Naruto the monkey lacks statutory standing

[justalayman]

The alleged copyright infringement occurred in the U.S.

And the monkey WAS the photographer. He took a picture of himself. Who owns the camera only becomes one of the factors when deciding work-for-hues.

Work for hues?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I’m not sure who you are agreeing with but the fact is, the monkey is the photographer. The decision states the copyright laws do not give rights of ownership to animals therefor there is no choice but for ownership to default to the owner of the camera. If it was a human rather than a monkey, the rights would belong to whomever pushed the button to take the picture. It is only because the photographer is an animal (and the copyright laws do not acknowledge an animal has standing to claim ownership ) did the court determine ownership of the rights belong to the owner of the camera.

I was agreeing with you. If the photographer of deer with a game camera is the human that set it up then the photographer of the monkey is the guy that set it up. How the camera was triggered shouldn't make a difference unless you can prove that the monkey knew it was taking photographs.

 

[quincy]

Work for hues?

Yup. Work for hues - a little known exception to the ownership of colors.

Actually, "hues" was an unexplainable autocorrect. I fixed it.

 

[quincy]

I was agreeing with you. If the photographer of deer with a game camera is the human that set it up then the photographer of the monkey is the guy that set it up. How the camera was triggered shouldn't make a difference unless you can prove that the monkey knew it was taking photographs.

Payroll Guy, that is NOT the law (at least for humans). The photographer is the one who takes the pictures and the one who takes the pictures holds the copyrights in the resulting photos (with few exceptions).

Who owns the camera does NOT determine copyright ownership - except, as already noted, who owns the equipment can play a role in determining if there is a work-for-hire, giving copyright ownership to an employer.

 

[quincy]

I'm just glad that it's not going to the SCOTUS. That would indeed be a waste of the Court's time.

(Sorry, q, just shaking my head over here at PETA and the 9th Circuit; however, I have a hard time taking them serious since some of the judges have decided that they can rule by fiat, nevermind what the Constitution says).

I actually would have been interested in SCOTUS' take on it - but I agree it was a rather silly case to pursue in the first place. PETA must have had an excess of time and money on hand.

 

[justalayman]

I was agreeing with you. If the photographer of deer with a game camera is the human that set it up then the photographer of the monkey is the guy that set it up. How the camera was triggered shouldn't make a difference unless you can prove that the monkey knew it was taking photographs.

The monkey, in this case, is the photographer. He (?) physically took the action to take the picture. It is only due to the court’s position on what rights a monkey has did the court rule the monkey does not own the copyrights.

 

[quincy]

The monkey, in this case, is the photographer. He (?) physically took the action to take the picture. It is only due to the court’s position on what rights a monkey has did the court rule the monkey does not own the copyrights.

Exactly.

If Naruto was a human and not a monkey, he could have filed a copyright infringement suit against Slater himself and he could have been awarded actual damages (profits/losses) because of Slater's unauthorized uses of Naruto's copyrighted selfies. Naruto would be the undisputed holder of the copyrights.

It is only the decision by the Court that the Copyright Act does not expressly give animals the statutory right to sue for copyright infringement that deprives Naruto of ownership rights in his photos.

 

[Zigner]

The monkey, in this case, is the photographer. He (?) physically took the action to take the picture. It is only due to the court’s position on what rights a monkey has did the court rule the monkey does not own the copyrights.

Did the court address who actually owns the copyright?

 

[justalayman]

Did the court address who actually owns the copyright?

I don’t know. Since there was no other claim of ownership I suspect they accepted it belongs to the person in control of the camera at the time (Slater).

 

[quincy]

Did the court address who actually owns the copyright?

Yes. The Court held that Naruto owns the copyrights but cannot sue for copyright infringement because he is an animal. The Copyright Act does not give animals the right to sue for infringement.

 

[Zigner]

Yes. The Court held that Naruto owns the copyrights but cannot sue for copyright infringement because he is an animal. The Copyright Act does not give animals the right to sue for infringement.

In other words, since he can't sue, anybody can use the photo (practically speaking).

 

[justalayman]

Yes. The Court held that Naruto owns the copyrights but cannot sue for copyright infringement because he is an animal. The Copyright Act does not give animals the right to sue for infringement.

whether one can sue for infringement or not would not legitimize the unlawful use of their rights. If naruto owns the rights, would that not allow a criminal action against slater if the other elements of criminal infringement have been met?

 

[quincy]

In other words, since he can't sue, anybody can use the photo (practically speaking).

Naruto cannot sue for copyright infringement. I suppose there might be some other claim available for Naruto to pursue if PETA looks hard enough (but PETA seems happy with the settlement).

And I suppose Naruto could try to assert his rights against Slater in a country that markets Slater's book of Naruto photos if the country allows under their laws for Naruto to sue for infringement.

Slater's book of photos is copyright protected, however, and Slater controls the film, so whether Slater potentially could pursue an infringement suit against unauthorized users is a question mark. Facts would matter.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The monkey, in this case, is the photographer. He (?) physically took the action to take the picture. It is only due to the court’s position on what rights a monkey has did the court rule the monkey does not own the copyrights.

By that logic then the deer in a trail camera is the photographer. The deer commits the action that triggers the camera.

 

[quincy]

By that logic then the deer in a trail camera is the photographer. The deer commits the action that triggers the camera.

Nope. The deer is the subject of the photo taken by a camera set up by the photographer to take the picture of the deer. The deer did not pick up the camera or set up the camera to take a picture of himself.

Try not to confuse the law here, Payroll.