Best copyright issue ever.

Open, general discussion of classic sound-era films, personalities and history.
User avatar
boblipton
Posts: 6148
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by boblipton » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:18 am

Legal fees have overwhelmed the defendant in this case. Apparently he lacks the deep pockets of of a monkey.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... are_btn_tw" target="_blank

Bob
Life's too short to sit on our rears watching other people's work.
— Bob Fells

R Michael Pyle
Posts: 1724
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:10 pm

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by R Michael Pyle » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:03 am

You know, my pet mole took a selfie with my phone camera and, like the monkey, tried to convince me that it owned the copyright. I disagreed, so it burrowed under my yard (front and back) and under my house - like a medieval war miner - till it's now sagging, and I'm going to accede to his right so he'll just leave my property alone!

User avatar
westegg
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:13 am

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by westegg » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:52 am

Ah, the ol' quid mole quo gambit!

R Michael Pyle
Posts: 1724
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:10 pm

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by R Michael Pyle » Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:27 am

westegg wrote:Ah, the ol' quid mole quo gambit!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
missdupont
Posts: 2435
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:48 pm
Location: California

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by missdupont » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:36 am

The case has apparently been settled, and it appears the human photographer will keep the copyright, only donating 25% of fees to groups protecting macaques.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fight-over-r ... 10152.html" target="_blank" target="_blank

User avatar
boblipton
Posts: 6148
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by boblipton » Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:09 am

I want to hear the judge ask the PETA lawyers if the monkey has agreed to the settlement.

Bob
Life's too short to sit on our rears watching other people's work.
— Bob Fells

User avatar
Donald Binks
Posts: 3115
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by Donald Binks » Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:40 pm

I'm waiting for the film to come out, based on the court case. It will make a change from the usual "Planet of the Apes" th8ing.
Regards from
Donald Binks

"So, she said: "Elly, it's no use letting Lou have the sherry glasses..."She won't appreciate them,
she won't polish them..."You know what she's like." So I said:..."

Nick_M
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:02 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by Nick_M » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:42 pm

missdupont wrote:The case has apparently been settled, and it appears the human photographer will keep the copyright, only donating 25% of fees to groups protecting macaques.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fight-over-r ... 10152.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank
No, the picture is in the public domain, since animals can't hold copyrights (the monkey, not the photographer, took the picture). However, both parties want to vacate that ruling.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170 ... ight.shtml

User avatar
boblipton
Posts: 6148
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by boblipton » Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:08 am

Nick will be pleased that Ted Frank has filed a brief as a sarcastic Friend of the Court brief -- if I were a court, all of my friends would be sarcastic -- asking the court not to vacate the order; with a link to his brief.

https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/09/te ... key-arena/" target="_blank" target="_blank

In it, Frank suggests that PETA has abandoned Naruto and that the Court would be justified in appointing a guardian for Naruto with as much a relationship to Naruto as PETA. He states that he has no relationship with Naruto, and therefore qualifies.

Bob
Life's too short to sit on our rears watching other people's work.
— Bob Fells

User avatar
boblipton
Posts: 6148
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by boblipton » Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:53 am

And now that matters have been settled by claiming that nothing has happened in court, since that would blow up everyone's chance to make a buck, David Slater, the photographer in this, announces he is planning to sue Wikipedia.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171 ... edia.shtml" target="_blank

Bob
Life's too short to sit on our rears watching other people's work.
— Bob Fells

User avatar
boblipton
Posts: 6148
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by boblipton » Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:58 am

Thanks to Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar, I was made aware that this story is not dead. As those of you who have been following this hot, high-speed case for the last eight years, PETA has been suing a photographer over the rights to a picture of a macaque, claiming that copyrights reside in the animal. The law firm representing them, which hoped to become the go-to firm for such issues, came up with terrible arguments, but managed to almost bankrupt the photographer, so they all settled and moved to dismiss, hoping the court would accept and so not take judicial notice and result in PETA making itself look more like a bunch of jerks than it usually does.

The Court has not dismissed.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180 ... case.shtml" target="_blank

Bob
Life's too short to sit on our rears watching other people's work.
— Bob Fells

User avatar
boblipton
Posts: 6148
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by boblipton » Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:49 pm

The Ninth Circuit has ruled, affirming the lower court decision, with a concurring opinion that holds that the majority opinion goes on way too long and then goes for for a greater length. You may read it for yourself at:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... 23-18.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

I read through the entire document and in my layman's analysis, it holds PETA's feet to the fire in the footnote that runs from page 7 to page 8 of the opinion.
We feel compelled to note that PETA’s deficiencies in this regard
go far beyond its failure to plead a significant relationship with Naruto.
Indeed, if any such relationship exists, PETA appears to have failed to live
up to the title of “friend.” After seeing the proverbial writing on the wall
at oral argument, PETA and Appellees filed a motion asking this court to
dismiss Naruto’s appeal and to vacate the district court’s adverse
judgment, representing that PETA’s claims against Slater had been settled.
It remains unclear what claims PETA purported to be “settling,” since the
court was under the impression this lawsuit was about Naruto’s claims, But, even if PETA had alleged a significant relationship
with Naruto, it still could not sue as Naruto’s next friend. In
Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990), the Supreme
Court discussed “next friend” standing in a habeas case in
which a third-party litigant sought to challenge the death
sentence of a capital defendant, Simmons, who had forsworn
his right to appeal. In considering whether the third-party,
Whitmore, had standing to sue on behalf of Simmons, the
Court emphasized the limited nature of “next friend” standing
and explained the rationale behind its limitations. For
example, requiring a showing of incompetency and a
“significant relationship” ensures that “the litigant asserting
and per PETA’s motion, Naruto was “not a party to the settlement,” nor
were Naruto’s claims settled therein. Nevertheless, PETA apparently
obtained something from the settlement with Slater, although not anything
that would necessarily go to Naruto: As “part of the arrangement,” Slater
agreed to pay a quarter of his earnings from the monkey selfie book “to
charities that protect the habitat of Naruto and other crested macaques in
Indonesia.” See Settlement Reached: ‘Monkey Selfie’ Case Broke New
Ground For Animal Rights, PETA, https://www.peta.org/blog/settlementreached-monkey-" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank selfie-case-broke-new-ground-animal-rights/ (last
visited Apr. 5, 2018). But now, in the wake of PETA’s proposed
dismissal, Naruto is left without an advocate, his supposed “friend” having
abandoned Naruto’s substantive claims in what appears to be an effort to
prevent the publication of a decision adverse to PETA’s institutional
interests. Were he capable of recognizing this abandonment, we wonder
whether Naruto might initiate an action for breach of confidential
relationship against his (former) next friend, PETA, for its failure to
pursue his interests before its own. Puzzlingly, while representing to the
world that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for
entertainment, or abuse in any other way,” see PETA, https://peta.org" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank (last
visited Apr. 5, 2018), PETA seems to employ Naruto as an unwitting
pawn in its ideological goals. Yet this is precisely what is to be avoided
by requiring next friends to have a significant relationship with, rather
than an institutional interest in, the incompetent party—a point made by
Chief Justice Rehnquist in Lenhard v. Wolff, 443 U.S. 1306, 1312 (1979).
See infra page 9 for exact language.
I trust that anyone who hopes, like me, for better treatment of animals, will note the gap between PETA's behavior and their avowed goals.

The court found court costs for the defendant. I have no idea whether the side agreement with PETA already covers the matter, or bars further recovery or what.

I would speculate this affair is done and our revels now are ended, except that Slater is still fighting Wikimedia over whether he has a copyright to the photograph in question.In addition, Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar may have some concluding comments to make on this case, which I will link to in this thread.which has been going on an awfully long time.

Bob
Last edited by boblipton on Mon Apr 23, 2018 2:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Life's too short to sit on our rears watching other people's work.
— Bob Fells

User avatar
Donald Binks
Posts: 3115
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by Donald Binks » Mon Apr 23, 2018 2:49 pm

I suppose the next thing that will happen is that "animals" will be made wards of the state with taxes increased accordingly so that the wheels of bureaucracy can turn effectively.

I would have thought that an "animal's" interests were vested in the guardian of such "animal" and therefore it is that person who would have been taken through the courts?

Here in Oz our courts are so behind trying to get cases heard that involve humans, all this would be considered vexatious litigation and dealt with as such.
Regards from
Donald Binks

"So, she said: "Elly, it's no use letting Lou have the sherry glasses..."She won't appreciate them,
she won't polish them..."You know what she's like." So I said:..."

User avatar
silentfilm
Moderator
Posts: 9363
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:31 pm
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Contact:

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by silentfilm » Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:24 pm

Here is the Washington Post story. As Bob said, the court didn't have nice things to say about PETA...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... -suggests/

User avatar
boblipton
Posts: 6148
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Clement Clarke Moore's Farm

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by boblipton » Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:09 pm

As I thought he might, Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar had some concluding comments on the case. As Bruce above notes, he agrees that the panel of judges don't care for PETA. He concludes that monkeys can sue in California, but no one can sue on their behalf.

https://loweringthebar.net/2018/04/nint ... nding.html" target="_blank" target="_blank

Bob
Last edited by boblipton on Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Life's too short to sit on our rears watching other people's work.
— Bob Fells

User avatar
Donald Binks
Posts: 3115
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:08 am
Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by Donald Binks » Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:39 pm

I think all this provides enough fodder to form the basis of another of those "Planet of the Apes" pictures. In this latest installment, the monkeys could be seen introducing a full legal system for all branches of the animal kingdom.

The mind boggles.
Regards from
Donald Binks

"So, she said: "Elly, it's no use letting Lou have the sherry glasses..."She won't appreciate them,
she won't polish them..."You know what she's like." So I said:..."

User avatar
Jim Roots
Posts: 2867
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:45 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Best copyright issue ever.

Unread post by Jim Roots » Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:32 am

Donald Binks wrote:I think all this provides enough fodder to form the basis of another of those "Planet of the Apes" pictures. In this latest installment, the monkeys could be seen introducing a full legal system for all branches of the animal kingdom.

The mind boggles.
"I sentence you to have poo flung at you! Case dismissed!"

Jim

Post Reply