Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

There was NO ruling! The court did only one thing, which was to dismiss the case based on a request from both sides. PETA essentially forced a settlement by throwing enough money at it to bankrupt the photographer. They had no case, but he had no money.

The settlement sets no precedent and has no future effect on anyone other than those two parties.

The real shame is that the rest of us did not come to the photographer's assistance with a massive fund raising campaign!

dixiebeachboy

I agree but this out was 1st time I saw it. It does come down to who has the money

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

It may not set a legal precedent, but it certainly paves the way for PETA to continue with this sort of bullshit.
--Bob

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

Were you able to come to the photographer's assistance ?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

For all intents and purposes, there was a ruling even though it does not establish a precedent.

The case should have been dismissed outright as a frivolous lawsuit. Failing to do so immediately is shows poor judgement and possible collusion between the judge and the legal community, who are the only ones who profited from the court's action.

If Slater had ever expected any revenue from the image he would not have placed it in the public domain. As it stands now, the image is not likely to generate any revenue for anyone.

What may be more disturbing to many is that it is evidence that sometimes, it's the camera, not the photographer, that is responsible for the quality of an image.

And the monkey must have a great dental hygienist.

jcboy3

No, this was not a legal decision. It was a settlement. PETA then asked the Court of Appeals to vacate the lower court ruling that an animal could not own a copyright; hasn't happened yet, and I for one hope it doesn't. It would just add to the confusion; and could extend to pictures of animals taken by motion sensor.

What really needs to happen is for the copyright office decision (that the photographer Slater did not own copyright because he did not press the shutter) to be reversed. In the event of no other human interaction, the photographer who set up the shot should own the copyright. That would eliminate any confusion over whether the photographer owns copyright in the event that an actual shutter press was not performed by a human. Further, it should be extended to exclude persons who simply press the shutter (in the case of handing the camera to a bystander to take a picture).

In the current situation, the case is not clear because of the narrowness of the various decisions and rulings. If you don't actually push the shutter, then who owns copyright is a matter of conjecture (unless the monkey does it, in which case the photo is public domain).

Motorbones Loc: Fair Oaks, CA

I believe the photo should belong to whoever owns the camera unless a prior agreement is reached. I also believe that if someone rents a camera (to include borrowing one for exchange of consideration) it should belong to the person who rented/borrowed the camera, again unless an agreement is made before taking the pic as to ownership of any of the photos taken with the camera. This being said I believe the two following things should be true:

1. The photo should belong to the owner of the camera.
2. The monkey (or whoever else may have used the camera) should be charged with attempted theft for taking what didn't belong to them in the first place. If PETA considers the monkey to either be their agent of client, then PETA should too be held accountable for said attempted theft since they are attempting to extort money from the photographer....

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

At least you didn't call the judge an idiot, like some high profile people do!!!
SS

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Your just jealous because the monkey is a better photographer than you are!!! LoL

blackest Loc: Ireland

To be fair more people have seen that monkeys photograph than any of mine. probably any of yours... theirs...