Monkey selfie photographer says he's broke: 'I'm thinking of dog walking't.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by rick_reno, Jul 13, 2017.

  1. rick_reno


    Dec 3, 2012
    N Idaho
    Monkey selfie photographer says he's broke: 'I'm thinking of dog walking'

    Hard to believe this sort of stuff is happening. PETA sues on behalf of a monkey? And it gets worse - the points of contention were whether PETA had a close enough relationship to the monkey to represent it in court. This is one of those "Zippy, pass the taco sauce, this Ding Dong is a little dry" articles.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2017
  2. clearly, someone at PETA thought they were the monkey's uncle....
  3. Ann_JS


    Feb 18, 2015
    New York State
    How is this case even being considered under USA jurisdiction?
    The animal lives (or, more probably, lived) in Indonesia; the photograph was shot in Indonesia; and the photographer is a British subject and lives in the UK.

    The fair and honourable outcome of this outrageous case would surely be for PETA to be ordered to pay the Photographer's costs in full; plus a considerable sum in damages for the distress and hardship which they have caused by bringing a frivolous lawsuit.

    Beware those of us who use crossed laser beams to enable Wasps to fire the shutter automatically to take their own WIFs.
    How many Yellow-jacket descendants are there five years later: and can they prove their parentage and thus their rights to inherit the Copyright?
  4. What about when remote shutters miss-fire--do we have the pay the electrons royalty for any photos that may result? :rolleyes: :whistle: :smuggrin: 
  5. rick_reno


    Dec 3, 2012
    N Idaho
    PETE (People for the Ethical Treatment of Electrons) would no doubt handle that one, and if you've ever thought PETA is an odd bunch, you've seen nothing until you've had to deal with PETE.

    I don't know, I find this story adding more evidence to my theory that the world has gone batsh*t crazy. It's a monkey who I have to assume lives in the jungle, yet has a name and has somehow sought out legal counsel for photos it took of itself.
  6. Hmm... Great Apes should
    have the right to copyright,
    but not some lowly monkey...
  7. wilvoeka


    Jul 4, 2008
    PETA is one of the most radical, unethical, self righteous, self serving organizations out there.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. I just can't believe that you people can be so callous when it comes to such mistreatment of animals. Someone needs to stand up for the downtrodden, the masses that can't defend themselves. How would you feel if you were the Macaque? And where better to file this suit than the Good Old USA? This is EXACTLY what will Make America Great Again, once more proving that we must be the World's Policeman, and the caretaker of those who can't fend for themselves.

    Oh, that was SO difficult to write, but I did it anyway. My tongue most certainly is cramped from being stuffed into my check for so long. If there is anyone reading this who has not gotten it yet, in the immortal words of one my hero's, the great Foghorn Leghorn:

    I am, however, a big supporter of PETA:
    People for the Eating of Tasty Animals ;) 
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Now I've heard everything. Thank goodness my dogs can't take selfies. The white one likes mom best and would undoubtedly sue me!
  10. hope they signed model release forms
  11. Macaque in 2020? Ooops, make that 2017, eh Bill! :devil: :ROFLMAO: :D 
  12. The one on the right looks plain evil :D 
  13. BrianDW


    May 14, 2014
    Portsmouth UK
    Being an animal lover, I thought PETA were the good guys. Clearly they are a 'loony lefty' outfit. Fully agree with the above quote.
  14. Al - Both are rescue dogs. The little white one, Curly, only weighed around 5 pounds when we got him and he was infested with fleas. Now he weighs 8 pounds and is doing quite well. He is very devoted and loving with my wife who rescued him.
  15. I've never heard anything so stupid! Now I wonder if I should have gotten model releases from the grizzlies, black, and brown bears, oh yeah, I better also think about that pack of wolves.
  16. Ann_JS


    Feb 18, 2015
    New York State
    >>>>I should have gotten model releases from the grizzlies . . . >>>>

    Of course you should — and parental releases too if you shot their children/cubs.
    How very careless of you to fail get those bears to sign model releases.
  17. The ones in DC? :LOL: :D 
  18. photogramps

    photogramps Guest

    Get even, eat more meat!
  19. rick_reno


    Dec 3, 2012
    N Idaho
    As hard as it is for me to believe, sanity might prevail in this one. My skepticism stems from the 9th Circuit court, they've been known to produce some very unusual rulings. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

    PETA Giving Up on Monkey Selfie Copyright Claim?

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and photographer David Slater have told a federal court in San Francisco that they are on the verge of settling PETA’s copyright infringement claim over the infamous monkey selfie.

    The two parties, along with Blurb, Inc., a co-defendant with Slater, have asked the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stay PETA’s appeal in Naruto v. David Slater. According to court documents, settlement talks started after oral arguments in the case last month. PETA was on the defensive during those arguments, with appeals court judges expressing skepticism over PETA’s arguments on behalf of Naruto the monkey.

    “The parties have agreed on a general framework for a settlement subject to the negotiation and resolution of specific terms,” lawyers for PETA, Slater, and Blurb said in a joint motion filed with the court on Friday. “The parties are optimistic that they will be able to reach an agreement that will resolve all claims in this matter.”

    The case centers around a monkey named Naruto, who allegedly picked up Slater’s unattended camera in 2011 and shot a selfie. (According to Slater’s website, it was a monkey named Ella, not Naruto.) Slater published the selfie, which eventually precipitated Naruto v. David Slater, PETA’s 2015 copyright infringement claim on behalf of the monkey. PETA’s argument is that because the monkey took the picture, the monkey owns the copyright—just as any person would.

    Last year, a federal court in California dismissed the case on the grounds that the US Copyright Act doesn’t give animals standing to own copyright. PETA appealed to the US Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

    During oral arguments before the appeals court on July 12, a judge repeatedly asked PETA’s attorney what harm Slater had done to the monkey by publishing the photo. Judges also expressed doubt whether a monkey has standing under the US Copyright Act to sue as a non-human animal, and whether PETA has enough of a relationship with the monkey to bring a lawsuit on its behalf.

    The judges hardly challenged Slater’s attorneys during the July 12 oral arguments.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.