4th Period -- Critical Analysis #14

3/5/2020

For this week's Critical Analysis, you will be reading 2 articles regarding a recent lawsuit regarding copyright law. You will then answer the questions below. Post your answers as a comment to this blog post—make sure to post to the correct class period's blog post.

First, read the articles below:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/12/550417823/-animal-rights-advocates-photographer-compromise-over-ownership-of-monkey-selfie

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/us/selfie-monkey-lawsuit-settlement.html
Next, answer these questions in complete sentences:

What are the articles about? What is the issue, and who are the people, organizations, and animals involved?
Why did PETA file a lawsuit against David Slater, and on whose behalf did they file?
What was the outcome of the lawsuit?
How did the litigation affect David Slater? Is he profiting from the famous monkey selfie?
What do you think about the case? Do you believe animals should be able to own the rights to their photographs or other created artwork? If not, who should own the rights to artwork created by animals? Share your thoughts here.
Consider both sides of the issue. Based on how you answered number 5, write an argument for the opposite opinion. For example, if you answered number 5 with the belief that animals should not own the copyright to their artwork, answer here with an argument FOR animals owning the copyright to their artwork.

This is due for a grade by MIDNIGHT.

anaya zachery

3/5/2020 09:22:48 am

1)The articles discuss the lawsuit between PETA and David Slater. They were trying to settle a case where Naruto, a monkey took a photograph and PETA believed that the monkey should have rights to the photograph.

2)PETA filed a lawsuit because they believed that Naruto physically pressed the button to create the photo, and should therefore have rights to it.

3)The lawsuit was eventually settled in favor of Slater. They ruled that animals cannot hold copyrights. However, both groups agreed to make efforts to aid in animal protection.

4)Slater has been selling copies of this photo, which is bringing in revenue for him, but he also donates ¼ of the proceeds to an animal protection organization near where Naruto lives.

5)I don’t think that animals should have hold rights to artwork, but rather the humans that they belong to. The main purpose of copyright laws is to prevent people from being cheated of the money they should earn for their work. Animals have no use for money, so it’s not very logical to have copyright laws apply to animals.

6)Another side of this would be to argue that animals deserve just as many rights as people, and if, by their own creativity, created artwork, then they should receive credit for it, just as people do.

Kurt

3/5/2020 09:23:38 am

What are the articles about? What is the issue, and who are the people, organizations, and animals involved?
The articles are about a monkey named Naruto that took a photo of himself and sparked copyright debates and a court case between him, the government parties including peta and the photographer.
Why did PETA file a lawsuit against David Slater, and on whose behalf did they file?
Peta filed on the behalf of Naruto for copyright rights to the photo arguing that the monkey had the rights to the photo.
What was the outcome of the lawsuit?
The outcome was that David Slater won but in the end he had promised to give 25% of the funds made from the photo to animal conservation for monkeys.
How did the litigation affect David Slater? Is he profiting from the famous monkey selfie?
He is definitely proffiting, I mean it is a photo of a monkey smiling so you know some idiot wants that photo in their house a joke and id probably one of those idiots not going to lie. Yeah He’s proffiting.
What do you think about the case? Do you believe animals should be able to own the rights to their photographs or other created artwork? If not, who should own the rights to artwork created by animals? Share your thoughts here.
I think the entire case is stupid and there is no version of Earth in which a mindless animal with little mental capacity for deep thought should own any copyrights. It is not their intellectual property. I think the person who owns the camera should have the claims to the artwork.

Consider both sides of the issue. Based on how you answered number 5, write an argument for the opposite opinion. For example, if you answered number 5 with the belief that animals should not own the copyright to their artwork, answer here with an argument FOR animals owning the copyright to their artwork.
Animals, especially monkeys, are somewhat intelligent beings and have thoughts and feelings of there own. It is right and ethically correct to say that these animals have a right to the photos they take on accident or on purpose.

dana s

3/5/2020 09:26:50 am

1. The articles are about the trial that went on between a photographer and PETA just because of copyright. A macaque took a photograph of himself and groups argue that the copyrights belong to either the monkey, the photographer, or no one.

2. PETA filed a lawsuit on behalf of Naruto the macaque. They wanted him to own the copyrights of the photograph because he’s the one that pressed the button on the camera and made the exposure.

3. The court ruled that the copyright belonged to Slater because animals are not a part of the U.S. copyright laws.

4. Yes, he is profiting from the image but he is also giving back to the monkey reserves.

5. I believe that animals should be rewarded with some of what is created because of them. They might not be aware of the value of things or how money works, or even what it is but they should be compensated for helping whoever created the piece of art. I believe that the owner of the artwork should be the person who publishes it for the animal or whoever helped it. However, I believe that the animals should keep majority of the profit.

6. Animals should not own the copyright to their work because they have no sense of how money works or how much value material things have.

Ryan Shields

3/5/2020 09:27:28 am

The articles are about how a monkey took a selfie, and the guy who owned the camera and PETA got into a lawsuit as to whose picture it was. The guy who owned the camera was David Slater and PETA is some weird animal rights activist group.

PETA filed a lawsuit against David Salter because they felt that because the monkey took the picture it was the monkey's picture, and therefore it should be copywritten in the monkey's name and the monkey should make money off the sales of this picture.

The outcome of the lawsuit was that Slater agreed to donate 25 percent of money made from the selling the picture to monkey protection places in Indonesia.

David Slater is profiting from the picture, but part of the money the picture makes goes to monkey protection places.

I think the case is weird. Animals shouldn’t be able to own the rights to their photographs or other artwork, it should go to whoever owns the camera or the animal.

Animals should own the copyright because all humans have done is take their land and habitat. If animals owned the rights to the image or artwork they could make a lot of money that goes to animal protection agencies.

Zac Isaac

3/5/2020 09:28:48 am

It's about a monkey that took a picture of itself. The people and animals involved are Naruto the monkey, David Slater, and the PETA organization.
The PETA organization filed a lawsuit on David Slater because of the question if an animal can take a picture.
They lost the lawsuit the first time but won with settlements and agreements.
David Slater was able to keep 75% of the profit while 25% of the prophet went to charities for Naruto and his species.
I think animals should be able to have the right to take photos even though this is a one in a lifetime occurrence.
I think animals shouldn’t be able to take photos. This is a very rare thing to see. If we give cameras to all animals, it's not like they’ll take the camera and put it in their bag. They will probably destroy it making billions of dollars wasted. And who’s going to pay for the cameras in the first place, the people’s tax money. I think it’s absolutley dumb what we think is posible in the world today.

MJ Ervin

3/5/2020 09:38:59 am

This article is about a monkey that took a picture of himself without anybody there. Peta and David Slater agreed to have 25 percent of the future revenue go to a charitable cause to protect Naruto. PETA filed a lawsuit because Naurto clicked the shutter and created the image that he is the owner of the image. The United States District Court said there was somewhere saying animals have a copyright act extended onto them. He agreed to donate 25 percent of future revenue of the images taken by the monkey to charitable organizations that protect Naruto. I think he is making more money because of how the picture was actually taken. Not really because the animal can't really do anything with the money but if it is on the photographers camera then i think David has the rights to the image also it never says anything about animals being allowed to have a copyright. If the animal takes the picture and clicks the shutter button they should have the right to it even if they can't do anything with the money or really anything they still own the right to the image

Nathan Bond

3/5/2020 09:42:38 am

These 2 articles are about a lawsuit. A monkey took a picture and a man named David Slater sold it for money. A lawsuit was filed by PETA against David and they said that the monkey owns the picture so it should get the money. Peta tried to argue for animal rights to own photos but they ultimately failed. David agreed to donate 25% of future revenue to organizations that help endangered species but he is profiting off of the photo. Animals should not be able to own the rights to their artwork because they can’t do anything with it and they don’t use or need money, unlike us people. I think people should own these because we can actually put it to use and I think that’s pretty obvious. I think PETA doesn’t actually believe in animals owning their own artwork, they definitely know the whole situation is stupid and they know that the lawsuit was unnecessary. I think Peta was being annoying for the sake of being annoying because that’s kinda what they do. Also, PETA is just a group of hypocrites because they preach about saving animals but they kill thousands every year. Now I’m going to give my fake argument. This whole situation was very necessary and definitely need to happen. Animals need to be able to own their own artwork because it’s theirs and it shouldn’t be taken away and also how would you like it if I took your stuff away, you wouldn’t. We are definitely not harassing this man and wasting his time. This needs to be a thing.

Elise Miles

3/5/2020 09:45:15 am

The articles are about the Monkey Selfie Copyright issue. Photographer David Slater published a picture that Naruto took of himself on the photographer’s camera. PETA filed against the photographer saying that he copyrighted a photo because it was rightfully Naruto’s.

PETA filed a case against David Slater on behalf of Naruto the monkey. PETA filed the case because they said Slater copyrighted Naruto’s photo.

The outcome of the case was that animals did not own photos, only people.

David Slater is benefitting from the photo but he did promise that part of the money from the photo will go to the monkeys in Indonesia.

I think the photos taken by animals should be owned by the owner/organization that owns the animal. The organization should be able to do what they want with the photo even if the camera is owned by another photographer.

Animals themselves should be able to own their own photos. They took it themselves therefore they should own it.

Max

3/20/2020 03:29:54 pm

These articles are about a lawsuit that took place between a photographer, and a monkey. The people involved are the photographer, who’s name is David Slater, a monkey, who’s name is Naruto, and PETA.

PETA filed the lawsuit because they wanted Naruto to have rights for the photograph. He was the one who took the photo, so he should be able to own it. PETA and Slater finally came up with a settlement, where Slater agreed to give 25% of the profit from the picture to help groups that rescue and protect Naruto’s species.

The article says that Slater’s attorneys did not say how much he has profited from the photo, but he has been donating around 10% to a monkey preservation cause in Indonesia. I believe that animals should be able to own rights to their photos. They are the ones who took them, and to say that the photographer owns the photo that another animal took isn’t right.

For #6: I do not believe that animals should own the right to pictures because the camera that it was taken on isn’t theirs. They also aren’t smart enough to understand what copyright even is, so why say that they deserve copyright laws for their artwork?

Comments are closed.

4th Period -- Critical Analysis #14

Analyze

Archives

Categories

Home