The Monkey Won!
Nov 9, 2017 08:31:22 #
jerryc41 wrote:
U. S. Court of Appeals. The macaque won 25% of any royalties. Naruto, the macaque, doesn't have a bank account, or even a piggy bank, so all of his money will go to the Sulawesi wildlife preserve.
https://www.lightstalking.com/smiling-monkey-wins-royalty-rights-to-famous-selfie/
https://www.lightstalking.com/smiling-monkey-wins-royalty-rights-to-famous-selfie/
So what happens when the monkey dies? Who inherits his 25%?
Did the court open a can of worms?
Nov 9, 2017 08:48:49 #
I'm willing to bet this came from the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals.
Nov 9, 2017 09:05:11 #
MacGregor
Loc: North America
And Reason lost.
Did the monkey have Sister's permission to use the camera?
Just put the photo in a drawer. Once there is no money on the table see how fast PETA disappears.
Or write the monkey a check. If he/she signs it over to PETA, fine.
Did the monkey have Sister's permission to use the camera?
Just put the photo in a drawer. Once there is no money on the table see how fast PETA disappears.
Or write the monkey a check. If he/she signs it over to PETA, fine.
Nov 9, 2017 09:05:58 #
Nov 9, 2017 09:07:57 #
Nov 9, 2017 09:10:52 #
The photo was taken in Indonesia with a Japanese Camera and the photographer lives in the UK. Where is the jurisdiction for American Courts to rule in this case?
Nov 9, 2017 09:15:46 #
Somehow I knew it was the ninth district court. The court where all the crazies want their cases heard. 
---
---
Nov 9, 2017 09:40:01 #
SueScott wrote:
I thought my husband and I were the only ones to use that abbreviation!
Nah! There are a lot more disparaging names for the PETA acronym in the Norfolk, VA area and they have on many occasions been well deserved!
Nov 9, 2017 09:40:48 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
jerryc41 wrote:
Not one to give up, that macaque and PETA spend untold boat loads of money and finally won a court decision. The monkey will get a 25% royalty on sales of his self-portrait...
The law says that the one pushing the shutter button owns the photo, so be careful who or what activates that shutter...
The law says that the one pushing the shutter button owns the photo, so be careful who or what activates that shutter...
I wonder what the monkey will buy with his royalty checks?
jerryc41 wrote:
This could change wildlife photography practices forever. You might have to give royalties to the camera's self-timer.
Self-timer royalties should be paid to the camera manufacturer, I think.
jerryc41 wrote:
How about animals that take their picture as a result of activating a motion-sensitive switch?
Yes, of course. Hunters using trail cams... National Geographic stalking extremely rare snow leopards... or whatever.... will have to pay royalties to the animals tripping the cameras, I'm sure.
jerryc41 wrote:
Would thunder and lightning own the rights to a picture taken by sound or light activation?
Actually, I think those royalty payments should be made to God... just drop off the check at your local church, synagogue, temple or whatever.
Desert Gecko wrote:
I'm willing to bet this came from the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals.
LOL!
Nov 9, 2017 09:49:03 #
amfoto1 wrote:
Actually, I think those royalty payments should be made to God... just drop off the check at your local church, synagogue, temple or whatever.
As the punch line of a long joke said: Throw all the money up in the air. What God doesn't keep is yours.
---
Nov 9, 2017 11:22:14 #
Lesson Learned... When working with an assistant, make sure they sign (or, in this case, hand print) a release of copyright to their works done under the primary photographer's supervision!
Nov 9, 2017 11:38:22 #
Desert Gecko wrote:
I'm willing to bet this came from the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals.
We KNOW it didn't come directly from the White House because this monkey is twice as smart as all those baboons!!! This monkey actually got someting useful and fiscal pushed through!!!!!!
SS
Nov 9, 2017 11:41:15 #
PETA ? People Eating Tasty Animals? quote=jerryc41]Not one to give up, that macaque and PETA spend untold boat loads of money and finally won a court decision. The monkey will get a 25% royalty on sales of his self-portrait.
The law says that the one pushing the shutter button owns the photo, so be careful who or what activates that shutter. This could change wildlife photography practices forever. You might have to give royalties to the camera's self-timer. How about animals that take their picture as a result of activating a motion-sensitive switch? Would thunder and lightning own the rights to a picture taken by sound or light activation?[/quote]
The law says that the one pushing the shutter button owns the photo, so be careful who or what activates that shutter. This could change wildlife photography practices forever. You might have to give royalties to the camera's self-timer. How about animals that take their picture as a result of activating a motion-sensitive switch? Would thunder and lightning own the rights to a picture taken by sound or light activation?[/quote]
Nov 9, 2017 12:19:04 #
brooklyn-camera I wrote:
[/quote]PETA ? People Eating Tasty Animals? quote=jerryc41... (show quote)
Again, it wasn't a court decision, it was a settlement, and that doesn't set a legal precedent.
Nov 9, 2017 12:33:54 #
When nobody "legal" pushes the button, wouldn't that make the photograph 100% creative common?
That thought also makes me wonder what constitutes "pushing the button". Who pushes a deer cam? Who pushes a security still camera?
The camera user only sets it up. Isn't that similar to setting up a camera and giving it to a monkey?
That thought also makes me wonder what constitutes "pushing the button". Who pushes a deer cam? Who pushes a security still camera?
The camera user only sets it up. Isn't that similar to setting up a camera and giving it to a monkey?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.