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: 2) by unauthorized on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:41AM (6 children)
So, those two are incompatible? In that case do you propose we deny minors the ability to own copyright, or that they should be held legally liable in the same way adults are?
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:58AM (2 children)
Theft by a minor is still a crime - it's just handled differently than theft by an adult.
Presumably Monkey Prison would be somewhat different to a human adult prison (though possibly less than we might hope!)
(Score: 1) by unauthorized on Wednesday July 19 2017, @06:42AM (1 child)
You are missing the point. Children and adults bellow certain mental capacity are not held liable for their crimes because we deem people bellow certain level incapable of being legally responsible for themselves. A human being of monkey-level intelligence will not be prosecuted if they did the same things this monkey did.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday July 19 2017, @08:10AM
My point was that we do recognise some rights and responsibilities in children - enough to allow them to hold copyright on their works. Children are still held somewhat liable for their crimes (hence, youth detention centres), though I agree with you that we don't consider them legally responsible in the same sense that we hold adults responsible. If we held children completely unresponsible, then we couldn't assign them copyright.
For the purposes of this conversation, let's ignore the ludicrous situation we have in the US where young teenagers are being tried as adults. Even worse, when an underage nude selfie can result in prosecution as an adult for producing child porn [chicagotribune.com] (so, is the person a child or adult? You can't have it both ways!)
Essentially, my position is that I don't think monkeys have the capacity to qualify for copyright or responsibility for crimes. However, if a monkey did have the capacity for one, we should assume that they also have the capacity for the other (albeit not to the degree as an adult human).
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday July 19 2017, @03:09AM (2 children)
Monkey never age into full humanity.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by unauthorized on Wednesday July 19 2017, @06:46AM (1 child)
Neither do people with mental deficiencies. The same argument applies, should someone with a sufficiently severe brain injury be denied the right to hold copyright or should they be prosecuted for not obeying rules they are simply incapable of following?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday July 19 2017, @07:18AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?