Peta appealing Monkey selfie ruling

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?

But the monkey didn't ask to borrow the camera, the photographer made several visits setting the shot up to try and encourage the monkey to press the shutter. The monkey had no cognitive contribution to taking this photograph and it would have never have happened if it wasn't for the actions of the photographer.

If the courts ruled that the monkey held the copyright, I wonder what would happen to all the footage produce for wildlife documentaries or scientific research that rely on the animal triggering the camera by walking through an infrared beam or other auto triggering mechanism. The same argument should apply as in none of these examples would the photographer have triggered the camera.
 
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.

I agree. Would have been a much more better publicity if the photographer were to donate 100% of income from monkey selfie to WWF or similar organisations, by his choice. Had he done that, who knows? PETA would find there's no point in taking him to court.

Image the embarrassment for PETA if....

PETA member: "Your Honor. We seek damages on behalf for the monkey. The monkey took the selfie. We expect the photographer to help donate for wildlife."
Judge: "But he is donating to WWF."
PETA member: "Oh? Well, er, we, um, we expect him to pay 50% of income from the monkey selfie."
Judge: "But he is donating the 100%."
PETA member: "Is he? Oh, well good, well we expect..."
Judge: "Stop right there. This man is already donating the full income to WWF, he even offered to make the copyright a public domain, look to me you don't have much of a case here. So I'm closing the case. Will you clowns stop monkeying about and go home!"

Who knows? With a nice publicity like donating fully to WWF, the National Geographic magazine would be interested in the photographer and offer him a paid assignment.
 
There really are many deeply disturbed people alive today.

The image originated in Indonesia. The photographer is a UK citizen (?)

What gives an American court jurisdiction for a start?
 
But the monkey didn't ask to borrow the camera, the photographer made several visits setting the shot up to try and encourage the monkey to press the shutter. ....

According to one, and not the original, version of his story.

When it first went viral, it was "his camera had been mounted on a tripod when the primates began playing around with a remote ‘cable release’ as he was trying to fend off other monkeys. ... 'They accidentally took the shots.'" http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...-photographer-plays-down-monkey-reports-16224 and "One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...859/Monkey-steals-camera-to-snap-himself.html

Two years later it became him spending time becoming accepted as part of the troop, setting up the shot, and encouraging the macaques to take the photos.

Most recently, the whole trip was because he wanted to highlight the plight of the animals.

Every couple of years or so, it's in the bloody news again, and every time the story of why or how the photos orginated changes, so no I have no sympathy for DS even if PETA is an arse and can go to hell.
 
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.

The photographer shouldn't have to give away any rights, any more than Gregory Crewdson should give away rights because he doesn't actually press the shutter release when creating an image.
 
According to one, and not the original, version of his story.

Every couple of years or so, it's in the bloody news again, and every time the story of why or how the photos orginated changes,

I admit, I am going on the story as explained by the photographer, I can't say how long ago it originated from.
 
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".
:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
I did hear through the Grapevine, or should that be Banana vine that he was hoping to be paid in silver back's rather than green backs ;)
something like a "monkey" should cover it (y)

:D
 
043ac31ee6922ef49d0440c98ab0c163--lawyers-judges.jpg

Lord Chimp Justice
 
This thread is getting almost as silly as PETA!:police:
 
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?

But if you don't own the copyright you don't have the right to decide where the royalties go. How would you know that the monkey wants the royalties to go to the WWF? Maybe the monkey would like the royalties paid direct into his Swiss bank account - ludicrous? How would you, or anyone else, know?

There are many "rights" that humans have that aren't logically transferrable to (I hate to use the phrase) lower animals simply because they have no way of expressing their wishes/desires to us.
 
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.

In your arguement the photographer can't give away the copyright - it's not his to give away.

Do you not see the problem with applying human rights to non-human animals? They are called human rights for a very good reason.
 
Do you not see the problem with applying human rights to non-human animals? They are called human rights for a very good reason.

'They' might well be, but in terms of copyright and self-awareness in animals, 'they' are irrelevant. It's legal rights that are important in this case.
 
Interesting Podcast on this American Life this week, with the photographer giving his viewpoint of how the image was created and how the court cases went... and how wikimedia still won't take down his image
You can listen from the webpage
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/
 
Back
Top