PETA has appealed to the Ninth Circuit the dismissal of its suit, ostensibly on behalf of a wild monkey, against “monkey-selfie” photographer David Slater. Slater, reduced by years of litigation against the fanatical animal rights group and other parties, is in financial straits and thinking of walking dogs to earn money. “Nor can he afford to replace his broken camera equipment, or pay the attorney who has been defending him since the crested black macaque sued him in 2015, and is exploring other ways to earn an income.” Abusive litigation is evil and don’t even ask what I think of PETA. [The Guardian]
22 Comments
The attorneys responsible for this nonsense should be disbarred and PETA should be forced to pay all litigation costs to the defendant.
When I’m king, things will be different.
My understanding is that he was the plaintiff in a few suits over the photo himself. So is he broke from being sued or from suing? And PETA should be slapped down hard for making a monkey of our legal system, or trying to at least. Guess their lawyer watched planet of the apes too many times. Simple answer, there is no copyright to sue over. So the next question is are there copyrights in trail camera photos, red light camera photos, other automated photos? How about HDR cameras which take multiple photos with varying settings after the initial shutter release is done?
Seems pretty clear that this is copyright-able by the photog. PETA should have to pay attorneys fees, and yes, the lawyers ought to be sanctioned.
“Seems pretty clear that this is copyright-able by the photog.”
Yes, but for purposes of copyright law, is the photographer the owner of the camera or the pusher of the shutter release button?
The former would create issues when one professional photographer lends equipment to another (yes, this does happen) and the latter leads to monkey business in this case.
I would think that the owner of the copyright is the person who selected the use of the camera, to include the setting, the camera attributes (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, drive, focal point, etc.). In this case, it’s the person who took the raw image and processed it into something usable. The macaque or the lender of equipment did none of these things. This lawsuit should have not even been heard by the 9th. There is no case.
I agree that PETA never had a case. I don’t agree that there must conversely necessarily be a valid copyright belonging to anyone else on this photograph.
“the camera attributes (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, drive, focal point, etc.). ”
Most modern cameras are capable of automatically making most those selections (shutter speed, aperture, focal point) when the shutter release is pressed.
But this was a professional camera – I’d guess that it is at least capable of manual selections. Not that it matters much.
I’d maybe buy that if the photographer intended the monkey take the camera and snap a picture – but he claimed it was an accident that the monkey took the camera, and I take him at his word on that. Imagine if some guy at customs had fiddled with the camera during an inspection – would HE get the copyright, if he last touched the settings? That’s ridiculous.
Developing a negative doesn’t ordinarily involve anything creative (except in the very rare case where you do something nonstandard, and that doesn’t appear to be the case here.) Cropping *might* involve something creative, but I’d hesitate to give copyright on a very obvious crop that anyone would do.
Is it so inconceivable that nobody gets a copyright? The monkey doesn’t get one because he’s a monkey, the photographer doesn’t get one because he didn’t take the picture or intend to create a picture, and the guy who developed the negative doesn’t get one because he didn’t do anything creative.
“But this was a professional camera – I’d guess that it is at least capable of manual selections. Not that it matters much.”
It would almost certainly be capable of both at that level. The point is, we don’t know what settings (manual or automatic) were used.
If the camera owner wants to claim copyright in an animal selfie case, it ought to be the camera owner’s burden to prove some level of create effort beyond merely creating the opportunity for it to happen.
Stop. The guy got the monkeys to do it–he has put forth the creative effort.
“The guy got the monkeys to do it–he has put forth the creative effort.”
I don’t agree that that constitutes creative effort.
The sad thing is that this kind of thing makes a lot of people angry at PETA and thereby reduces support for important reforms in the treatment of animals. There is a great deal of terrible abuse of animals, which PETA would be better able to address if it did not fool around with lawsuits like this one.
Are you serious?
Yes. Do you think that there isn’t much abuse of animals? Or that this kind of thing does not waste time and money and discredit PETA?
Yes, there is animal abuse. But PETA is so far over the top, and at least 90% of their actions are absolutely ridiculous. Meat consumption is not animal abuse (as a good example of their absurd positions).
That was Bill Poser’s point.
PETA despite their name is not an anti-animal abuse group. They are an animal rights organization and their antics distract from real animal abuse issues far more than they help.
They know this and they don’t care, because stopping animal abuse is ancillary to their real goal.
I’ve always had a problem with the way photographers work. I’m an engineer. When I design something for either my employer or a customer they own the results of my work because they paid me for it. When I hire a photographer to take pictures they own them even though I paid them to take them. Never could figure that one out.
Don’t even get me started on PETA. My Sister’s in-laws raised pheasants. Several years ago some PETA members raided a mink farm and released several thousand mink. The mink ended up in their coops and killed all of their stock.
You’re welcome to hire a photographer on a work for hire basis or buy out the rights to the photos; they’re welcome to charge whatever they want for that. Similarly, you’re welcome as an engineer to negotiate a contract where you own any of the IP in your work, and your clients are welcome to refuse to hire you under such conditions. If you’re hiring someone to do creative work, negotiating ownership and licensing is a major part of the process, just make sure whatever you agree on is clear in the contract.
As a newspaper photographer, the newspaper held the copyrights on the photos I took for them. You can definitely hire a photographer under those terms but it *must* be in writing and you’ll likely have to pay more.
All the settings in the world do not a photograph make. Without that all important shutter release at the proper artistic moment settings are useless. In fact, many poor setting choices can be “repaired” in post production. So, in short, if the person taking the photograph (releasing the shutter) is human then there is a copyright, otherwise there is none.
Okay, slightly different scenario… If he had left a rifle unattended rather than a camera, would he have claimed ownership if the monkey had shot other persons? Okay, so under theories of negligence and the like he may have been held responsible despite his protests, but clearly he would attempt to distance himself from the actions of the monkey.
As the judge I would have told PETA that he has a right to face his accuser, so bring in the monkey, prove to the court that it is the same monkey that took the photo, then if PETA could accomplish that, swear the monkey in (oops, can’t do that), ask the monkey questions on the stand (oops, no reply / failure to reply… contempt of court on the monkey), case dismissed.