David Kay Loc: Arlington Heights IL

Anyone who takes the photo is the copyright owner. Check the law suit and you will see what they are saying.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

The copyright office already ruled that non humans can't own copyrights. The PETA lawsuit is to appeal that. I can't see them prevailing, but we shall see.

Leo Perez

Was it Shakespeare who said "Lets kill all the lawyers".

David Kay Loc: Arlington Heights IL

Yes that is correct and peta and their lawyers believe they have a good case base on the wording in the copyright laws. Like you said "we shall see".

I can't believe that PETA will win, but stranger things have happened in trial.

Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley

I hate PETA. They have become a ridiculus farce and waste money on stupid lawsuits like this.
I support orginazations like HSI (Humane Society International) as they don't do stupid things like this. They actually go out and rescue animals.

will

Rabbott Loc: Grass Valley , California

i'm a member of PETA,,, People Eating Tasty Animals

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ka2azman Loc: Tucson, Az

So who would own the picture if you had dropped your camera and it took one as a result of falling? Or, if one has a drone, and it takes pictures - you are not directly connected to the drone pressing the camera button? So, if only the one that presses a button to take a picture is the owner, who is credited for taking a delayed time picture, after all you want to get into the picture so you are not the one pressing/operating the the snapshot. How can you be - you are in the picture and can't be in two places at once.

Who would own a picture (this just recently happened) when it is my equipment, and I set the shot up, as well as set the camera up because a person volunteered to take the picture but didn't know how to operate my camera. I just instructed him to frame us which was set, and push the button. He even had a hard time doing that because he was only pushing it 1/2 way and having to step out of the framing to show him to push it all the way. Not having a tripod handy, I needed someone to hold the camera and press the button only. Just because the remote control is human, do i give up the rights to the picture?

blackhorse 1-7

Lets see what happens...I own a camera, place it upon my tripod, set the camera to "auto", and set a shutter timer to trigger the shutter in 30 seconds and just step away. Lets further assume that just as the shutter is triggered by the timer, a famous person is assassinated just as he walks by the camera and the actual crime is captured. Lets further assume that it is the only photograph of the assassination and is worth millions to the news media. So who owns the picture? I understand that this is somewhat rediculous, but illustrates the absurd result when lawyers and courts abandon simple common-sense.

johnp47 Loc: Southern England

If the operator of the camera owns the copyright then if the camera is set up to take a photo triggered by movement ie no one actually presses the button, who owns the copyright? The camera owner, the animal/bird or whatever that moved or perhaps the camera itself?

PETA will only manage to make lawyers richer?

whatdat Loc: Del Valle, Tx.

Liberal political correctness run amok.