Period 6 -- 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.

Diego

3/5/2020 09:24:59 am

What are the articles about? What is the issue, and who are the people, organizations, and animals involved?
The articles are about Naruto, the monkey who took DavinJ. Slater’s camera and took a selfie, but PETA is arguing that the monkey should have the rights and the profits to the picture.

Why did PETA file a lawsuit against David Slater, and on whose behalf did they file?
Because they are arguing that the picture does not belong to the photographer.

What was the outcome of the lawsuit?
The monkey would recieve 25 percent of the profit.

How did the litigation affect David Slater? Is he profiting from the famous monkey selfie?
He was affected because he got into a legas court case, but his work started to get more profit from that monkey selfie.
He is profiting, from the picture, the 75% of profit.

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 it’s stupid because if the camera belongs to they guy, it should belong to the guy, not the monkey, and monkeys would not use the money fo anything, its like if you take a picture of your dog, someone is not going to argue that all that money should belong to the dog.

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.
They should recieve the money because they took the picture with their own hads, because they are saying that it should belong to the guy, i don’t think it should belong to the guy because he didn’t took the picture, The monkey would recieve 25 percent of the profit.
Because he is the one who took the picture, even though he doesn’t own the camera.

George Welch

3/5/2020 09:36:35 am

1. These articles are about a dispute between David J. Slater and PETA. While in Indonesia, a monkey named Naruto took a picture of himself while David’s camera was unattended. PETA thought that the monkey should own the rights to the image and recieve any and all money that he may receive for the picture.

2. PETA thought that the monkey should own the rights to the image that he took. PETA filed on behalf of the monkey, Naruto.

3. Naruto lost the first round in federal court but later won in a compromise between Naruto and David. David did agree to donate 25% of the future revenue from the picture to charitable organizations.

4. David is still profiting from the image but is using some of the proceeds to donate to charitable organizations.

5. I honestly don’t think animals should hold the rights to something like a photo. Animals can’t use money like we do. I do think that animals should have rights but I think they should work more toward a different direction than pictures. I think the photographer should hold the rights to a picture taken by an animal.

6. I see how PETA wants the rights of the picture. The proceeds could go to protect the animal’s species. However, I still think the image should still the the photographer’s.

Elise Miles

3/5/2020 09:43:46 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.

Garrett Greiner

3/5/2020 09:44:53 am

The articles are about a “monkey-selfie”. Basically, a monkey named Naruto picked up a photographer’s camera and took a picture of itself, and it came out quite well. However there was one problem: who owned the photo? Should it be the monkey because he operated the camera? Or should it be the photographer, David Slater, who gets the credit? PETA got involved with this situation, and filed a lawsuit against the photographer.

PETA filed this lawsuit against David Slate on Naruto’s behalf because they believed that since Naruto pressed the shutter button himself, that he should have the Copyright to that image, and therefore all of the proceeds should go towards him. Since David Slater was selling this image for his own benefit, and profited from it, they believed that David Slater was infringing on Naruto’s Copyright.

Well PETA lost in federal court in California in 2016, as the courts declared that copyright laws don’t extend to animals, and therefore the photo belonged to the photographer. However, PETA and David Slater came to a settlement where Slater would donate 25% of the revenue he earned from these photos to organizations that protect Naruto and other crested macaques and their habitats in Indonesia.

As one article says, David Slater doesn’t disclose what he does with the remaining funds he gets from these images or how much he has earned, but of course he is still profiting. This photo is unique and nearly impossible to take, and so since this photo is one of a kind, he probably gets a decent amount of sales. Yes, he has to give up a percentage of the revenue, but he still profits lots from this image. I mean it has an effect, but probably not a large one.

I think that the fact that he has to give up a percentage of his revenue is stupid. I think that the organizations that protect Naruto and his habitat are great, but I don’t think that he should be obliged to give money to them. I don’t think that the animals should be able to own the rights to their photographs or artwork because they aren’t human. I mean they don’t know what a copyright is, and Naruto probably didn’t even know that he was taking this picture nor what the product would be and how popular it would become. Besides, without David Slater’s equipment, he would not have been able to take the photo. Also, the monkey wouldn’t know how to process that image and go through all the steps to publication and get the same product that Slater did. Slater had to take that photo off the SD card, process it, and take all the steps to start selling it, and in my opinion he put in work and should have the rights to the image. If the monkey were to own the image, it would never get sold, because the monkey can’t do the rest of the work to get it out to the market. A human has to finish the product and get it out to market, so it isn’t like humans are taking away the animal’s opportunity to generate revenue. The fact that PETA had to file the case on Naruto’s behalf shows that the monkey doesn’t know that this is happening and doesn’t feel enraged that a human is taking away his revenue. I think it is just kind of dumb to take money away from this photographer who put in the work to make this product.

If we were to take a photo, and then someone else were to take that image and sell it, you would be mad. Therefore, the person who takes it should be in control of the photo, as they put in the work to create it. It is safe to assume that the profits the person made from that photo would be used to benefit themselves or other things they care about. Therefore, the monkey should get the profit since he clicked the button and the profits should go to the cause that he would most likely want the proceeds to go towards.

isabella grossman

3/5/2020 12:15:09 pm

What are the articles about? What is the issue, and who are the people, organizations, and animals involved?
The Articles are based on a lawsuit filed by PETA against a photographer whose camera was used by a monkey to take a photo. The argument that PETA makes is that the production of the image was a violation of the Monkeys rights. The photographer, David Slater, agreed to settle the suit and donate 25% of the proceeds of the money made off of the image to monkey conservation.

Why did PETA file a lawsuit against David Slater, and on whose behalf did they file?
PETA filed a lawsuit against David Slater on behalf of the monkey who took the selfie. Because human rights are not extended to monkeys, PETA took the situation into their own hands to protect the monkeys integrity.

What was the outcome of the lawsuit?
The outcome of the lawsuit was a settlement made by Slater and his team of lawyers which declared that 25% of profits made at the monkeys expense would be donated to wildlife conservation and money preservation efforts.

How did the litigation affect David Slater? Is he profiting from the famous monkey selfie?
Yes, David Slater profited from the selfie through signed prints, media usage, etc. The litigation gave the artist more press and brought his art into light through mass coverage.

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.
In my opinion I think that the whole situation is stupid and could potentially be orchestrated for fame and press. To argue that a monkey is conscious of his actions and his rights and integrity are put in jeopardy by the artist is absurd. I do not think that animals have the capacity to understand that their image is being taken and sold so therefore I do not think it is necessary because you can not ask the monkey how it feels. I think the artist who made the pieces owns the rights and if a monkey makes his own art, with his camera and proceeded to develop, sell, and market his art then maybe.

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.
Because a piece of art that is centered around an animal is abused if a photo is non consensual. This is a lack of respect by humans towards helpless animals and is an abuse of our capacity to think and our intelligence is an unfair advantage compared to animals that are not as developed as humans. I think that animals deserve their own rights because they are capable of feeling just as we are and there are laws in place enforcing basic human birth rights which include the right to privacy and this same treatment should be put towards animals of all species.

Chloe Clark

3/5/2020 12:18:29 pm

What are the articles about? What is the issue, and who are the people, organizations, and animals involved?

These two articles are about a monkey named Naruto who took a self-portrait with a camera owned by David Slater, a professional photographer. PETA filed a lawsuit against Slater, arguing that Naruto should get the rights and profits that come from the image.

Why did PETA file a lawsuit against David Slater, and on whose behalf did they file?

PETA argues that the image does not belong to David Slater, and rather, to the monkey Naruto.

What was the outcome of the lawsuit?

Both PETA and Slater came to an agreement for Slater to donate 25% of the revenue from the photos to charity groups regarding Naruto’s species.

How did the litigation affect David Slater? Is he profiting from the famous monkey selfie?

The litigation affected the amount of money Slater would be receiving from that image, but after the court case fiasco, Slater got much more press.

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.

In my opinion, I don’t believe that Naruto should inherit the profit from the photograph because there’s no way that he crafted the image himself, like pulling the focus and setting aperture. Therefore, he didn’t create the image and shouldn’t deserve the profit. Even if he had created the image in some twisted universe, animals cannot comprehend money and use it like people can. The money that is said to be given to the monkey will still end up in the hands of another person who did not create the image.

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.

It is understandable why PETA wants the profits of his image to go to Naruto. They want the proceeds of an image of Naruto to go to charities designed to benefit Naruto and his species.

Flint Rose

3/5/2020 12:23:34 pm

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Naruto the monkey. Peta was suing the artist Mr. Slater, because technically the monkeys took the photo, which means they own it and its rights. Strater argued, justifically, that he was the one who organized the encounter. Slater that he got the monkey to press the shutter button, after preparing shot, which means it is his photograph. The lawsuit was settled when Slater agreed to donate 25% of the revenue from the photograph towards charities that protect macaques and their habitat. Slater’s image became famous on the internet, and he published it in his book. Any profit he made from the book and selfie, most likely went back into the lawsuit between him and PETA. I believe that the ownership of the photograph should be assigned to whichever human prepared and planned the photograph. If there is no human who planned for the photo, then it should go to the public domain. At the same time however the point that whoever physically presses the shutter button owns the image. This point is how I can understand where PETA was coming from. The monkey took the picture, he owns the picture. I think that the only reason PETA got so defensive, however, is that it was popular. PETA likes to be in the news, and attacking an artists piece is a quick way to be there.

Nathan Harrison

3/5/2020 12:33:59 pm

animals involved?
The articles are about whether or not a monkey owned the rights to a picture that was taken of it. David Slater, PETA, and a monkey named Naurto.
Why did PETA file a lawsuit against David Slater, and on whose behalf did they file?
PETA filed the lawsuit because they felt that David Slater violated Naruto’s rights. They filed it on Naruto’s behalf.
What was the outcome of the lawsuit?
David Slater agreed to pay 25 percent of future revenue to organizations similar to the one that protects Naruto.
How did the litigation affect David Slater? Is he profiting from the famous monkey selfie?
The litigation most likely didn’t affect Slater much. I don’t know if he is profiting from this event.
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 feel that the whole thing was orchestrated by PETA and David Slater to earn some attention and maybe a little profit. I do believe that animals have intelligence, but are not sentient enough to understand any of our logic, let alone by a receiver of any rights that we establish for ourselves.
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 intelligence so they should have access to the rights that human established for themselves

Ben Barlow

3/5/2020 12:37:14 pm

What are the articles about? What is the issue, and who are the people, organizations, and animals involved?
The articles were about Naruto, a monkey in Indonesia, who happened to take a picture of himself using a photographer’s camera. The problem was that the photographer couldn’t own the rights to the image since the monkey took the picture. It spiraled into a legal debate between PETA.
Why did PETA file a lawsuit against David Slater, and on whose behalf did they file?
PETA filed a lawsuit against David Slater on the behalf of Naruto in an effort to take the copyright from Slater and give it to the monkey.
What was the outcome of the lawsuit?
After the case was finished, neither side chose to make the argument that an animal should be entitled to copyrights. I find this as hard proof that PETA was not interested in doing what was right for the animals, they were just making a publicity statement in an effort to draw more recognition to their company.
How did the litigation affect David Slater? Is he profiting from the famous monkey selfie?
Slater agreed to donate 25 percent of the revenue earned off the picture towards organizations that help protect similar primates and their environments. The rest of the profit made is up to his discretion.
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 find it shocking in the 21st century that a topic such as this should be up for debate. The lawsuit was most definitely a plea for attention from the artist and PETA; this subject should not be given any more light than it already has had. Animals are not intelligent creatures, the fact that Naruto took a picture of himself was nothing more than a mistake. They are nothing more than underlings, they do not deserve to own the rights to a picture since they obviously have no use for it. PETA clearly was making a silly attempt at an opportunity to get money off the photographer’s work.
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.
While the animal might not have any use for a copyright photo, the capital earned from the art piece is more than enough to help preserve its own habitat and the habitat of fellow monkeys in Singapore. It is a kind gesture Slater was forced to make that would show his good intention to the preservation of Naruto’s species.

Abby Muir

3/5/2020 07:05:35 pm

What are the articles about? What is the issue, and who are the people, organizations, and animals involved?
The articles are about whether a monkey does or does not own the right to an image he mistakenly shot on a photographer’s camera. PETA sued the photographer, who later agreed to donate 25 percent of revenue from his images to charitable organizations.
Why did PETA file a lawsuit against David Slater, and on whose behalf did they file?
They filed a lawsuit on behalf of Naruto the monkey. They filed because they believed Naruto owned rights to the image he took.
What was the outcome of the lawsuit?
The outcome was the photographer agreed to donate 25 percent of his revenue from his photos to charitable organizations.
How did the litigation affect David Slater? Is he profiting from the famous monkey selfie?
He worked with PETA to expand human rights to animals. At the moment, I don’t think he is profiting from the image.
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 an animal like a monkey, though they’re incredibly smart, don’t have the mental capacity to be able to identify and claim the image. The camera belonged to the photographer, so I believe he owns it.
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.
The monkey technically didn’t know a photo was being taken, so you could say he took the photo without permission.

Kellen Dukatnik

3/5/2020 09:28:40 pm

1.The articles are both about how PETA filed a lawsuit against photographer David Slater for taking a photo of a macaque and using the photo for money.

2.PETA filed a lawsuit In order to raise awareness of the importance of legal rights for nonhuman animals. Peta sided on behalf of the macaque.

3.The outcome of the lawsuit ended in the judge claiming, “animals were not included in copyright law.” PETA lost the lawsuit but Slater decided to donate 10% of the earnings he makes from the image to monkey conservation.

4.David Slater is profiting from the image. The litigation has attracted lots of attention so because of the attention brought it can be inferred it made him more money.

5.I believe the case is rather absurd and unnecessary. Animals should not be given copyright over photographs for the reason that they can’t possibly take a photo independently. The owner of the pictures should be the photographer that intended to take the photo.

6.Animals should be entitled to copyright over images of them because they don’t have the ability to express if they wanted the photo taken. The photographer who took the photo should be required to donate 10% of all earnings made from the photo to the conservation of the animal photographed

Comments are closed.

Period 6 -- Critical Analysis #14

Analyze

Archives

Categories

Home