Period 6 -- 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.

Larissa Esparza

4/30/2018 11:36:46 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.

Elizabeth Wray

4/30/2018 12:14:29 pm

These articles are about a monkey that took a selfie on a human camera. The issue is that they do not know who to give the copyright to. The photographer is David Slater, the monkey is Naruto, and other people involved are PETA and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
PETA filed a lawsuit because they wanted the right to the image in the name of the monkey that took the photo.
The outcome was that David Slater will continue to have the rights of the image since the Us copyright law does not allow lawsuits that try to allow animals to own any photographs. Copyright can only be claimed by humans.
Slater still gets money from the photo, but he has to donate 25 percent of his money so he is not making as much money as he could be.
I believe that animals should not be allowed to hold copyright, simply because i'm not sure that they even know what that is. If a human held copyright, they could control what would happen with the image. If a monkey held copyright, a human would have to do the majority of the work for the monkey.
Animals should own the copyright because it is there own image. They took the image, and if it is theirs, then they should own the copyright.

Lucas Prado

4/30/2018 12:12:02 pm

The lawsuit is about PETA suing a photographer, David Slater, after a macaque named Naruto took Slaters camera and took a photo of himself with it. Wikipedia and the US court were also involved, with Wikipedia refusing to take down the image due to copyright infringement.

2.) PETA filed the suit on behalf of Naruto because they thought that he had the right to own the copyright to the photo since he took it.

3.) The court ruled in favor of Slater, citing that “animals cannot obtain copyrights”

4.) While Slater still profits from the work, he donated 25% of the profits to a charity dedicated to saving macaques.

5.) I think that an animal should only be able to own the rights to their work if they are able to express adequate concern over it being stolen. Since practically no animal has ever cared about having their photo taken, it makes sense that they don’t own the copyright.

6.) However, if, say, an elephant (because they can) in some way was able to express anger or concern that their photo was stolen, then since they would be intelligent enough to hold concern in mind, they should be able to own the copyright.

Claire Williams

4/30/2018 12:12:08 pm

1. The first article is about the whole monkey photograph scandal and explained the lawsuit and the second article was about the trial itself and how it turned out. The issue is that a monkey took a selfie on a photographer’s camera that the he decided to publish. The PETA got involved and said that the monkey, naruto, should be the rightful owner of the work and benefit from its profits.

2. They filed on behalf of Naruto, the monkey, and it was because they believe that the monkey has the right to own the images he took on the photographer’s camera.

3. The lawsuit ended with a settlement saying that the photographer would give 25% of all future profit from the image to groups that protect these monkeys in Indonesia.

4. Yes, David Slater is profiting from the image but he is now giving 25% of his future income from the image back to monkey saving groups.

5. I think that it honestly depends on each situation. In this one I think that the credit should still go to the photographer but a percent of the profits should go back to the animals and groups that fight to protect them.

6. Animals should own the right to any images that they create. Many animals act like humans do, therefore it seems fair that they would be credited with what they did.

Payton down

4/30/2018 12:19:33 pm

1. This article is about how a monkey took a “selfie” and whether or not the monkey has the owners rights to the photo or not. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were involved along with David Slater, PETA.

2. PETA filled a lawsuit on the side that there is no indication that the U.S Copyright Act extended to animals.

3. The outcome of the lawsuit was that it is Slaters property and a personal brand for him. Slater won. Since the monkey only pushed the shutter it is technically Slaters piece of artwork.

4. He is profiting from the famous monkey because it is his photo.

5. I think that it's kind of crazy that this was even a case. The monkey wasn't purposely trying to take a selfie, it's an animal it had no idea. Maybe if the animal was aware of its art and wanted to sell it or something then it can be theirs but if they can't make the decision then its owner or photographer would. I don't think the animals care. If they do make art work they probably don't even realize it.

6. I can see the other side in this. Monkeys are so similar to humans that it can be referred that they are intelligent enough to create artwork on purpose. They could feel something on the inside of who they really feel, which can lead to them owning their own work. It is the monkeys face in the picture and he pushed the shutter which makes him something.

boyd meltzer

4/30/2018 12:15:35 pm

The articles are about a lawsuit filed by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals against David Slater. This lawsuit was filed because Naruto, a monkey in Indonesia, pressed the shutter button on David’s smartphone and snapped a picture of himself. Thus, PETA believes that Naruto should hold the copyright for the photo and sued Slater, who owns the copyright.
PETA sued Slater because they thought that the copyright for the photo should not be held by Slater but by Naruto, the monkey, who they filed on behalf of.
The lawsuit resulted in a dismissal, and a deal was struck between Slater and PETA. Slater agreed to donate 25 percent of his future earnings from the project to monkey protection groups in Indonesia, but he could keep the copyright.
The litigation affected Slater minimally. The verdict was that he could retain the copyright, but that he would donate a chunk of his earnings. Other than partially losing his earnings, Slater emerged the same as he had started.
In my opinion, PETA’s case was on the wrong side. I believe that, in any case, humans should hold copyright. It was Slater’s equipment that was used to take the photo and, anyways, how is Naruto going to benefit from holding a copyright? Obviously, Naruto cannot earn money from sales or promote a photograph, so it is pointless to attempt to give him copyright for the image. The rights of the photograph taken by the animal should always fall to the owner of the equipment which was used to take the photo.
Animals should own the copyright for their work if they were responsible for taking the photo. It would not be right if a human who put forth no effort in making the photo profits from said photo. Therefore, the rights of the photo should be allotted to the being responsible.

Payton Down

4/30/2018 12:16:01 pm

1. This article is about how a monkey took a “selfie” and whether or not the monkey has the owners rights to the photo or not. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were involved along with David Slater, PETA.

2. PETA filled a lawsuit on the side that there is no indication that the U.S Copyright Act extended to animals.

3. The outcome of the lawsuit was that it is Slaters property and a personal brand for him. Slater won. Since the monkey only pushed the shutter it is technically Slaters piece of artwork.

4. I think that it's kind of crazy that this was even a case. The monkey wasn't purposely trying to take a selfie, it's an animal it had no idea. Maybe if the animal was aware of its art and wanted to sell it or something then it can be theirs but if they can't make the decision then its owner or photographer would. I don't think the animals care. If they do make art work they probably don't even realize it.

5. I can see the other side in this. Monkeys are so similar to humans that it can be referred that they are intelligent enough to create artwork on purpose. They could feel something on the inside of who they really feel, which can lead to them owning their own work. It is the monkeys face in the picture and he pushed the shutter which makes him something.

Matthew Weiss

4/30/2018 12:17:45 pm

The lawsuit is over whether the monkey, Naruto, or the photographer, David Slater.
PETA filed the lawsuit against David Slater, on behalf of Naruto. They sought to give the monkey the copyright to the image. They claimed copyright infringement on the part of David Slater. It was decided that an image taken by a monkey was not able to be copyrighted.
In the end, the David Slater kept the copyright, but donated 25 percent of the revenue from that photo to protecting the monkeys in Indonesia.
David is still profiting from the image, as he is selling signed copies from his website. However, he donates a portion of this profit towards protecting the monkeys in Indonesia.
In my opinion, animals shouldn’t have the copyrights to their photographs or created artwork. If someone takes a picture of another person, then the subject of the photo doesn’t have rights to the photo, despite being in it. I see no reason for that to change in the case of animals.
The work of an animal, should be given to that animal, and this should be respected in the same way that the work that one person does isn’t taken from that person.

Annie Mosis

4/30/2018 12:18:00 pm

1.This article is about a monkey who stole photographer, Davis Slaters, camera and took a photo of himself. The issue is who the image and its rights belongs to the monkey or Slater.
2.PETA sued Slater because they wanted rights of the image in the name of the monkey who initially took the image.
3. The outcome of the lawsuit was that Slater donated 25 percents of the revenue from the image to organization that protect macaque monkeys.
4. Slater is profiting from this photo since its funny image hes profiting off the sells of copies and prints off the photo on his website.
5.I believe that animals should not own the copyright . They don't understand what they're doing and this image anyway was likely done on accident not purposefully. The person who intended going to that location and taking the images deserves the rights. And I highly doubt the animal will get offended by not having the rights to the image.
6.Animals should own the copyright because it was their doing in creating the image, it is their art. Even if the image is done accidently the animal deserves credit due to the fact that they are responsible for the creation.

Naty Orquin

4/30/2018 12:18:21 pm

Critical Analysis #20
What are the articles about? What is the issue, and who are the people, organizations, and animals involved?
The article’s are about a monkey who took a selfie on a photographer’s camera and who show get legal rights for their art (nonhuman animals?).
Why did PETA file a lawsuit against David Slater, and on whose behalf did they file?
Peta sought financial control of the photographs — including a now-famous selfie of the monkey grinning — for the benefit of the animal named Naruto.
What was the outcome of the lawsuit?
As of July 2017, Slater has been donating 10% of purchases towards a monkey conservation project in Sulawesi. The U.S. Copyright Office, since the dispute began, has specifically listed a photograph taken by a monkey' as an example of an item that cannot be copyrighted.
How did the litigation affect David Slater? Is he profiting from the famous monkey selfie?
Since then, the selfie has become something of a personal brand for Slater, who sells signed copies of the print through his website. He also has to give 10% of all the profits to a monkey conservation project in Sulawesi.
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?
I don’t think the photographs should be in their right, unless they take the camera and have taken pictures of things of other things. They should be given credit, but i think the own can take the copyright. However, the elephants making the artwork is theirs. They made it with their own trunks so they should get all the glory and praise. I think if the artwork is sold that it should be given to an organization that helps protects and cares for them.
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 also don’t care who has the copyright to their art or photographs. If they created this artwork it was for fun not for profit. So, who cares who keeps the money. The personal that owns the elephant keeps the money or the photographer with the camera can keep the money.

Jordan Bell

4/30/2018 12:22:33 pm

Both articles discuss the controversy of the monkey selfie. PETA sued David Slater for financial control of the monkey selfie. Naruto, the monkey stole Slaters camera and took a photo of himself.
PETA filed the lawsuit on Naruto’s, the monkeys, behalf. They did this for financial control of the monkeys photos.
The outcome of the lawsuit was in a settlement. PETA settled for Slater giving 25% of the photos revenue to an organization that protects crested macaques (monkeys) in Indonesia.
Slaters financials were negatively affected by the PETA lawsuit. Slater, however, was profiting from the monkey selfies but the revenue he received was “embarrassingly low”.
I do not think that animals should be able to own the rights to their works because they cannot really control it. If somebody went up to Naruto and asked him if he wanted his photo to have bright colors all over it or if he wanted it as a giant billboard, he wouldn’t be able to tell us. The animals owner or overseer should own the copyrights to the artwork.
Animals should be able to own the copyrights to their works. Firstly, there is no law expressly saying that animals cannot own copyrights. Secondly, if we are to treat Naruto’s work like we would anybody elses, by showing it in museums and so on, we should also treat Naruto as we have treated other artists. He is the author of his work and should be able to be the copyright owner.

Brandon Collins

4/30/2018 12:23:05 pm

1. Both articles are about a lawsuit saying , should animals have copyrights. The man being sued is David Slater. Slater is being sued by PETA. PETA is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The animal that PETA is fighting for is an ape named Naruto.

2. PETA sued David Slater because they wanted financial control of the photographs. They did it For Naruto, saying that Naruto was the author and the copyright holder.

3.The outcome of the trial was that David Slater was to donate 25 percent of future revenue from the photos to groups that protected crested macaques and their habitat. Lastly copyright laws did not extend to animals.

4.The litigation did not affect David Slater; he says that his income on the photos were “embarrassingly low”.

5.Animals should not own the right to a photo that they took. They don't have the mental capacity to really understand what they did. The copyrights should go to the photographer involved.

6.Animals should not have copyrights. Copyright laws only affect humans, if we were to give copyrights to animals that means we would have to give them more basic human rights as well. On the flip side they should because they did take the photo themselves making them the one that took the picture.

Parker Brown

4/30/2018 12:26:01 pm

1. The articles is about how what, and how PETA tries to enforce the idea that the monkey in the photo should get the rights to the photo that he took. The issue is that David Slater, the man who’s camera the monkey used, thinks he should get the rights to the photo, but PETA thinks differently.

2. PETA filed a lawsuit against David Slater because they thought that the monkey named Naruto should be the one who gets the rights to the photo since he was the one who took it. They filed the lawsuit on Naruto, the monkey’s, behalf.

3. The outcome of the lawsuit was that Slater gets the rights, since animals can not have copyrights.

4. David Slater still gets money from the photo because he obtained the rights for it, but he is also donating 25% of it to charities that are dedicated to protecting crested macaques in Indonesia.

5. I definitely do not think the animals should get the rights to the photos that have them in it because they will not need the money for anything. The only person I think the rights could go to is whoever’s camera it was taken on because that person needs money more than an animal does.

6. If I were to be on PETA’s side of the argument I would say that animals are living, breathing creatures just like us, so there is not reason why they should have less rights than us.

Kylie Bruehler

4/30/2018 12:32:45 pm

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

The articles talk about how a monkey took a photographer’s camera and made a self portrait. The articles discuss the controversy of who should be credited with taking the picture. David Slater is the owner of the camera by which the photo was taken, the monkey’s name is Naruto, PETA and the U.S. Copyright office are involved in the issue.

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

PETA filed a lawsuit against David Slater arguing that Naruto, the monkey, should be credited with taking the photo and owning the copyright. (Filed on Naruto’s behalf)
What was the outcome of the lawsuit?

As a result of the filed lawsuit, David Slater agreed to donate 25 percent of his revenue to the habitat where Naruto came from in Indonesia. The lawsuit was dismissed and it was decided that
animals could not own copyright.

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

Slater began to sell copies of the monkey selfie through his website. He does donate 10% of his income to the monkey habitat.
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 David Slater should own the rights to the photograph. The photographer is the one who adjusted all camera settings and is still technically the owner and the artist. There is no benefit for animals to hold the rights to a photo; therefore, the rights should go to the true owner.

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.

I do also understand that though the monkey is not the owner of the camera, it technically did press the shutter and take the photograph. The monkey should also hold the rights to the photo as the photo would not exist without the monkey having created it.

Gilly

5/1/2018 06:03:39 pm

The articles are debating whether the monkey or the man should own the rights to a selfie the monkey took. Naruto , the monkey , found David Slater’s camera and must have been curiously looking at it and captured a photograph.There were many organizations that became involved in this situation. The U.S. Copyright Office, People of Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Wikipedia.
PETA filed for the lawsuit against David Slater on the monkey’s behalf because PETA believed and wanted Naruto to have the rights of the photograph because technically the monkey did take it.
The court finally decided that David will have the rights to the photo. U.S. copyright law will not accept lawsuits that want to give animals rights to “their works” or images.
The court meetings and lawsuits caused David Slater to lose a huge amount of his money and even when he eventually won he didn't profit much of anything from the photograph.
Animals should not have rights to a picture that they took. Animals have been tested especially the specific type of monkey in this case which is a macaque monkey , that has been widely used to understand the human brain, although humans have capacities that are not in monkeys. Monkeys brains are different in proportions and certain regions which leads me to the conclusion that the monkey probably wasn't even fully aware of what it was doing.
There are some animals that might actually be seen as being an animals artwork , for example there are elephants that paint and in that circumstance i believe that artwork is the elephants and should have some sort of profit going to benefit it or a profit going to an organization that is going to help elephants or improve their habitats.

Comments are closed.

Period 6 -- Critical Analysis #20

Analyze

Archives

Categories

Home