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This discussion has been archived.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, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:11AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 19 2017, @12:11AM (#541243) Journal

    So PETA seems not to give a shit about the means used to reach their goals, appearing not to care about collateral damage.

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:49PM (1 child)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Wednesday July 19 2017, @01:49PM (#541421) Journal

    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

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 20 2017, @11:01AM (#541874) Journal

      Yes, can't pin this on PETA, this isn't their insanity.

      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.