My friends, this is not a joke. I promise you that it is not.
On Monday, a panel of the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that animals have constitutional standing but lack statutory standing to claim copyright infringement.
The case of Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018, involved copyright infringement claims brought by a monkey over selfies he took on a wildlife photographer's unattended camera. Naruto, a crested macaque, took several photos of himself on the camera, and the photographer and Wildlife Personalities subsequently published the Monkey Selfies in a book. PETA filed suit as next friend to Naruto, alleging copyright infringement. The panel held that the complaint included facts sufficient to establish Article III standing because it alleged that Naruto was the author and owner of the photographs and had suffered concrete and particularized economic harms; the monkey’s Article III standing was not dependent on the sufficiency of PETA; but Naruto lacked statutory standing because the Copyright Act did not expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement suits.

I have included the whole opinion for those who wish to read it.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 27, 2018

My dog would sue you, for sure, she is very friend with my lawyer ...

 

This case has been in the public eye for quite a while, and unless a higher court overturns this in appellate (highly unlikely) the lack of statutory standing precedent is now set means that lower courts will no longer bother hearing copyright cases brought forth by amicus plaintiffs for animals unless the animal itself can communicate that the work in question belongs to them and they are reserving all rights as to its dissemination, distribution or monetization.

Even then in our current legal system it is highly dubious that an animal that is not a homo-sapiens (it really hasn't been that long since we actually recognized and enforced that all homo-sapiens regardless of shade or preference actually have the same rights, and we tend to take 3 steps forward and two steps back more often than is really necessary) would be granted the right to sue for damages even they stated intent which would give them statutory standing -- the next hurdle will obviously be to prove that they understand the concept of intent and money sufficiently that giving them a legal standing would not open up the court to abuses from -- friends --

Regardless, this has already eclipsed the scope of a music forum... I don't think animals will be suing and winning any time soon, though it this county anyone can sue anyone for anything.

As an aside I would like to tank the California courts and the 9th Circuit Court for hearing this case (they didn't have to) and making at least a record of one primate suing an other primate of a different species a matter for the record and at least examining the possibilities rather than dismissing them outright.

 

Last edited: Apr 27, 2018

@mozee Unless, they request that their case be re-heard by all the judges (en banc) of the Circuit Court, the Supreme Court is the next and as highest court. The Ninth Circuit is not going to grant a motion for rehearing en banc and the Supreme Court is not going grant a Writ of Certiorari in this case. The winners in this case are the attorneys for the defendant and PETA, the losers are the financial supporters of PETA.

 

Can I take a photo using a fish(eye)?

 

The vegans must love this...

 

Will they?

Probably

Can They?

Probably not

 

@Xupito You are so wrong! lol. The ones loving it are the attorneys...unless they are acting pro bono.

 

Yes I did hear this in the radio news, one of those bits that makes you stop what you're doing
and look incredulously at your device, despite it being a completely useless gesture

ain't it grand to live in the good 'ol US of A.. ?

 

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 27, 2018

I hope animals can start to fill up papers soon, as PETA wants to keep the money for themselves....

 

A perfect example that shows that in this country anyone can sue anybody for whatever reason.

 

Animals can sue! And Monkee's, Beatles, White Lions, Scorpions, Wolfmothers, Gorillaz, Eagles, Byrds, Def Leppards....

But not Metallica. Those animals had their chance.

 

Even America's Dad... Bill Cosby..... but.. off topic I suppose, what a shame... have seen this guy all my life

 

I feel you but it is what it is. I created this thread to raise awareness among members as to copyright infringement. Some members think they can get away with stealing someone's work for profit. The reality is that here in the US of A, lawyers are just waiting to sue you. The majority does not even know that defending a claim of "fair use" is going to cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

Yeah there was even recently a Youtube suit that dealt with this very issue where one content creator did a parody of another guy's
channel, and the guy sued him. Took years, and he successfully defended himself against the claim... but it was very costly indeed.

Tho I'm not sure what you are referring to in terms of members here. ... and well, remember where we all are .
It is what it its, but it's been happening pretty rampantly in the music industry pretty much ever since there was a music industry

https://kotaku.com/h3h3-productions-win-lawsuit-against-youtuber-they-paro-1798386207

 

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 27, 2018

I am referring to comments that some members have made in open forum to others encouraging piracy of sound recordings. For example, a member asks " Do I need to obtain permission prior to using a sample of "X" in my new song?" And someone just replies, "Nah, you don't need it unless your song becomes a hit." Unfreakingbelievable!

 

morally... yes..

in practice ...

 

If I was the photographer and the monkey broke my camera, dropping it and rendering it damaged beyond redemption after it took the selfie, I would not be able to sue the monkey for damages, lost wages or emotional hardship. Life just isn't fair.

 

Ferdinand doesn't really owe you anything right? It's not his fault you allowed your camera to be borrowed by leaving it in his reach,
which could be construed as a theft by taking, or tort to chattel if he had been human...

no no, he is cute and fuzzy, and an oppressed class in society ,
and you are an awful human for depriving him of his forest homeland, no matter what he did
you are the originator of sin..and as such... reparations..and bla bla blahhbity bl.....

 

You can always sue PETA