Thursday, January 7, 2016

Judge Rules Monkey Cannot Own Selfie Photos Copyright



Some sanity in San Francisco.

A macaque monkey who took a now-famous selfie photograph cannot be declared the copyright owner of the photos, a federal judge said Wednesday.

Though it was only limited sanity.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick seemed to recognize the potential for animal copyright. He said in a tentative ruling in federal court in San Francisco that ``while Congress and the president can extend the protection of law to animals as well as humans, there is no indication that they did so in the Copyright Act.''

The lawsuit filed last year by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sought a court order allowing PETA to represent the monkey and let it 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 with an unattended camera owned by British nature photographer David Slater, who asked the court to dismiss the case. Slater says the British copyright obtained for the photos by his company, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., should be honored worldwide.

The first point is, of course, who says PETA should be representing the monkey?

As Murray Rothbard put it:
There is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that "we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them."

Second, like it or not, and I do like it, humans rule the planet. Dogs don't have us walking around on leashes.

Any "creations" of a non-human animal should  belong to the owner of the equipment used by such animal. Unless, of course, the owner of the equipment granted the owner of the animal, if the animal is owned, use of the equipment, then the creation, depending on the agreement between the two humans, could become the property of the animal owner.

Second, "creations"  of any kind by unowned animals that are discovered become the property of the human discoverer (unless discovered on the property of another human.)

These general rules should apply to both organic and non-organic creations.

The eggs of a chicken belong to the chicken owner. The milk of a cow belongs to the cow owner.

 -RW

(Source: NBC New York)

9 comments:

  1. Bob, I'm wondering what is the basis of the human-animal divide when it comes to rights, in this case libertarian conception of rights. Are you approaching this from a religious point of view where a god has created the moral nature of the universe and distinguished man from the animal world or is there some justification from a non religious point of view that is non arbitrary along the evolutionary tree?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He mentioned when they petition, so likely sentience is the line when it comes to these rights. Of course he's wrong to believe in copy "rights" for anything.

      It's funny that he says the owner of the physical properties gets the copy "right" here, those who question the existence of such rights maintain the same for all because clearly allowing ownership of copies entails partial ownership of anything that can potentially have a copy.

      Delete
    2. so the louder someone petitions for their rights the more those rights should be recognised?

      seems to only work for those who "own" stuff under a legal system that best serves people who own stuff according to some squiggles on paper or numbers on some hard disks

      inherent in "free market" meme is the underlying adoption of Noachide Law

      what happens when someone rises up, leads an army of (economically discontented, disempowered etc) people who don't recognise your squiggles and take it all away from you

      true sentience is the power to overthrow

      everything else is games

      Delete
    3. Re: The Peak Oil Poet,
      ─so the louder someone petitions for their rights the more those rights should be recognised?─

      If someone PETITIONS for their rights, then that someone possesses rationality, which implies he or she has rights. Dumb animals don't petition.

      ─seems to only work for those who "own" stuff under a legal system that best serves people ─

      The above is the Marxian equivalent of "Penis envy." Success with the ladies seems to work only for those who are bigger, the seemingly less-endowed would think.

      ─inherent in "free market" meme is the underlying adoption of Noachide Law─

      An absurd statement. And I'm being nice.

      ─what happens when someone rises up, leads an army of (economically discontented, disempowered etc) people who don't recognise your squiggles and take it all away from you─

      I would say it is telling that you would imply that only might makes right.

      Delete
  2. "Second, like it or not, and I do like it, humans rule the planet. . Dogs don't have us walking around on leashes."

    Let's hope aliens don't land and put us on leashes.

    :)

    I keeeeeeed!

    (unless of course they are "hot" female aliens)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Nick Badalamenti,

      ─Let's hope aliens don't land and put us on leashes.─

      If they do land, I'll give them a list of people that deserve leashes.

      Delete
  3. Murray Rothbard used to say that if the animals have rights, let them speak up and claim them. I am paraphrasing, but I believe that is the gist of it. Rothbard also spoke of the alien question.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Who says the animals are not speaking up for their rights? How many of you speak Macaque?

    ReplyDelete
  5. If that is really a good measure, then what is wrong with saying: If Autistic people have rights, let them speak up and claim them. If the mentally retarded have rights, let them speak up and claim them. Should they be treated like somebody's horse or goat?

    ReplyDelete