Who owns copyright on these animal selfies?

File: 2000.jpg (119KB, 1240x1550px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1240x1550px

>The story of the monkey selfie began in 2011, when Slater traveled to Sulawesi, Indonesia, and spent several days following and photographing a troop of macaques. Slater has long maintained that the selfies were the result of his ingenuity in coaxing the monkeys into pressing the shutter while looking into the lens, after he struggled to get them to keep their eyes open for a wide-angle close-up.

>“It wasn’t serendipitous monkey behavior,” he said. “It required a lot of knowledge on my behalf, a lot of perseverance, sweat and anguish, and all that stuff.”

>The photographs became popular, and Slater said that he earned a few thousand pounds – enough to cover the cost of the trip to Indonesia. But the images became the subject of a complicated legal dispute in 2014, when Slater asked the blog Techdirt and Wikipedia to stop using them without permission.

>The websites refused, with Wikipedia claiming that the photograph was uncopyrightable because the monkey was the actual creator of the image. The US Copyright Office subsequently ruled that animals cannot own copyrights.

>“Every photographer dreams of a photograph like this,” Slater said of the image of a primate grinning toothily into the lens. “If everybody gave me a pound for every time they used [the photograph], I’d probably have £40m in my pocket. The proceeds from these photographs should have me comfortable now, and I’m not.”

>>3113871
o_0

File: article-2011051-0CDC0DD000000578-718_634x435.jpg (79KB, 634x435px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 634x435px

>In 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) filed a suit against Slater on behalf of the macaque, which it identified as a six-year-old male named Naruto, claiming that the animal was the rightful owner of the copyright. A judge ruled against Peta in 2016, saying that animals were not covered by the Copyright Act. Peta appealed to the ninth circuit court of appeals, which heard oral arguments on Wednesday.

>Among the points of contention were whether Peta has a close enough relationship to Naruto to represent it in court, the value of providing written notice of a copyright claim to a community of macaques, and whether Naruto is actually harmed by not being recognized as a copyright-holder.

>“There is no way to acquire or hold money. There is no loss as to reputation. There is not even any allegation that the copyright could have somehow benefited Naruto,” said Judge N Randy Smith. “What financial benefits apply to him? There’s nothing.”

>At one point, Judge Carlos Bea considered the question of how copyright passes to an author’s heirs.

>“In the world of Naruto, is there legitimacy and illegitimacy?” Bea asked. “Are Naruto’s offspring ‘children’, as defined by the statute?”

>For Slater, it was a painfully ironic line of questioning in light of his concerns for his own seven-year-old daughter and his continuing belief that the copyright is his. “I can’t afford to own a car. There’s no camera equipment for her to inherit if I die tomorrow,” he said. “She should inherit this [copyright], but it’s worthless.”

>The lawyer for Slater’s publisher, which is also a defendant, also raised the question of whether Peta has even identified the right monkey – something that Slater disputes.

>>3113874
HABEEB IT

>>3113871
I wouldn't mind either way.

It's not nearly as crazy as the aspect where copyright can be transferred to a company and takes Disney amounts of time to expire. Copyright needs to be shortened again.

>>3113871

I'd give the copyright to the monkey, just to spite that David fellow for laughs.

>>3113871
>slog your guts out all your life as a wildlife photographer in a saturated market
>finally get the photo of a lifetime
>some fucking nazi activist group continually tries to sue you on completely baseless grounds
>continually BTFO in court but they persist and you aren't able to claim royalties for the photo which would make you a multi-millionaire
>you're still poor and now you don't even have a camera
This whole thing makes me fucking mad, fuck PETA so much.

>>3113923
>>3113902
this is why contrarian edgleords never get put in charge of anything important

>>3113995
>>finally get the photo of a lifetime
but he didn't get the photo, the monkey did

What's more important, who took the photo or whose gear was used to take the photo?

>>3114057
>>3115102
Monkeys don't have rights. Fuck you, they don't pay taxes they don't get rights.

>>3115102
Gear is the most important thing in photography, everybody knows that

>>3113872
>Wikipedia claiming that the photograph was uncopyrightable
jesus the editors are really out of control over there, what a bunch of retards. This guy deserves a spite settlement, what a ridiculous bunch of trolls
he should countersue peta on the monkey's behalf for nonconsensual legal representation

>>3113879
> “I can’t afford to own a car. There’s no camera equipment for her to inherit if I die tomorrow,” he said. “She should inherit this [copyright], but it’s worthless.”
Don't make kids if you can't pay for them you fucking cunt! What the fuck is wrong with people nowadays?

This information is not even connected to the case. It shouldn't affect the decision of the court.

>peta
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwGFgRhJM48

>>3115102
Stupid question, without his gear and trainning the monkey would not have made the photo

>>3113871
isn't that like saying the lion is owed royalties for all mgm movies?

>he earned a few thousand pounds
>could have earned 40 millions

Who the fuck is paying for these photos?

>>3113871
I hate peta and their anti humanism