Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paulw

I really do wonder....

Recommended Posts

Out of all the nonsense with this case has anyone really just sat down and thought, ok it was the guys camera that was used, therefore it's his picture? It's bloody nonsense all of this carry on. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the world coming too.... 

 

Let's say PETA wins

 

What is the monkey going to spend the royalties on, bananas?  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not very likely that a filing in a California court, where litigation is a popular participant sport, has much legal relevance to a British photographer resident here.

This is grandstanding pure and simple. I "sue" you , I have more money and pricier lawyers, so you pay me to go away.

But ownership of the equipment isn't definitive.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several of the comments are quite entertaining and relevant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is the monkey going to spend the royalties on, bananas?  

 

Monkey business ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the monkey owns the copyright, then surely they have the right to sell/pass the copyright on to another being. How would they do that ??

 

Also, who owns the copyright if the shutter is released with a self-timer ?  The camera itself ?!

 

 

... lawyers with too much time on their grubby mits.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know animals have always been considered property as far as the courts are concerned.  I think that would preclude them from having any legal rights to ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad thing is that photographers who use remote triggers for animals are also helping to study and preserve those animals. PETA should be supporting those activities. Steve Winter had an experience in India that was unfortunate for tigers. He had set up a lot of camera traps in order to photograph and add to knowledge that would help to protect them. Indian photographers objected to an American being allowed to do that in their wildlife park. He had to remove all the cameras and, alas, no Indian photographer replicated what he had been doing. Wildlife photographers and wildlife tourists do much to help the preservation of the wild habitats that animals require.

 

Paulette

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were the camera owner, I'd insist on the monkey appearing in front of the judge and giving his own verdict of the situation.

 

And also I'd like to see a monkey-letter instructing PETA to act on his behalf. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were the judge, I'd fine PETA for waisting my precious time.

I can't imagine a Belgian judge would buy this ridiculous nonsense  :rolleyes:

 

Cheers, Philippe

Like I said.

USA.

Suing is a participant sport. Everyone likes to have a go.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it American law that you have the right to confront your accuser. Would that mean finding the monkey and flying him in? Would PETA translate for him?

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case of the monkey seems a nonsense to me, but what caught my attention was the link to the 'Red Bus' case. http://www.taylors.co.uk/news/newsitem119.htm  

 

Although in this particular case the copyright infringement was pretty deliberate, it would not be too difficult to fall into the same trap accidentally. I'm thinking of one of my photos of some red telephone boxes in Cambridge that I did consider a candidate for selective colour treatment! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case of the monkey seems a nonsense to me, but what caught my attention was the link to the 'Red Bus' case. http://www.taylors.co.uk/news/newsitem119.htm  

 

Although in this particular case the copyright infringement was pretty deliberate, it would not be too difficult to fall into the same trap accidentally. I'm thinking of one of my photos of some red telephone boxes in Cambridge that I did consider a candidate for selective colour treatment! 

 

Don't mention those Keith. They exist in my port too. :)

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Temple Island v New England Teas was interesting but the parties had already been to court and one of the defendant's designs had been found infringing.

In the instant case he had been trying to get as close to the claimant's design as he could without infringing it but the judge ruled that he had failed.

There had been substantial moving around of the elements of the image. I don't think that fairly 'straight' photographs would be at risk. It's not just the selective colour.

The defendant eventually agreed a licence and royalties.

http://www.templeisland.com/new_english_teas_red_bus_copyright.asp

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the monkey going to spend the royalties on, bananas?  

 

Rumour I heard was that someone told the monkey that professional photographers earn peanuts so he wanted some of that!

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is the monkey going to spend the royalties on, bananas?  

 

Rumour I heard was that someone told the monkey that professional photographers earn peanuts so he wanted some of that!

 

 

And he was also told that photography is so easy these days that even a monkey could do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago PETA wrote a letter to Yasser Arafat. The reason? Evidently, the PLO used a donkey to carry a bomb to an Israeli checkpoint, the result being the donkey and several Israeli soldiers were blown up. In the letter, PETA beseeched Afafat to please leave animals out of it when the PLO intended to blow up people. It led one journalist to write that PETA stands for "People Embarrassing the Tidewater Area," based as they are in Norfolk, Virginia.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just caught up with this. If I was a supporter of PETA (I'm not but I do agree with the cause of fighting animal abuse), I would seriously question whether I continue to do so if this is how they spend their time. David Slater is a photographer who clearly cares about animals and the environment and an odd choice of target.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a piece on ipkat explaining that he's certainly the owner of the UK copyright if he intended the monkey to take the image because it is his intellectual creation.

PETA are trying to shoot a teddybear here. Jerks and borderline terrorists.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smart ones are the cats. They persuaded the Russians to get rid of a few dogs. But relations soured when they brought most of them back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.