Monkey doesn't own copyright to selfies, judge rules

Quick, someone marry that monkey and claim whatever rights you can in this case.

Someone from PETA no doubt.

So they should start working on the complete works of J K Rowling?

The real question is why would PETA have any interest in the monkey’s copyright were the monkey able to own the copyright? They don’t own the monkey.

I suspect PETA doesn’t give a crap about the copyright, in and of itself, getting the monkey copyright is a small step. Next it’ll be property rights or suffrage or some such. They simply want laws on the books to help establish precedents.

IMO, of course.

Kerr of PETA states that “This case is also exposing the hypocrisy of those who exploit animals for their own gain.” Which seems to be exactly what PETA is doing.

PETA already thought of that.

This is what happens when people wanna see macaque.

IIRC a key point in this case was that the owner did not set the situation up to cause a photo to be taken; his camera was simply snatched by the monkey. Consequently the owner of the camera can’t claim to have caused the photo to be taken and so arguably can’t claim copyright. This is what left it open to argue the monkey had copyright.

I hope they don’t punish him for some reason and have to spank him.

Naw…he will get the chair…and someone will get to …shock the monkey…cue 80’s music beat…monkey…monkey…

Then they can put up a little statue of him as a memorial…perhaps a Brass Monkey?

Only in the warmer climes one hopes.

Hopefully they make a good decision, this will be a precedent for Taylor vs. Zaius in 3978.

I think that would get into making money off of theft if they tried to sell it. But I still don’t think the camera owner would get the copyright.

Exactly. PETA wants animals to have more legal rights. So they look for places where they can establish any kind of precedent that grants additional rights to animals.

I disagree. Sure, PETA is a publicity hound and I question their tactics, but this action is consistent with their attempts to enhance the legal rights of animals.

I’m now really curious what would happen in the asking-a-stranger-to-take-your-photo copyright case.

When you ask a stranger to take your photo with your camera, the implicit understanding is that it’s your photo. Hence, it’s your copyright.

Well, that’s probably how it ought to be. I don’t recall an “implicit understanding” section of the copyright code, though.

It doesn’t have to be in the copyright code. The general law of agency and contract could be relevant.