5th Period -- Critical Analysis #14

3/4/2020

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.

JAacob Perez

3/4/2020 08:37:02 am

The issue of this image is who the image belongs to, the monkey or the man. The image was taken by David Slater and it's a picture of a macaque
PETA filed a lawsuit on the macaque’s behalf because they felt that the selfie was taken by the monkey and not David.
The outcome was the judge said, that animals don't have copyright rights and there is no indication that the U.S. copyright extended to animals.
David is profiting from the image, but from these funds he donates 10% to monkey preservation.
I think the case’s outcome was right, i don't think animals can own rights to images.
If i was on the other side then i could say, if not for the animal being there the picture wouldn't have been taken, thus it is the monkey’s image.

Gabby Beck

3/5/2020 11:29:04 am

The articles are about a selfie a monkey took and the debate on who really owns it; the monkey or David Slater. PETA filed a lawsuit on behalf of the monkey.

PETA filed a lawsuit on behalf of the monkey because they believed if the monkey took the photo, it is considered his.

Slater agreed to donate 25% of his profits from the photo to organizations to help monkeys like this one that are endangered.

The photo became viral all over the internet so I would expect Slater to be getting a good amount of profits.

I wouldn’t know what to think of this case. From our perspective, animals don’t seem to have the care or sense of having a copyright to something. But, if you put it in a way like the difference between a self portrait and regular portrait. A self portrait is only considered self if YOU take it. Same with this case. The monkey took it so technically it’s his photo.

Animals shouldn’t own copyright because what are they going to use it for? How will it really affect them if they don’t know how it works? If humans own the copyright, they will make more use of it than a non human animal will.

Suly Welsh

3/5/2020 11:32:07 am

BLOG #14 | 3/05/2020

Article Questions & Answers

1) These articles are about who has the copyright of the images. The issue is basically about whether the image is the monkey's or the man's. This monkey, Naruto, took a selfie with David J. Slater's camera, and the issue is whether the image would belong to David or Naruto. Many organizations protecting Naruto, Naruto, David, and even the people of the world through the internet are involved in this.
2) PETA filed a lawsuit on behalf of Naruto to gain all the legal copyrights of the image.
3) The outcome of the lawsuit was that David had to give a percentage of the profits to help Naruto, but Naruto didn't have any of the copyright. The judge said that no U.S. laws stated that the copyright laws extended to animals.
4) The laws state that the ownership rights belong to the person who took an image, which is why they're questioning who should remain with the rights for this image. David was making money from the image since it exploded in the media. David ended up agreeing to give 25% of all the profits earned from the image to donate to organizations that protect Naruto and the macaques.
5) I think this case if kind of ridiculous. I believe the rights should be David's, but I think it was wise that he is donating proceeds to helping Naruto's specie. There are so many animals that are photographed every second, and they have no use for the images or their rights. The best way to handle it would be to require a percentage to aid that animal in any way, but with no image rights. Like, what is an animal gonna do with photography rights? Nothing. In the end, it is up to the photographer to decide to help the animal and to share the image with others.
6) Naruto should've gotten the copyright since it's an image of himself which he took with his own HANDS! Usually, animal images are taken by photographers which is why they keep all the copyrights. In this case, Naruto is the one who took the image and is the only subject matter in the picture. Thanks to this, Naruto should have all the profits from the image, not just 25%.

Andy Cubriel

3/5/2020 11:39:03 am

The articles are about a lawsuit that took place because a monkey took a selfie with an unattended camera, and people thought that the owner of the camera should not be able to distribute it. The people involved were PETA, David Slater (the owner of the camera), and Naruto (a Macaque monkey in the jungles of Indonesia).
PETA filed the lawsuit against Slater because they were trying to determine whether or not the monkey or the man owned the image, given that while it was his camera, he himself did not actually press the button. PETA filed the lawsuit on Naruto’s behalf.
Slater promised that he would donate 25% of the revenue from future photos to groups that protect crested Macaques and their habitat in Indonesia.
Slater has started to donate pieces of the revenue from the artwork to groups that will help the monkeys. He still profits from it because people still pay for copies of that photo specifically, and it has really helped to build up his brand name.
I believe that the animals should not be able to own the rights to their created artwork. I believe that the person who has custody of the animal should own the artwork, or in cases like the monkey who was not owned by anyone, that it should belong to the person who paid for the medium of the artwork. I only think this because the money earned by the animal would likely be abused by the person in custody of them anyways.
Animals should be able to own the rights to their artwork because all living things should have equal rights. It would make no sense that we would be able to dominate the rights of one species just because we have this notion in our head that we are superior, or because we can physically dominate them. Human beings have spent the last few centuries realizing that we are all equal, and it would just be proving ourselves wrong to treat these animals wrong. Not to mention, it makes no sense why a human that has done no work should get to profit from the work of an animal. Also, this money could go to an organization that could help the species of the specific animal to prosper.

Alissa Welsh

3/5/2020 11:40:19 am

The article is about animal rights and if they should have copyrights. The issue was that when Naruto took an image that looked as if the monkey was taking a selfie and some people thought that this action showed how Slater doesn’t respect the wild animals. The people who were named through the articles are the judge: William H. Orrick, Naruto: the monkey, David J. Slater: the camera owner, and general counsel for PETA: Jeff Kerr.

Naruto's copyright since he was the rightful owner because he physically pressed the shutter button to create the image.

The outcome is that animals don’t have copyrights and there’s no indication in the U.S that the copyright also include animals. With that said Slater did donate 25% of the work to charity.

The photo became viral all over the internet so Slater probably started getting a good amount of profit.

I don’t think animals should own their copyright. For instance when my dog doesn’t want me to take pictures of him he would just leave.

If Naruto would’ve kept his copyright who would get the profit? In this image you can tell that Natuto took the picture instead of Slater.

Comments are closed.

5th Period -- Critical Analysis #14

Analyze

Archives

Categories

Home