SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
About six years ago photographrapher David Slater was taking pictures of monkeys and got a monkey to take a selfie with his equipment. The case has been in and out of court over copyright issues because while it was Slater's equipment and he set up the situation some claim that it is the monkey who holds copyright over the image while others claim that no one at all has copyright over the image. A serious attempt is being made to use the case to push for copyright and other ownership rights for non-humans. The image is now being use to try to force the issue of non-human rights, using methods that might do a lot of damage along the way.
Ars Technica is about the only site to notice so far. They write that the case is no laughing matter. PETA's quest for animals to own property could end the web as we know it. Specifically this image has become relevant to the future of the WWW and the Internet because the strategy chosen involves first asserting that companies that supply tools for people to self-publish their own works can be held liable for the content posted or uploaded by third parties.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Tuesday July 18 2017, @10:33PM (12 children)
PETA has no standing to sue in behalf of the wild animal.
Case will be dismissed.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Ramze on Tuesday July 18 2017, @10:38PM (10 children)
Beyond that, Copyright law explicitly states that anything created by animals or an act of God is not protected by copyright. It only applies to humans. The question is whether or not the human contributed significantly to the work. Some think not, so that means the photo can be used in the creative commons or any other medium indiscriminately because it isn't bound by copyright.
The real case is whether or not the photographer owns the copyright to the photo at all. This animal rights stuff is just fluff that'd be dismissed with prejudice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @10:56PM (9 children)
> The real case is whether or not the photographer owns the copyright to the photo at all.
> This animal rights stuff is just fluff that'd be dismissed with prejudice.
Right, but on the way to that dismissal, there is a non-zero chance that the courts may find that sites become liable for content posted or uploaded by third parties. That could shut down many sites permanently even if is later overturned. So PETA seems not to give a shit about the means used to reach their goals, appearing not to care about collateral damage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @11:13PM (5 children)
Collateral damage would include shuttering Twitter and Trump wouldn't allow that to happen.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:12AM (4 children)
This ain't happening via legislation or executive action, this is lawless courts. So unless Trump is really going to go "God Emperor" and start giving judges helicopter rides there won't be anything he can do.
But I don't think there are enough judges, even in the 9th Circus, to pull something like this off yet. The only way PETA has standing is if they argue the monkey isn't competent to represent itself, which means it can't hold a copyright. Unless the monkey can execute a power of attorney and convince a judge it knows what that is and did it of its own free will. To ignore all of that would be to expose the lawlessness that has been pervading the Judiciary for decades to such an extent the normies might notice, for little gain for The Narrative. Don't think they are ready to risk it. Almost certain the current SCOTUS configuration isn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:36AM (3 children)
I was thinking along similar lines, but my mind went to Andrew Jackson's comment about the unconstitutionality of the forced "resettlement" of Native Americans.
John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it. [google.com]
...and fuck Google.
I put in a text string AS A PHRASE in a VERBATIM search and it's the 16th "hit" before they find and highlight that string--unless I put it in -multiple- times.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:05AM (1 child)
On behalf of the Google team, thank you for your loyalty.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:27AM
Apparently, the Old Hands cash out and retire and the young whippersnappers that are hired to replace them never bother to see what the old code does before paving over that with their new whiz-bang hipster shit.
In particular, the syntax used for highlighting cached pages has been a victim of this, multiple times.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @02:50PM
I got better results with Ecosia and DuckDuckGo, though Google's results were decent. Didn't seem as bad as it was for you. But I did click your link first, so maybe the Oracle at Google already knew what I was after.
I haven't used Google for my day-to-day searches in well over a year or two now.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:11AM (2 children)
That's because it's the court's job to make sane decisions. There will never be an end to dumb people exhorting the courts to make dumb decisions. It's a potential failure mode of the system that we have to live with and work around when it happens.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:49PM (1 child)
Yes, can't pin this on PETA, this isn't their insanity. Perhaps the sanest decision would be to abolish copyright. No more copyright means no more questions about whether monkeys can own photos. No one could own photos or paintings or any other art. Public libraries would finally be free to go fully digital, people could once and for all toss the bulky media out of their private libraries and cut way down on their collections, keeping only the rare stuff, knowing that the popular and common can always be downloaded again without having to worry about ridiculous accusations of theft, no need to travel to the library, twice, to check out and then return physical media.
However, the courts won't and can't do that. Takes legislative and executive action to repeal insane laws, and they won't act either. Need more public backing for a change of that sort, and there still isn't enough, not even after 40 years of copyright and intellectual property insanity. Copyright has a strong grip on the public because it speaks to our fear of loss. Psychological studies show that people will pass up a huge gain to avoid a small loss. Why, the results of this case could cause professional photographers to starve! They will LOSE their livelihoods! We will LOSE their services!
But, those losses have be balanced against other losses. A decision in the other direction could destroy the web, really? Would you rather lose the Internet or professional artists? If it ever comes to that choice, the Internet will win. The Internet just too amazingly, powerfully useful to be switched off for the sake of an unfair and downright mean business model. And professional art won't lose either, it will merely have to switch business models. That will make it clearer than ever that all this wailing over copyright was just so much hysteria. Meantime, people continue to exercise their natural rights to study and learn, and the law is powerless to stop that no matter what large corporate interests concoct for their puppets to enact.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 20 2017, @11:01AM
Actually, I disagree. Sure, it's not their fault, if the courts create or enforce bad law as a consequence. But they initiated the court case and various innocent parties are having to spend money to defend themselves as a result. At the least, PETA should be covering the cost of the cases and their appeals, possible with some modest punitive multiplier for wasting so many peoples' time and money with this case.
Nor do I agree that the current craziness of the PETA lawsuits has anything to do with the flaws of copyright. They're grandstanding for donations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:57AM
PETA, long the naked-parading evolution monkey liberal 'nazi feminists' are showing their true colors - to destroy all freedom.
I love animals, they look great right next to potatoes and gravy.