Period 5 -- Critical Analysis #20

4/30/2018

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.

Pato Wray link

4/30/2018 11:19:11 am

1. These articles talk about who have the rights to a monkeys selfie photograph
2. PETA filed a lawsuit because David thought that animal should have the rights to their own pictures
3. The lawsuit went in favor of Naruto and the pictures doesn’t have the rights to their own photographs
4. He didn’t get the rights for the monkey and this made Slater mad. He is not profiting from the image in money but in views he is.
5. I think animals themselves shouldn’t have the rights but rather the owner of the monkey, or in this case Slater, because he had the artwork or photograph
6. If I were to argue the opposing side, I would say the animal is free to do whatever it wants and the photo will belong to PETA

Kate Madison

4/30/2018 11:19:54 am

1. The articles are about if a man or monkey should get the money from the monkey’s selfie, with David Slater, Naruto, and PETA
2. They filed it because they said it was unfair for a monkey not to have the same rights as a human when it comes to copyright
3. The outcome ended up where David Slater would donate 10% of the revenue to the monkey conservation project in Sulawesi
4. David said the profit was “embarrassingly low”
5. I think that if an animal is able to take a picture of themselves, their owner or organization in charge of them should get the money to take care of them, not the animal itself receiving the money because they wouldn’t know what to do with it
6. However, if an animal does take its own picture it should get the money because monkeys are very smart and they’ve learned sign language so they could tell people what they want

Ryan Kyle

4/30/2018 11:21:46 am

#1 The articles are about a photographer named David Slater who had a monkey take his camera from him and take a self portrait. The monkey is named Naruto and PETA thinks that the monkey should have the rights to the photo.

#2 PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) filed a lawsuit against David Slater on behalf of Naruto the monkey.

#3 The outcome was that PETA dropped the lawsuit and instead just said that 25% of all of the future revenue would be donated to organizations that help monkeys that are the same species as Naruto.

#4 David Slater still profits from the photo, but he has to donate 25% of his revenue which means that he is not earning as much as he could be.

#5 I don’t believe that animals should be able to own copyrights as that is kind of stupid considering that, 1. They don’t speak our languages, 2. They don’t know what a copyright is, and 3. Giving animals the rights to a photo is stupid because they can’t even do anything with that photo or let alone make any money off of it. Even if animals did make money off of art that they make, what would they be able to do with it?

#6 Animals should be able to own copyrights for their own artwork. After all, they did make it. And if this art were to be sold, it could go towards something for the animal such as food since they cannot exactly tell us how to spend their money or spend it themselves.

Ryan Kyle (Corrected)

4/30/2018 11:24:44 am

#1 The articles are about a photographer named David Slater who had a monkey take his camera from him and take a self portrait. The monkey is named Naruto and PETA thinks that the monkey should have the rights to the photo.

#2 PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) filed a lawsuit against David Slater on behalf of Naruto the monkey.

#3 The outcome was that PETA dropped the lawsuit and instead just said that 25% of all of the future revenue would be donated to organizations that help monkeys that are the same species as Naruto.

#4 David Slater still profits from the photo, but he has to donate 25% of his revenue which means that he is not earning as much as he could be. The litigation took a toll on David financially and emotionally.

#5 I don’t believe that animals should be able to own copyrights as that is kind of stupid considering that, 1. They don’t speak our languages, 2. They don’t know what a copyright is, and 3. Giving animals the rights to a photo is stupid because they can’t even do anything with that photo or let alone make any money off of it. Even if animals did make money off of art that they make, what would they be able to do with it?

#6 Animals should be able to own copyrights for their own artwork. After all, they did make it. And if this art were to be sold, it could go towards something for the animal such as food since they cannot exactly tell us how to spend their money or spend it themselves.

Marissa Elizondo

4/30/2018 11:28:06 am

The articles are about the “Monkey Selfie lawsuit”. While a wildlife photographer, David Slater, was on a trip in Indonesia, this monkey comes and takes a picture on his camera. Slater tries to sell the image and then gets sued for copyright and in the articles PETA is trying to get the monkey to own the copyright.

They filed the lawsuit on behalf of the monkey because they believe that the monkey deserves to own the copyright because he did take the image and they believe that images created by animals should not be treated unfairly when it comes to copyright laws.

The photographer ended up getting the image and the copyrights, but he did say that he would give 25% of what he earned from that image to charities that protected the monkeys and their habitats.

Apparently, he is saying that he is broke and is making an embarrassing amount of profit.

I think everyone deserves the rights to their own images whether they are human or not. In the case where an animal makes an image, since they can’t really use money, I’d say their owner should get the rights and profit. Also if it is a wild animal that doesn’t have an owner, the photographer who owns the camera should be able to sell the image as long as he gives credit and if some % of the money made goes to a charity that benefits that animal.

Animals should not own copyright or the images. Animals don’t need the money and make a living unlike the photographers. Animals also don’t care about what happens to the image so it shouldn’t be such a big deal about he gets the rights. Whoever’s camera was used when the animal took the picture should be the person that gets rights to the image.

Zach Burgos

4/30/2018 11:32:14 am

1. The articles are about a picture of a “monkey selfie” and PETA is filing a lawsuit on who owns the photo, The monkey Naruto or the photographer David Slater.
2. Peta filed the lawsuit under Naruto’s behalf, and they wanted to ask “who owns the photo?”
3. The outcome of the lawsuit was that animals do not have copyright if they take photos with your camera.
4. David Slater is not profiting from the monkey photos and his profits are “embarrassingly low.”
5. I do not think animals should have rights because it is just straight dumb for animals to have rights for photos, they wouldn’t know how to sell the photos, print the photos, and maybe even take the photos. I think that the person that owns the camera should own the photos taken by animals.
6. I think that animals should have copyright because that would mean that no one could steal the photos from the animals would be credited properly if they are printed.

Maria Tirado

4/30/2018 11:33:07 am

The articles are about the issue going on with the Copyright Law between an animal and a human. This macaque lives in Indonesia and one day came upon wildlife photographer, David Slater’s camera and took a selfie. Slater then published the image and the image became known. The organization involved is PETA and they were fighting for Naruto’s rights.

PETA (people for the ethical treatment of animals) sued David Slater on the monkey’s behalf. They did it, because they didn’t think it was completely fair that just because they are animals they don’t get credit for their own work.

The outcome of the lawsuit was that both David Slater and PETA agreed that Slater will be giving 25% of future revenue from the photos to groups that protect crested macaques and their habitat in Indonesia. Both sides also asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "to dismiss the case and throw out a lower court decision that said animals cannot own copyrights”.

David Slater is profiting from the monkey selfie, although the exact amount is not yet known, he is gaining money and selling copies of the selfie through his own website. He is also using the lawsuit as a way to get people to buy his labels by saying that 10% will go toward monkey conservation projects.

I think this is case is really silly. It could have easily been resolved with common sense, yet human brains take it too far. I don’t believe that animals should have rights to photographs, especially since they are not human. They can not talk, so you wouldn’t be able to ask them anything. I also don’t think that what Slater did was the best thing to do, but it sure does make more sense to have a human publish monkey’s selfies than have a monkey decide whether to publish it or not.

My opposite opinion would be that animals should own copyrights. They are still a way of life and whatever they create is their own special art. Monkeys are a very smart species of animals and they should be able to decide whether or not to make their work known. Or at least, they should get credit for creating the artwork. If they are capable of taking a selfie, they are capable of receiving credit for their own work.

Jessica Mims

4/30/2018 11:35:03 am

The articles are about a photograph that was taken by Naruto, a macaques in Indonesia, using a camera owned by David Slater. This became problematic about who should claim the copyright laws, and ultimately PETA got involved by filing a lawsuit to try and resolve the situation.

PETA filed a lawsuit against Slater because they believe that animals should claim the copyright laws, in this case, they filed on behalf of Naruto.

The outcome of the lawsuit was in favor of David Slater, the courts ruled that he could claim the copyright, but he would have to donate 25% of the revenue from the art to organizations that would benefit macaques.

The litigation affected Slater because he is not making as much money as he could be. While he still profits from the photo, he could be making much more if he did not have to donate 25% to animal organizations.

I believe that animals should not own rights to their photographs, they cannot do anything with the profits that they would receive. Also, they do not know what copyrights are because they are animals. I think that the person who supplied the mediums for the animals to create the art should be given the copyrights for that piece.

I believe that the animals should claim the copyrights, they had to follow the same process as humans do to create the art and it is not fair that we would receive copyrights while they get nothing. Even though they are animals, they are still living creatures who deserve rights.

Larissa Esparza

4/30/2018 11:38:29 am

The articles are about a photographer, David Slater, that took a picture of a monkey, Naruto. The issue or argument that is being raised is whether or Naruto should get copyrights to the images of himself. The several organizations that were involved in the disagreement included Wikipedia, The U.S. Copyright Office, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and photographer david slater.

PETA filed for the lawsuit against David Slater on Naruto’s behalf because they believed Naruto deserved his rights of the photograph since he pressed the shutter button to take the image.

The outcome of the of the lawsuit was that David Slater will continue to own the copyright of the image since The U.S. copyright law does not allow lawsuits that try to give animals the rights to photographs or other work. Another factor that was put into it was that Copyright can only be claimed by humans.

I do not believe that animals should get the copyrights to their own image. Several reasons why an animal should not get copyrights is because they are not forced to work with the photographer but simply find the camera interesting or let the photographer take pictures of them. Another reason is that they can not communicate with humans about their photographs and don't know what a photograph or camera is.

Animals should get copyright to all images that are of themselves. Animals should get copyright because the image is of them like you wouldn’t take an image of another human without asking so why do it of an animal. Animals are almost like humans too so we should treat them with the same kindness and respect. Animals don’t always enjoy human taking pictures of them and documenting their every move for it can be tiring and an invasion of privacy which is why they should receive copyright to their images. Especially if they pressed the shutter button.

Martinez Cantu Cardenas

4/30/2018 11:38:53 am

1.These articles are about an organization called PETA which filed a lawsuit against David Slater for not giving credit for a monkey who grabbed his camera and took a selfie therefore David did not take this photograph himself.
2.The lawsuit has filled under Naruto’s behalf, they filed this lawsuit because no credit was given to the monkey and he was the one who captured this image.
3.The outcome of this lawsuit was that David Slater agreed to donate 10% of the purchase towards any monkey conservation project.
4.This affected David because he had to donate a part of any purchase made with this photograph to monkey organizations.
5.I believe that this was a pointless case in some way because even if the monkey had all of the credits what would he do with the money whereas David, he makes a living out of these photographs. I believe that animals should not own copyright of their work because it is not like the animals plan out to do art work, people provide them with things that might cause them to produce a masterpiece but it does not come from their natural instinct to take a photograph or other things. I believe that the person who provides the animal with the supplies to produce this artwork should get the credits.
6.Animals should get copyright because in the moment that they click the button of a camera, they are producing a form of art and this art was no created by the photograph, it might have been the photographer’s camera and if the photographer wants he can have credit for the camera but he cannot get credit for work that he didn’t do by himself.

Mikaela Mumme

4/30/2018 05:15:24 pm

1. In these articles it talks about a Monkey named Naruto he stole a camera from David slater and with the camera he took a image of himself and PETA believes the monkey has the rights to the money.
2. PETA filed a lawsuit on behalf of David Slater saying the monkey owned the copyright to the image and he should have the same rights as a human.
3. PETA ultimately dropped the lawsuit and the outcome was David Slater got the rights to the image and said 25% of the revenue he makes will go to saving the same species as Naruto
4. David says his profits are embarrassingly low and he is not making as much as he could because he donates 25%
5. I believe animals can own copyrights to there photos but it doesn’t make sense for a animal to have money because there isn’t much for them to do with it. I believe what was done in the situation was right where a potion or all of the money is donated to the animals.

4/30/2018 05:18:51 pm

1. In these articles it talks about a Monkey named Naruto he stole a camera from David slater and with the camera he took a image of himself and PETA believes the monkey has the rights to the money.
2. PETA filed a lawsuit on behalf of David Slater saying the monkey owned the copyright to the image and he should have the same rights as a human.
3. PETA ultimately dropped the lawsuit and the outcome was David Slater got the rights to the image and said 25% of the revenue he makes will go to saving the same species as Naruto
4. David says his profits are embarrassingly low and he is not making as much as he could because he donates 25%
5. I don’t think it makes sense for animals to own copyrights to there images because they are animals and what are they going to do with money? It would be more efficient for the photographer to make the money and maybe they wouldn’t be broke or have embarrassingly low wages
6. I believe animals can own copyrights to there photos but it doesn’t make sense for a animal to have money because there isn’t much for them to do with it. I believe what was done in the situation was right where a potion or all of the money is donated to the animals.

Josh Salehi

5/1/2018 09:40:05 pm

1. The article is about a monkey who was walking around and somehow finds a camera already set up.the monkey somehow takes a selfie. They are taken to court to discuss who belongs copyright to the picture either the monkey or the Man.

2. The lawsuit peta filed was Naruto’s behalf

3. The case ended and the animal copyright rights failed and the animals don't get copyright if they take pictures on their own

4. David slater is profiting from the picture and donating 25% to charity

5.i don’t think animals should have copy rights becuase they are not humans and they don’t even know what a picture or copyright.

6. Animals should get copy right becuase he took the photo and the money could go to food and health care to the animal becuase the animals can’t spend it itself

Troy Rollwitz

5/22/2018 02:46:33 pm

1. The articles are about photographer David Slater who had a monkey named Naruto take his camera from him and take a self portrait. The monkey is named Naruto and PETA thinks that the monkey should have the rights to the photo.

2. PETA decided to file a lawsuit against them despite the fact that this monkey is not being abused or harmed in any way. This lawsuit was officially against David Slater on behalf of Naruto the monkey.

3. The outcome was that PETA cancelled the lawsuit and David said that 25% of all of the future revenue would be donated to organizations that help monkeys in the same habitat as Naruto.

4. David Slater still makes money from the photo, but he has to donate 25% of his revenue. The litigation took a toll on David financially and emotionally.

5. This case is one of the dumbest, most ridiculous things I’ve seen in my life. The fact that PETA is trying to defend an animal that is not being harmed in any way makes me so mad. It is one thing to advocate for laws to stop animal abuse, because they are suffering, or to fight against eating animals which I don’t agree with but have complete respect for their opinions, but to take this particular case to the court of law to grant a monkey something it will never understand is just madness. Animals do not deserve human rights such as this, ones that they literally cannot comprehend. I would understand if someone takes a picture of someone’s pet, and the owner wants the rights, but this was just a random monkey from the middle of the jungle. The photographer should own the rights to these ones. I think PETA wasted everyone’s time. After seeing this case I think PETA is one of the most useless organizations on the planet, wasting everyone’s time defending a random monkey that is perfectly happy.

6. Because the animal made the picture, it deserves something out of it. Yes it has no understanding of money, but some of the revenue should automatically be donated towards helping that animal, or species, live a better life.

Comments are closed.

Period 5 -- Critical Analysis #20

Analyze

Archives

Categories

Home