Great, more sideshow shit from PETA that helps make animal rights advocacy dismissable as something for the loony fringe by the public they should be persuading.
The idea of “Ethical Treatment of Animals” really deserves a better organization representing it.
Marcel Duchamp did nothing to alter his “ready-mades,” yet they are generally regarded as his artworks.
@Daneyul Yes, it’s the SPCA.
As somebody who both fights the concept of property as a being unrealistic wishful thinking, and who fights against humans speciesism - people’s strong reactions to this crack me up.
Try convincing people how quaint and unscientific ownership and property seem to be, and people’s rebuttals tend to be that it is somehow universal and unavoidable. Well, there appear to be limits to that “universality”, that having other participating agents in your environment is unthinkably inconvenient .
The intersection of these issues appears to reenforce that both ownership and human exceptionism are poorly thought out self-serving fantasies.
I’m okay with giving the monkey the copyright, or having no copyright on the photo at all (IOW public domain).
But I am seriously not okay with PETA claiming copyright on behalf of the monkey. Guaranteed they don’t have the monkey’s permission. I’d be impressed if they even knew which monkey it was.
My feline friends already own me so I don’t see why not. 
[quote=“Grim_Beefer, post:10, topic:82836”]
For example, what if two photographers had been there instead of one, with a pile of cameras. Assume the monkey chooses one at random, and commits the same act. Who gets the copyright? The owner of the camera? Both of them? No one? It’s pretty confusing to follow the logic of the case.
[/quote]
I believe you’ve got the gist of David’s initial argument. It’s a pretty broken way to draw the line, like your example shows.
I feel like a monkey can have copyright … if the monkey understands what they’re doing when they’re making art. In this case, it’s pretty unlikely that Naruto understood (Naruto and pals wanted to make the shutter noise happen) so Naruto doesn’t have copyright here. But David didn’t try to get monkey selfies either. No one gets copyright and we all get to enjoy the results.
PETA’s making the wrong argument (photo is public domain because no one intended to make it) but they wouldn’t make the right one because it doesn’t serve their agenda.
If David handed the camera to Naruto with the intention of making monkey photography … maybe. Naruto swiped the camera.
(Overall note: I’m arguing from my knowledge of U.S. copyright law plus my opinion that some animals are sentient enough to potentially own copyright. I’m not a lawyer. My mom always sighed and said “You’d have to be a Philadelphia lawyer…”)
IT RAISES AWARENESS, guldurnit!
I assume I’m stating the obvious that everyone recognizes… that this has nothing to do with photographic content or copyright, but is being hard-fought by PeTA as a step in the direction of legitimizing animals as creatures whose existence is equal in status to those of human beings. Not necessarily something I’m entirely against (but also not entirely for), but something that seems weasely to go about in this way. Sorry for the pun.
(popo goes full language-crazy again!)
Also, I’d like to remind people that “animal” is a religious term. Literally - a body that had a soul breathed into it by the god(s).
For secular discussion I prefer the more neutral term “organism”.
(ducks)
Well, I’m sure they’ll figure it out. On to the next IP question:
Pound sign team monkey.
Maybe they already can: Leona Helmsley cut her kids out of her will & left her pooch $10M - a judge later dropped it to two million, but still. It’s a LOT more than I have. Monies are to be used to maintain the dogs “lifestyle”.
So, all organisms should be called ducks now?
This is going to get confusing…
In the quoted bit, that would count as “setting up the camera.”
It goes on to point out that the photographer had accidentally left the camera out.
That would be like a plumber leaving behind some parts, instead of Duchamp* submitting the urinal for exhibition.
* or the Baroness.
They’re not “claiming” the copyright. As stated in the article, they are requesting authority to administer and defend the copyright in a non-profitable way:
PETA is seeking the court’s permission to administer and protect Naruto’s copyright in the “monkey selfies,” without compensation, with all proceeds to be used for the benefit of Naruto and his community.
Not if he or she has brothers, sisters, or children.
Oh, so they’re just going to act like they’re claiming it, except without claiming it.
If PETA had always acted with integrity in the past, I might almost believe it. Their history of trading misogyny for some time in the spotlight, among other things, puts reasonable doubt on their intentions.
The duck always sees what you did there.
If all organisms are ducks, are all ducks organisms?
While use of the term “duck” or “cairn” is somewhat regional, a duck is generally a much smaller rock pile,[6]
typically stacked just high enough to convince the observer it is not
natural. For most, two rocks stacked could be a coincidence, but three
rocks stacked is a duck. In some regions, ducks also contain a pointer
rock (or couple of stacked rocks) to indicate the direction of the
trail.
Also PETA doesn’t own the monkey. The zoo owns the monkey. So wouldn’t the zoo own the copyright? Why does PETA even have any standing to bring the suit?
I recall reading about some case they filed where they wanted to have a monkey declared a “person”, but it actually meant take the monkey away from its current owner and give it to PETA who would then basically be the new owner. Pure scam.
I kinda wish PETA would spend this money on more meaningful things instead of this stupid shit.
