Will PETA Now Sue To Control The Copyright In These Cat Selfies?
from the questions-questions-questions dept
As noted recently, PETA isn't giving up in its quixotic quest to argue that it can represent the interests of an Indonesian selfie-taking monkey, and further that the photos in question have a copyright and that copyright belongs to the monkey (and, by extension, PETA). UK IP professor Andrés Guadamuz recently wrote an interesting paper arguing that there is a copyright in the photograph and it belongs to the guy who owned the camera, David Slater, based on UK copyright law. It's an interesting read, though others have convincingly argued the opposite, noting that UK law requires a "person" to have created the work.Either way, it seems this question may not be going away any time soon. Guadamuz has now also posted an amusing blog post highlighting the next potential battleground: a cat who loves to take selfies. I mean, just look at them. While there are some clearer shots, I think this one is clearly the best, based entirely on the cat's "I'm concentrating here" tongue:

Filed Under: animals, cats, copyright, peta, selfie cat, selfies
Companies: peta
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dog2: Checking the f-stop.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok next question...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok next question...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ok next question...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ok next question...
If the shutter is triggered by a motion detector on one of these cameras used for security purposes that captures the image of a thief committing a burglary, does the perpetrator then own the copyright to the image?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok next question...
What made the 'monkey selfie' different was that the photo was purely accidental on the part of the only individual capable of owning the copyright(the human owner of the camera), with no intent at all on their part. They didn't set up the situation(beyond negligence), they didn't choose when to take the photo or of what, the only link they had to the event was that it involved their camera, which isn't enough to grant copyright over the resulting photo.
Now had they deliberately left one or more cameras out with the specific intent of hoping that the monkeys would use them, then they might have had a valid copyright claim, but as it stands there was no intent on the part of the only individual involved who was legally capable of owning the copyright to the picture, which means there was no resulting copyright.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ok next question...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ok next question...
If someone manages to accidentally take a photo the split second that a lightning bolt strikes, then while they may not have intended to take that photo, they still had the intent of taking a photo, so they'd still get the copyright over the resulting picture.
On the other hand, say they forgot their camera outside, a curious squirrel is checking it out, and startled by the noise of the strike they press the button at just the right moment, taking the exact same photo. Would you still say that the owner of the camera deserved the rights to the picture, even though the only input they had in it's creation was their carelessness?
If someone splashes paint on a canvas for a piece then they intended to create, and get the rights to it. If someone walking past stumbles, trips, and accidentally sends paint flying on a canvas, do they deserve the 'rights' to the resulting picture, for what was for all intents and purposes a completely accidental action?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok next question...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok next question...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ok next question...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look at that cat. That cat owns all.
He even has a couple of henchdogs to back him up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What about trailcams / camera traps? Or surveillance video.
Wildlife researchers and photographers have been using the latter technique for a while. Granted Steve Winter did a lot in selecting the equipment, settings, angle, etc. But ultimately it was the mountain lion that triggered the shutter at that particular instant:
http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/14/a-cougar-ready-for-his-closeup/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about trailcams / camera traps? Or surveillance video.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about trailcams / camera traps? Or surveillance video.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about trailcams / camera traps? Or surveillance video.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Vexatious Litigation
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vexatious Litigation
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
PETA needs to go
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PETA needs to go
They're the Susan Komen of Animal Rights groups.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PETA needs to go
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
There is so much concentrated stupid there it should classified as a drug.
Seriously, if you can't see how stupid it is how a monkey can hold copyright over anything then I've lost whatever faith in humanity I still have.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
There is so much concentrated stupid there it should classified as a drug.
Seriously, if you can't see how stupid it is how a monkey can hold copyright over anything then I've lost whatever faith in humanity I still have.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution / + SnapCat App
SnapCat is an Android app that has a red dot moving around on the screen, and when your cat tries to touch the dot, it takes a shot. I have bunches of terrible shots taken by my cat archived somewhere. Given the right motivations, it's not terribly hard to get cat to take pictures.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Another solution: keep original private; only release your transformative edit
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another solution: keep original private; only release your transformative edit
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another solution: keep original private; only release your transformative edit
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution / + SnapCat App
Perjury, it's not just for cops anymore.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Elephant [dogs] In The Room
You thought the most salient thing was the tongue? Not the fact that the cat was lackadaisically snapping selfies while two ferocious, predatory, sworn enemies lurked in the background?
That's like me taking a picture of you hugging RIAA Cary Sherman, and saying the most notable element was the color of shirt you were wearing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Elephant [dogs] In The Room
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Tie Goes To The Runner
I mean, baseball has it figured out. Tie goes to the runner. I suggest the new legal precedent have a rhyme and model itself after the OJ Simpson "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."
Something like: "If a monkey clicked it, then you can't have knicked it."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tie Goes To The Runner
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tie Goes To The Runner
Umm, no, it was not. Copyright belonged to the creator unless it was work for hire or assigned otherwise. You won't find "whoever has possession of the negative owns the copyright" in copyright law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I always thought
Pinups Enabling Terrible Activities (Y)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
"youremahm"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Because he's a rooster, and he's been trying demand copyright on the noise he calls an argument.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
thirteen@neetriht.com
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Cat's last selfie
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
be awful funny if....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Problems solved.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Abolish Copyright
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply