Period 3 -- Critical Analysis #19

4/12/2019

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.

Farouuk Ramzan

4/12/2019 03:13:43 pm

1.The articles talk about an incident that occurred which produced an internet famous selfie of a Macaque (endangered species of monkey). David Slater took a trip to Sulawesi, Indonesia in 2011 where he set up his camera on a tripod with autofocus on. Naruto, the monkey, approached the camera and clicked the shutter button as he grinned at the camera. This photo has sparked a long court battle between David Slater and PETA. PETA is fighting for Naruto’s copyrights.

2.PETA filed a lawsuit against David Slater in favor of Naruto. PETA was fighting for Naruto’s copyrights and ownership of the image and all its profit.

3.The final conclusion of the court battles was that: David agreed to give 25 % of his profits of the image to groups that protect the endangered species of Macaque

4.Slater’s lawyer has not explained how much money Slater is profiting. David is affected by the court deals in a sense that his reputation is at stake.

5.I think the case is unnecessary. An animal does not intend to create art for the sake of art. It is not conscious of the act of creating art. I believe animals should not own copyrights to any form of art. It’s ridiculous. Animals act for their basic survival and can not think beyond that, that’s what distinguishes humans from other animals.

6.Animals should have the right to own the art they create. Art is an expression for animals to communicate what they feel to humans and if we take away even that (nonetheless kill them for endless consumption of food), then we are taking away their right of expression. Nature’s right of expression and nature is wiser than man.

Clara Blume

4/15/2019 08:35:19 am

These articles are about who owns the rights to the photo that the monkey took of itself. The owner of the unattended camera on which the photo was taken is David J. Slater. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued Mr. Slater.

PETA sued Mr. Slater on behalf of the monkey, Naruto. They sued saying that because Naruto took the photo and it is of himself, he owns all rights to the photo.

Judge William H. Orrik of the UNited States District Court in San Francisco ruled that Naruto’s case did not apply to copyright laws, so Naruto did not own the photo, even though he did physically press the shutter.

Mr. Slater agreed to give 25% of all profits made on the photo to help Naruto and other monkeys like him on reserves and in the wild.

I think Naruto should not own rights to the photo seeing that there isn’t much he can do with it. I think the reserve that Naruto lives on should be able to use the photo for advertisement if they wish, but otherwise the rights belong to the owner of the camera.

Animals should be given the rights because it is their work. It says in the article that all Mr. Slater did was set the camera to autofocus, Naruto did the rest. Mr. Slater should not be able to profit from work that he didn’t participate in.

Claire Rollwitz

4/15/2019 08:38:04 am

1.) The two articles are about a lawsuit over a monkey selfie. Disputes occurred between what do to with the image and if it should have copyrights. The people involved in this case include Daniel J. Slater, the owner of the camera, and the lawsuit organization PETA.

2.) PETA filed a lawsuit against David Slater because they felt that Slater does not own the rights to the image of the monkey and therefore should not make any profits off of it.

3.) The outcome of the case ruled that Slater had rights over the image.

4.) The litigation did not have strong effects on Slater. He does make a profit from the image and agreed to donate a portion of the profits he makes to monkey conservation charities.

5.) I completely agree that people who take photographs have full rights over them. In this case, since the photographer was a monkey, I do not believe that the monkey should own any rights to this photo. I find this case a little bit silly. If the monkey got the profit, he would not even be able to do anything with it since he is an animal. If organizations try to spend the money to benefit the monkey, they would still be stealing the monkey’s money by using it.

6.) Slater should not own the right to the money because he did not take the image. The monkey is a living creature and should be treated with equal rights.

Eden Vogelsang

4/15/2019 08:38:54 am

The artlices are about how the PETA filed a lawsuit against the photographer David Slater over who avtually owns the photo, David or Naruto.

The monkey Naruto.

Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court in San Francisco disagreed and ruled in January 2016 that animals were not included in copyright law.

David J. Slater, agreed to donate 25 percent of future revenue of the images taken by the monkey to charitable organizations that protect Naruto

I think in some cases they should, for example when a elephant or any animal paints a picture they should have the rightd to that picture that they created. But with the monkey selfie I think that the owner of the camera should have the right to the image not the animal.

If the animal created the artwork it is theres to own. Naruto pressed the shutter so he should have the ownership of the selfie.

Hasan Ehsan

4/15/2019 08:40:49 am

1. These articles are about the issue of whether a photograph that was taken by a monkey belongs to the monkey or the photographer who owns the camera in terms of copyrights. The organizations involved are the photographer, David Slater; PETA, an animal rights group; Naruto, the monkey who took the picture; and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the group that sued Slater.

2. PETA filed a lawsuit on Naruto’s behalf, and they filed it because they felt that the monkey owned all rights to this image.

3. The lawsuit ended in a settlement in which Slater would donate a portion of the revenue to Macaque conservation groups and, in return, the case would be dropped, and dismiss a lower court’s decision that animals could not own copyrights.

4. Slater is losing some of his profits, but he’s still gaining because of the sheer attention that this story has created.

5. I think the idea that animals should be able to hold copyrights is frivolous because an animal can’t communicate when it’s rights have been infringed. The purpose of copyrights is so that only you can profit off your own work and no one can steal your potential revenue, but a Macaque monkey has absolutely no use for human currency. This entire case sounds like an intermediary for animal rights activists to push their agenda, which explains why a settlement case was even plausible.

6. Animals should be able to hold their own copyrights because they are the technical owners of their work. It’s not fair for humans to profit off the work of an animal; this is inhumane and manipulative on the part of humans.

Sofia Galindo

4/15/2019 08:41:40 am

1. The articles are about a monkey named Naruto who took a selfie with a photographer’s camera. The issue is who should own the images Naruto took, the photographer of the monkey. The monkey, U.S. Copyright Office, Wikipedia, the photographer David Slater, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, PETA, and U.S. District Judge William Orrick were involved.
2. PETA filed a lawsuit against David Slater over whether the monkey owned the rights the the image. The lawsuit was on behalf of the monkey.
3. The lawsuit ended with a settlement proposed by PETA with David Slater. Under the settlement, Slater agreed 25% of future profits “from the photos to groups that protect crested macaques and their habitat in Indonesia.”
4. David Slater is losing some of his profits, however, the profits that aren’t going to Slater will go to the protection of crested macaques and their habitat.
5. I do not think animals should be able to own the rights to their photographs or other work because even if they do accidentally or purposely take a picture, there is nothing they can do with it. I do think credit should be given to the animal, but the person’s camera who the picture was taken on should have the rights to do whatever to the photo.
6. Animals should own their own artwork because just like humans, it was them who created the image and they should have the right to keep it or do whatever they can with it.

Sergio SAnchez

4/15/2019 08:42:38 am

1The articles are about monkey rights and that naruto owns the photo
2Evil PETA tried to sue Dave in behalf of the monkey
3The outcome was dave giving 10% of the photos profit to naruto
4Yes he is profiting from naruto
5No dave should have the rights to the photo as long as he owns naruto and maintains him alive because naruto has no concept of money.
6Naruto should get to keep the money even if he does not even know what money is

Matthew Sutherland

4/15/2019 08:46:21 am

1. The articles are about a lawsuit over whether a monkey owns a picture he took with a man’s camera. The issue is that the monkey Naruto took a picture of himself using a camera that belonged to a man named David Slater. The organization PETA sued Slater because they believe that the rights to the photograph belongs to Naruto.
2. PETA filed a lawsuit against Slater on Naruto’s behalf because PETA believes the rights to the photograph Naruto took belongs to him.
3. The outcome of the lawsuit was that the judge ruled that the United States copyright law did not apply to animals.
4. Slater is profiting from the selfie Naruto took. The thing that came out of the litigation for David Slater is that he donates a percentage of the money he receives from selling the photograph to protect Naruto.
5. I think that Naruto and other animals should not own the rights to their artwork. I think the rights of the artwork should be public and not belong to any person.
6. An argument for Naruto and animals owning the rights to their artwork is that United States copyright laws give the rights of an image to the person that took the image.

teresa lei

4/15/2019 08:46:49 am

1 The articles are about whether a monkey should earn the copyright of a photo if that's taken by itself. The issue involved the owner of the camera David Slater, a monkey named Naruto who lived in Indonesia, PETA and U.S. copyright office

2 They tried to help the monkey Naruto to win the rights to own the photograph. They are on the monkey's behalf.

3 David Slater agreed to donate 25% of the profit earned by the photograph to the organization that protects crested macaques and their habitat in Indonesia.

4 According to the article, he's willing to deal with the problem since it's an important issue to consider, however it seemed like he didn't have enough money to even attend the court. He's profiting from the monkey selfie since not all of the money went to the donation.

5 I feel like this is a gray area that's been newly discovered, and I believe that the settlement for this special case is just. I don't think animals should have the rights to earn the copyright since they're not citizens of the country and they don't have the ability to manage the money, nor can they participate in any trade, but a certain portion of the profit should go the organization that support or benefit the species in general. Each case can be different due to how the animals are involved in the picture.

6 Animals should own the copyright to the picture since it 's not taken by any other individuals/organization. Copyright office can rule specific laws on animals copyright and how can the profit of the photo go straight to the organization that benefits the animal.

mariah podwika

4/15/2019 08:48:18 am

1.) A 6 year old monkey, Naruto, pressed the shutter button on the unattended camera, owned by David J. Slater, and took a smiling selfie. PETA comes whether the monkey owned the rights to it.

2.) Who owned the selfie that Naruto took. PETA filed a law suit on Naruto's behalf.

3.) Slater donates 25 percent of future revenue from the photos to groups that protect crested macaques and their habitat in Indonesia. Judge William H. Orrik of the United States District Court in San Francisco ruled that Naruto’s case did not apply to copyright laws, so Naruto did not own the photo.

4.) It is not clear how much money will be directed to charitable organizations from sales of the image. Mr. Kerr said he did not know how much money Mr. Slater had made on past sales.

5.) I think that the owner of the animal should get the rights to the the created artwork because it’s their animal. It’s the same as if a child would create artwork when they aren’t old enough or able to understand what the money came from. An animal can’t possibly understand the money or have the means to spend it. It’s an animal. The owner is in charge of the animal so they should have the benefits of their animal.

6.) The animal created the artwork so they should reap the benefits of the art. Just like people get credit for their art, the animal still created it, so they should get the same courtesy.

Samantha Meldner

4/15/2019 08:48:25 am

What are the articles about? What is the issue, and who are the people, organizations, and animals involved?
The first article is about David Salter’s photographs that were taken by a monkey and how he was copyrighted by the PETA because copyright laws extend to animals as well as humans. The second article is about the same instance, however it goes into more detail about what Naturo wanted Salters money for. The money that was to come from the lawsuit against David Salter was going to Naturo to protect him and animals like him.

Why did PETA file a lawsuit against David Slater, and on whose behalf did they file?
The PETA filed a lawsuit against David Salter because he published an image of Naruto, a monkey that lives in indonesia, in his book, “Wildlife Personalities.” It was filed on behalf of Naruto because he took the image on David’s camera and never gave him permission to use it.
What was the outcome of the lawsuit?

The lawsuit inspired David Salter to provide funding to help protect animals as well as humans from their images being used without consent. He is now devoted to giving the money he received from Naturo’s image to the animals. He also wants to find a way to give animals the same way.

How did the litigation affect David Slater? Is he profiting from the famous monkey selfie?
Davis Salter is gaining a lot of money from the image itself because it went internet famous. The image also got a lot of publicity from his book and about the quality taken by a monkey which surprises people.

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 do not think that images taken of or by animals should have copyrights for the animals. I do not think that they deserve laws protecting their images because most animals are either owned by people or live in the wild. If a animal is owned by someone that person should have copyrights to any images of or taken by that animal. I also think that if an animal is out in the wild no rights are required because then technically they are considered ‘nature.’ For example, we don’t need copyrights to take an use images of trees.

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 have rights to be treated properly, just as humans do. Part of that is their image. They can not be extorted just because they do not have a voice to fight for themselves. In order for an animal to have these, we have to be their voice.

EmmaKate Spies

4/16/2019 01:19:33 pm

The articles are about a 6 year-old monkey who had its picture taken and there are questions about who owns the images. The questions about who owns the pictures created a lawsuit against the photographer claiming that the monkey owns the rites to the images. The organizations that are involved are PETA and the people who are involved are the photographer.
PETA filed the lawsuit against photographer David Slater and they want 25 percent of the revenu that he gets in the future to an organization in Indonesia that helps protect the habitat of animals. PETA filed the lawsuit on Naruto, the monkeys’, behalf.
The outcome of the lawsuit was that both parties agreed that there are issues regarding the safety of animals.
The litigation affected David Slater in a positive way. Both parties got money and shared profits and rights. He is profiting from the famous monkey portraits.
No, I think that the people who photographed them should have the rights to the photograph because without them then the subject weather its a human, sight, or an animal they wouldn’t be famous.
Given the information i think that the animals should be given the rights to a photograph because they are the subject without them the photograph wouldn’t exist. They are the sole reason that a photo of them is out there for the whole world to see and admire.

Comments are closed.

Period 3 -- Critical Analysis #19

Analyze

Archives

Categories

Home