Period 4 -- Critical Analysis #20

4/26/2018

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

http://time.com/5251925/peta-monkey-selfie-lawsuit-dismissed/

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.

Catherine Clausewitz

4/30/2018 09:22:36 am

This article is about a monkey who took a picture of himself on a human camera. The man, who’s name is David Slater, was in Indonesia when the monkey grabbed his camera and took a photo of itself. The issue is whether the image belongs to the monkey or the Slater.

PETA filed a lawsuit on Slater because they wanted to rights to the image in the name of the monkey who took the photo.

In the end, Slater donates 25 percent of the revenue from the image to organizations that protect macaque monkeys and their habitats.

Slater is profiting from the photograph because he sells copies and prints of the photo on his website.

I think that the case was in a way necessary because if not then those organizations wouldn’t be getting as much money as they are now from the profits from the website. Animals should be in a way able to have their own rights to images. Even if that means that it is split down the middle with the artists gets half of the profits and organizations protecting that animal and their habitat get the other half.

Animals shouldn’t be able to own their own rights to an image because they weren’t necessarily the ones to take the photo and they don’t know what they’re doing. They won’t profit from it in anyway.

Dylan Pegg link

4/30/2018 09:25:48 am

1. In 2011, a macaques in Indonesia, named Naruto, took a selfie using David Slater’s camera. PETA filed a suit against him, claiming the copyright belonged to the animal rather than him. However, the court decided otherwise; Slater kept the copyright on the photograph.

2. PETA filed the lawsuit because they believed Naruto owned the copyright. He had pressed the shutter button, so PETA filed it on his behalf.

3. The court decided the copyright belonged to David Slater.

4. David Slater admitted the photo didn’t generate much money, but he also promised that 25% of any future revenue would be donated to a foundation that helps macaques.

5. Animals shouldn’t own the copyright. They don’t understand what they’re doing in this case, and the art is likely accidental or a case of imitating humans. The person who set up the scenario by leaving the needed equipment or staging something should have the rights, even if done on accident.

6. Animals should have the copyright because they are responsible for creating the art. Even if it is done on accident or out of curiosity, the animal is still responsible for its creation, and is therefore held responsible for their creations.

Chase Blackwell

4/30/2018 09:26:22 am

What are the articles about? What is the issue, and who are the people, organizations, and animals involved?
The articles are about a lawsuit where PETA is claiming that animals should own the copyright to art that they create.
Why did PETA file a lawsuit against David Slater, and on whose behalf did they file?
They filed a lawsuit on the behalf of a monkey, who took a photographer’s camera and took a selfie with it. They are claiming that the monkey should own the photograph and production rights for it.
What was the outcome of the lawsuit?
The lawsuit came out in favor of Slater, and the court ruled that only Humans can claim copyright laws.
How did the litigation affect David Slater? Is he profiting from the famous monkey selfie?
He is proffitting very little, but now it’s even lower as 25% of it goes to the monkey’s sanctuary. Before he won the rights however, he was in severe financial and emotional distress as a result of losing nearly all of his income off of the photo.
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.
No, I believe that because it was taken on a stolen camera, and by a monkey who was most likely not aware of what he was doing, that the monkey has no rights to the art. Animals that create art are not aware that they are creating art, and thus shouldn’t be able to claim it. The ownership lies in who owns the materials that it was made on. Not the owner of the animal. Not the animal. The person who owns the items used to create the art itself. Who owns the physical and original copy.
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 should own the right to their work due to the fact that they are the ones who have put in the work to create it. Some animals, and monkeys in particular, have high intelligence, and on a basic level, understand that “moving this creates line” or “press this onto this while covered in paint, leaves a imprint.” They are consciously choosing which lines to create and what to move to leave the impression.

Andi Feik

4/30/2018 09:29:07 am

1.The articles are about a monkey taking a photo on a photographers camera and the photographer being sued because People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals believe that the monkey should have the copyright to the image.
2. Peta filed lawsuit against David Slater because they believe that all animals should have the same rights as humans.
3. In U.S. copyright law it does not say anything about animals having rights to images so Slater has the right to the images.
4. Slater said that during the lawsuit he was struggling to make money. He is now profiting from the images but is not making a lot of money. He donates 10% of the profit he makes to the monkey conservation in Sulawesi, Indonesia where the image was created.
5. I believe that David Slater should own the rights to the image. In the U.S. Copyright law is does not say anything about animals owning the rights to the image. I believe that whoevers camera took the image should be the person to own the rights to the image in this case.
6. I believe that the monkey should own the rights to the image because they are the ones that took the image. They should have the same rights that humans do.

Kaitlyn Evans

4/30/2018 09:33:30 am

1. These articles are about a monkey named Naruto who accidently took a photo using David Slater’s camera. PETA is trying to file a lawsuit against Dylan Slater saying that the monkey should have the rights to the photograph and that Dylan Slater has copyrighted the photograph. Dylan Slater, PETA and a monkey named Naruto are involved in this case.
2. PETA filed a lawsuit on Naruto’s behalf against Dylan Slater because they wanted Naruto to have rights to the picture he took
3. The outcome of this lawsuit was that PETA got denied to let Naruto have rights to the picture
4. This case caused Dylan Slater to go almost broke but he ended up winning the case and now makes copies of the photo and sells them online
5. I think that if an animal takes a photo on someone else’s camera then whoever owns the camera should have the rights to the picture. I don’t think animals should have rights to their photograph because they can’t do anything with them. Animals can’t share them with the world or sell them only people can because that’s how we function.
6. Animals should have the right to own their photographs because they took the picture. If an animal takes a picture then they should be treated like anyone or anything in our world. We shouldn’t look at them any less just because they’re an animal.

Melody Umsted

4/30/2018 09:34:23 am

The articles are about a court case concerning animals’ rights and copyright laws. A monkey took a selfie on David Slater’s camera, and they are trying to decide if Slater or the monkey, Naruto, should own the copyright to the photos.
PETA filed a lawsuit on behalf of Naruto, trying to give him the rights to the selfie he took, rather than David Slater.
PETA and Slater decided that Slater would donate 25% of his revenue from the monkey selfie to charities that protect crested macaques in Indonesia.
Slater was affected emotionally and financially; he became unmotivated, wanted to quit photography, and was making very little money. He did not say how much money he made from the monkey’s photos, but he said the revenue was “embarrassingly low.”
I think animals should be given credit for any art they create themselves. However, they should not be treated as humans because they are not humans. They should not receive any money for their work simply because they cannot spend it and a human will probably steal it from them. I think the owner of the animal or the person who allowed the animal to create the art should own the copyright, but the animal will be given credit for creating the art.
The only thing a human did was give the monkey access to a camera. The monkey did everything himself to create the photograph so he should get the copyright. If a human took another human’s camera and took a selfie, the one who took the picture would be given the copyright, so it should be the same for this monkey.

4/30/2018 09:35:46 am

1. The articles are about a court case concerning animals’ rights and copyright laws. A monkey took a selfie on David Slater’s camera, and they are trying to decide if Slater or the monkey, Naruto, should own the copyright to the photos.
2. PETA filed a lawsuit on behalf of Naruto, trying to give him the rights to the selfie he took, rather than David Slater.
3. PETA and Slater decided that Slater would donate 25% of his revenue from the monkey selfie to charities that protect crested macaques in Indonesia.
4. Slater was affected emotionally and financially; he became unmotivated, wanted to quit photography, and was making very little money. He did not say how much money he made from the monkey’s photos, but he said the revenue was “embarrassingly low.”
5. I think animals should be given credit for any art they create themselves. However, they should not be treated as humans because they are not humans. They should not receive any money for their work simply because they cannot spend it and a human will probably steal it from them. I think the owner of the animal or the person who allowed the animal to create the art should own the copyright, but the animal will be given credit for creating the art.
6. The only thing a human did was give the monkey access to a camera. The monkey did everything himself to create the photograph so he should get the copyright. If a human took another human’s camera and took a selfie, the one who took the picture would be given the copyright, so it should be the same for this monkey.

Pedro Mejido link

4/30/2018 09:36:16 am

The articles are about a lawsuit by PETA to a photographer named David Slater. PETA was suing David because he sold a selfie taken by a monkey in Indonesia.

PETA filed a lawsuit against David Slater on behalf of a monkey name Naruto because David sold a selfie made by Naruto.

The lawsuit ended with David Slater donating 25 percent of future profits from the selfie to a charity that protected Naruto’s kind in Indonesia.

The lawsuit almost made David Slater pretty much broke and it doesn’t help that he mad very little profit from the monkey selfie.

I think animals shouldn’t own rights to photographs because they’re aren’t intelligent enough to understand what copyright even means. I think humans should own photographs taken by animals because they are way more intelligent the monkeys.

Animals should own rights to their work because its their work. Animals are living things like humans which means that they have rights.

Leon Toursarkissian link

4/30/2018 09:42:06 am

1. These articles are about a court case regarding a lawsuit given to a photographer because he possessed and was profiting off of a photo made by a monkey on his camera, and whether or not that monkey should have the copyright to the photo. The issue is that a group is arguing that the monkey should own the copyright to the photo and the man should not be allowed to profit off of it. The people, organizations, and animals involved are David Slater, The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the U.S. Copyright Office, Wikipedia, and a macaque monkey named Naruto.

2. PETA filed a lawsuit on David Slater on the behalf of Naruto because they believed that Naruto should own the copyright and that Slater was stealing Naruto’s work and profiting from it without permission.

3. The result of the case was a settlement between Slater and PETA stating that Slater could keep selling the photographs as long as he donated 25% of profit to a wildlife protection group in Indonesia and that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would forget about the case and an earlier case that stated the animals couldn’t own copyrights. The court also stated that only humans could issue lawsuits for violated copyrights.

4. The litigation affected David Slater because it cost him a lot of money and he had to sell a large amount of photos to make profit, but even then it was still very low and now he has to donate 25% of it. He is profiting from the selfie but very little.

5. I think that this case should definitely state that animals can’t own copyrights. Animals should not be allowed to own the copyright for a picture that they took because after all they are animals and have no way of communication or social interaction with us, and giving them the rights to a photo they took would make no sense. The copyright should belong the the person who owns the camera that the photo was taken on.

6. Animals should own copyrights because after all they are the ones who made the art. The human did nothing to make the art and it was completely the animal’s work. They are the ones who pressed the button or drew the image and they should be able to own the copyrights to their own work.

Julieta Vazquez Martinez

4/30/2018 09:42:44 am

What are the articles about? What is the issue, and who are the people, organizations, and animals involved?
These two articles are about the “Monkey selfie dispute” that went on for years. The people involved are the current copyright holder and the camera’s owner, David J. Slater, PETA, monkey himself, the U.S. copyright law, 9th U.S. Circuit Court.
Why did PETA file a lawsuit against David Slater, and on whose behalf did they file?
Peta filled a lawsuit against David Slater on behalf of Naruto (the monkey). The did it because they argue that “Naruto should be considered the author and copyright owner, and he shouldn’t be treated any differently from any other creator simply because he happens to not be human.”
What was the outcome of the lawsuit?
Both sides came to an agreement. David gets to keep the copyright but Naruto will favor from the 25% of the profits that David does from this series of selfies
How did the litigation affect David Slater? Is he profiting from the famous monkey selfie?
He is profiting. However he refuses to say how much and only describes it as “embarrassingly low.”
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 that art pieces like this should be celebrated rather than fought over. As humans we should celebrate that our neighbors (the animals) can also create art. Maybe animal art should be some sort of everybody (every species understood).
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.
Argument against animals having copyright tights:
David should have the copyright to this image because if he hadn’t put the camera there Naruto wouldn’t have taken the selfies. These selfies are consequently his work since its his camera, and he put it there.

Adriana Vazquez

4/30/2018 09:45:11 am

1.Both articles are about the copyright of a selfie taken by a monkey.These articles say the fight that the U.S court is having about who should own the copyrights. The monkey, who now goes by the name of Naruto, the photographer David Slater and the PETA organization are all involved in this issue.

2.The organization PETA thinks that there should be a law that allows all non human animals to have legal copyright.

3.The outcome of the lawsuit is that the U.S court does not allow any non human animals to own copyrights.

4.David Slate is profiting from the photo because he sells copies and prints of it on his website.

5. I think that animals should not have copyrights. Animals would clearly not understand what a copyright is, they would not care, instead, humans do understand and care about what a copyright is. They would use it and animals would not.

5. I think that animals should own the copyright if they are the ones that took the photograph. The camera is a human’s but the human did not press the shutter to take the picture, the animal did. And so, because it took the picture, it should have own the copyrights.

Estefan Zorrilla link

4/30/2018 09:48:30 am

This a case that may seem a bit silly at first but is actually pretty hard to decide on. Back in two thousand and eleven, a macaque which is a type of monkey. His name was naruto and he took a photographers camera and took a selfie of himself. The picture turned out to be quite good. The posing question of the case is who owns the picture, the man or the monkey. Many people were part of this case from the U.S. copyright office and even wikipedia. PETA recently filed out a form against david slater which is the man own the camera. David then agreed to give twenty five percent of future revenue produced by sales from the picture to be given to the groups that protect crested macaques and their habitat in Indonesia. In Twenty fifteen, PETA claimed that the copyright right does not expand to animals. David now makes all the profit but clamies on his website that he donates ten percent to a monkey conservation project. I think that the monkey should not have copyrights for the photo. The monkey is an animal and has no capability to do something with that money. On the opposite side i could argue that the monkey does have copyrights and can have money towards bettering his species.

Comments are closed.

Period 4 -- Critical Analysis #20

Analyze

Archives

Categories

Home