US Court to Decide if Monkey Has Intellectual Property Rights

[unokitty]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-naruto-really-did-take-those-monkey-selfies/

Ars Technica
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals isn't monkeying around. The animal rights group told a federal judge Friday that a monkey wrench is wrongly being thrown into its lawsuit claiming that a macaque monkey named Naruto is the rightful owner of the selfies the monkey allegedly snapped in the Tangkoko reserve on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi in 2011.

In response to allegations that PETA is representing the wrong monkey, the animal rights group wrote in a court filing (PDF) to US District Judge William Orrick that "there is no doubt that, as stated in the complaint, Naruto is the macaque in the Monkey Selfies."

The legal filing comes ahead of a January hearing on PETA's lawsuit in which it is suing a publisher and David Slater, the British nature photographer whose camera was swiped by a monkey while the photographer was on a jungle shoot. Slater has published a book with the pictures a monkey took of himself. Now the monkey—via PETA—is seeking monetary damages for copyright infringement from Slater and his publisher.

Apparently, the monkey has already lost one lawsuit where PETA claimed:

Had the Monkey Selfies been made by a human using Slater’s unattended camera, that human would be declared the photographs' author and copyright owner. While the claim of authorship by species other than homo sapiens may be novel, “authorship” under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., is sufficiently broad so as to permit the protections of the law to extend to any original work, including those created by Naruto. Naruto should be afforded the protection of a claim of ownership, and the right to recover damages and other relief for copyright infringement....

What's your opinion?
Can a monkey have intellectual property rights?
If not, then should the law be changed to facilitate a monkey's intellectual property rights?

Separate but related, if a robot takes a picture, who owns the intellectual property rights to that picture?

Uno

 

[Red Squirrel]

The US are complete nazis when it comes to IP laws. I would not be surprised if this actually did pass.

For a robot I would imagine the company that made the robot, or in the case of robot domestication, the owner. Though maybe the company. Who owns the pictures that are on an iphone or stored on icloud? Is it the owner or Apple? I could see Apple having the power to get that ownership if they had a reason to. Heck the maker of the photo censor could probably have the rights. Basically it is a device they made which created a work of art. The pixels just happen to look like a real like scene.

 

[Jeff7]

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals isn't monkeying around.

Can we also sue article writers who shoehorn awful puns into their work?

 

[pcgeek11]

PETA what a joke.

 

[twinrider1]

Why is PETA allowed to advocate on the monkey's behalf? I have a hard time believing the monkey initiated the suit.

 

[Charmonium]

So a monkey has IP rights to its selfies but Facespace users don't? Makes sense.

 

[KMFJD]

I can't believe this wasn't thrown out of court, what a waste of resources

 

[Ruptga]

A monkey isn't a person, it can't have higher level rights like intellectual property. A robot could be a person, but we're still a loooooong way away from that day.

 

[lxskllr]

Anything competent to claim copyright should get it. That doesn't include monkeys, but may include ai in the future.

 

[sdifox]

If Apple can own rounded corners, monkey can own selfies.

 

[Zodiark1593]

I can't believe this wasn't thrown out of court, what a waste of resources

Apparently there are some very bored judges and lawyers out there plus a nice fat check from PITA (or is it PETA?).

 

[unokitty]

Re-return of the Monkey Selfie

The backstory is that Naruto was minding his own business on the wildlife reserve where he lives when he happened upon an unattended camera belonging to the wildlife photographer David Slater. Intrigued by his discovery, Naruto grabbed the camera and snapped a few photos, including the now famous shot (reproduced at left) of his handsome, grinning face. The photo’s inaugural turn in the global press and as an Internet meme was back in 2011, when Slater first released the shots of Naruto to the media along with the story of their surprising origin. Caters News Agency published a full-body shot ... with a caption asserting that it owned copyright in the photo, introducing two legal questions: Are these photos subject to copyright? If so, who owns the copyright in them?

The two questions reared their head (if you will) again in 2014, when Wikimedia announced in its transparency report that Wikimedia Commons had published the headshot and received a DMCA takedown notice from Slater. Wikipedia refused to take down the photo, arguing that a photo taken by a monkey is not subject to copyright and is, therefore, in the public domain for anyone to reproduce and distribute. Slater didn’t press the issue, and now PETA has turned the tables on him, alleging in its complaint that he has infringed Naruto’s copyright by publishing the photo along with Naruto’s other selfies in a book...

A similar question arises with respect to the increasingly interesting and sophisticated artistic works that are being created autonomously by AI software.

On the surface, its easy to dismiss this as monkey business.

Still, both Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons received DMCA takedown notices which seem more like legal business.

Understandably, you may find it difficult to sympathize with PETA.

Though for me, it is even more difficult to sympathize with corporations, like Disney, that profit by stealing from the public domain...

On this issue, I'll be standing with the Public Domain and the Monkey.

Uno

 

[feralkid]

PETA what a joke.

 

[zinfamous]

At first glance, this seems like a petty shakedown against the photogrpaher, most likely for doing something that PETA doesn't approve (stealing animal's souls with his photos, perhaps), and should be tossed swiftly out before it ever reaches trial, but then I read this:

If Apple can own rounded corners, monkey can own selfies.

now, not so sure. :hmm:

 

[werepossum]

Before we decide whether Naruto owns his selfies, let's decide how many years Naruto gets in prison for grand theft camera.

 

[Rakehellion]

Chimpanzees and monkeys have entered the Stone Age

Soon they'll be manufacturing their own iPhones in sweatshops run by baboons.

 

[Rakehellion]

For a robot I would imagine the company that made the robot, or in the case of robot domestication, the owner. Though maybe the company. Who owns the pictures that are on an iphone or stored on icloud? Is it the owner or Apple? I could see Apple having the power to get that ownership if they had a reason to. Heck the maker of the photo censor could probably have the rights. Basically it is a device they made which created a work of art. The pixels just happen to look like a real like scene.

"Facebook! iCloud! The NSA!" Thanks for sounding like a headline from 5 years ago.

 

[Childs]

Why is PETA allowed to advocate on the monkey's behalf? I have a hard time believing the monkey initiated the suit.

But if he did, I'd have to side with the monkey.

 

[zinfamous]

But if he did, I'd have to side with the monkey.

if that monkey could defend itself in court, calling forth witnesses and arguing before the jury, I would absolutely support it.

Shit, I would actually donate money to PETA of all things if they were the ones fronting the court costs in such an event.