SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and wildlife photographer David Slater have reached a settlement over the ownership of a photograph taken by an Indonesian macaque monkey named Naruto:
PETA; photographer David Slater; his company, Wildlife Personalities, Ltd.; and self-publishing platform Blurb, Inc., have reached a settlement of the "monkey selfie" litigation. As a part of the arrangement, Slater has agreed to donate 25 percent of any future revenue derived from using or selling the monkey selfies to charities that protect the habitat of Naruto and other crested macaques in Indonesia.
According to a joint statement, "PETA and David Slater agree that this case raises important, cutting-edge issues about expanding legal rights for nonhuman animals, a goal that they both support, and they will continue their respective work to achieve this goal."
General Counsel for PETA Jeff Kerr told the New York Times that he did not know how much money Slater made on the photos in the past, but also that PETA is glad Naruto will benefit from the images in the future.
A federal judge previously dismissed the case, but PETA appealed. PETA has dropped its appeal so the question of nonhuman ownership of "intellectual property" will not be answered by a higher court.
Also at Ars Technica.
Previously: Monkey Selfie Case May Undo Evolution of the Web
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13 2017, @07:34AM (2 children)
A man steals your camera and takes a picture with it. Then returns it and runs away. But he sues you after you publish the photo to your tumblr weblog and it goes viral.
Unfortunately, the monkey forgot to file the lawsuit.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Wednesday September 13 2017, @07:43PM
In other words: borrowed without asking?
In this case, I think the copyright would lie with the photographer, though you could make a good argument that, by returning the camera without deleting or otherwise protecting the image, that the borrower gave tacit permission for the camera's owner to view, delete or otherwise use it.
If (going with what I assume was the actual intent of your example) the camera had been recovered without the co-operation of the thief, that tacit permission would not have been given, and copyright would lie with
the photographerwhomever's lawyer had the deepest pockets.(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:11PM
As I recall, the photographer apparently went through great effort to get the monkeys in question to use the camera. The selfie in question was the best of the lot, but far from unique. That also is the basis of the photographer's copyright claim to the photograph.