Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday July 18 2017, @10:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the monkey'ing-around dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday July 18 2017, @10:29PM (12 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @10:29PM (#541200) Journal
    This is one of their best weapons. By obscuring and confusing the issue of human rights they hope to eliminate the concept, and judging from the news they seem to be having a great deal of success.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=2, Overrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by frojack on Tuesday July 18 2017, @10:58PM

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday July 18 2017, @10:58PM (#541213) Journal

    Yup, and their new constituency can't reject them. Nirvana of the leftists.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @11:34PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 18 2017, @11:34PM (#541226)

    Human Rights apply to the state, it restricts what government can do to their citizens. Access to mental health treatment should be a human right, one that we should champion for individuals who think a monkey that steals someone's phone should own copyright but not be prosecuted for theft!

    • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:41AM (6 children)

      by unauthorized (3776) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:41AM (#541268)

      Access to mental health treatment should be a human right, one that we should champion for individuals who think a monkey that steals someone's phone should own copyright but not be prosecuted for theft!

      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)

        by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:58AM (#541275)

        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)

          by unauthorized (3776) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @06:42AM (#541348)

          Theft by a minor is still a crime - it's just handled differently than theft by an adult.

          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

            by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @08:10AM (#541372)

            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)

        by Arik (4543) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @03:09AM (#541296) Journal
        Minors have a temporary modification of the rules until they age into full adulthood.

        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)

          by unauthorized (3776) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @06:46AM (#541349)

          Monkey never age into full humanity.

          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

            by Arik (4543) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @07:18AM (#541356) Journal
            This is exactly why we have the concept of a legal guardian.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday July 19 2017, @05:05AM (1 child)

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @05:05AM (#541336) Journal

      No, human rights are universal. The reason you are forbidden to kill your neighbour is your neighbour's human right to live. I doubt you are the government.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 1) by nekomata on Wednesday July 19 2017, @07:41PM

        by nekomata (5432) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @07:41PM (#541610)

        The goverment is the one prohibiting me from killing my neighbour (not even forbidding, but defining consequences of the action). So yes, it's still the goverment. If my goverment ceased to exist tomorrow there would be no penalty from them for killing my neighbour. Maybe his family would come for me or something but that's lynching, not human rights. Human rights apply to me because the goverment enforces them (again, via consequences). Their (the goverments) existence is the defining factor in this. (Please note I am not arguing against human rights (and maybe even not against killing your neighbour, but that's a more complicated topic. ;)))

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 19 2017, @03:55AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 19 2017, @03:55AM (#541316) Journal
    I think this is just a fund raising tool for PETA. Nothing more, nothing less. They don't care what comes of the trial or the hapless people hurt by it.