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This discussion has been archived.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: 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. ;)))