-peta-cant-settle-monkey-selfie-case.shtml :beer:
 
How would any of you feel if you were to borrow my camera, take a photo, give back my camera, then I claim copyright of the photo and live off the royalties?

If you were to say "I'll sue you!" then you would be proving a point: The copyright belongs to whoever took the photo, not whom the camera belong to.

Same for if you borrowed my car, drove over the speed limit, give back my car, I expect you to pay the fine. It may be my car, but you broken the speed limit, because you were driving.

It may be his camera, but the monkey took the selfie.

If this happened to me, I would be donating 100% of income from the monkey selfie to WWF, so since all funding for monkey selfie is going to WWF, there would be no reason for PETA to take me to court. Unless all members of Talk Photography plan to take me to court and claim I should be getting 100% of the income and full copyright for the monkey selfie?
 
I believe that Winnie the Pooh should perhaps consider taking legal advice from counsel about invasion of privacy and body shaming (remember the graphic coverage of that incident where he got stuck in rabbit's burrow after eating too much honey?). ;)
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
I believe that Winnie the Pooh should perhaps consider taking legal advice from counsel about invasion of privacy and body shaming
Click to expand...
GreenNinja67 said:
I believe he used a remote Tigger
Click to expand...
Eeaw not to have eaten all the honey, purely his own fault as far as I'm concerned, the little piglet ..

Ok I'm done :D
 
I'll just leave this here....


19078-1505490655-37c6b16d5966094a2a2781550d328b6b.png
 
I don't want to Badger you but I Toad you this would spread to other stories. There must a Mole in here somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Major Eazy said:
?


It may be his camera, but the monkey took the selfie.
?
Click to expand...

But the monkey cannot hold copyright.
Kind of the crux of the whole matter.
 
viv1969 said:
But the monkey cannot hold copyright.
Kind of the crux of the whole matter.
Click to expand...

Although the monkey can't hold the copyright as in the sense of giving or refusing permissions for the selfie to be published in magazines, books, etc, and keep the royalties (unless the royalties are paid in bananas). The photographer however could give away the copyright and make the monkey selfie a public domain, so he can't get paid for a photograph he never took, even if it was his camera. Also other option is that photographer could hold the copyright, but in the sense of being similar to an adult acting as the trustee of a bank account on behalf for an underage child. He give or refuse permissions for the monkey selfie to be published, but he could donate the full 100% income and fees for the monkey selfie to WWF.
 
Major Eazy said:
Although the monkey can't hold the copyright as in the sense of giving or refusing permissions for the selfie to be published in magazines, books, etc, .
Click to expand...

In any sense. Hell, the monkey, if still living, is unaware that it even took a selfie. It's not sitting each day, fretting over lost income, wringing it's hands and writing bitter letters to the papers from "outraged of Indonesia". Nor is it suffering from a raging case of GAS, desperate to have another go.

It's ridiculous case. Just PETA on another self righteous fools errand. An attempt to garner publicity for their cause, and it worked; just not in the way they'd hoped, I suspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top