Angel Ronan SPQL and the monkey who cannot sue and nor can the monkey take a photo: A monkey is not a legal person and nor can it be although we do protect animals under the law in terms of preventing inhumane physical animal abuse.
Angel Ronan SPQL and the monkey who cannot sue and nor can the monkey take a photo: A monkey is not a legal person and nor can it be although we do protect animals under the law in terms of preventing inhumane physical animal abuse. We also protect vehicles and their owners. The time taken on this case should be used to review the protection of music artists on I Tunes and Youtube to ensure they are getting their royalties as I Tunes and U Tube make trillions on each play with the sale of commercials. The final answer is that the monkey, even though we are sympathetic, is not a legal person as to own property or to appear before the court as a person with standing before the Court to petition on any issue so no judgement can be entered in the monkey's favor. The monkey, quite simply, cannot own property. What do you want the court fi do? What do you want me fi do ? More importantly, the anyalimal cannot be said to have had the requisite creative capacity and intention to have created a picture but may have hit a button accidentally or with human prompting to get more bananas or soap or more playboy magazines; much like a monkey being prompted in front of a television all summer with nothing but X box to do! Fais ton comprend? Rats in a trap that hit a button to get out and who coincidentally take a photo are not framing a picture. Nabu or Jungle Book was not capable of framing a photo any more than he is capable of deciding to take a trip to Yalabusha River. Yalasoba River(TM) is a new trademark at Angel Ronan. The F#$%ing Monkey is not going to drive a Vehicle and is not in need of any royalties or ownership that he might buy a vehicle and the camera owner and nature photographer, with his adventurism and skill in obtaining unique photos with our beloved animal kind, is the owner of the photo. He owns the camera. However, if it was his son, then the son would be the owner of the photo and the person who captured the image. Leithland is a Troglodyte as he cannot grasp this concept of ownership and is engaged in molesting all other human beings in his mind that he might turn his troglodyte wrong into right and his shame into legitimacy(Mengele). The dog or monkey did not rent the camera as to say he is the photographer in taking the F #$!@$ing selphie. The monkey, for the various reasons in this discussion, is not entitled to any notion of ownership you f#$%king wankers. Omozuwa foods and sex toys (TM) is a new trademark. Thank you!
Warren A. Lyon, Legal Consultant( members only service).
A 45-minute hearing before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco attracted crowds of law students and curious citizens who often burst into laughter. The federal judges also chuckled at times at the novelty of the case, which involves a monkey in another country that is unaware of the fuss.
Naruto is a free-living crested macaque who snapped perfectly framed selfies in 2011 that would make even the Kardashians proud.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sued Slater and the San Francisco-based self-publishing company Blurb, which published a book called "Wildlife Personalities" that includes the monkey selfies, for copyright infringement. It sought a court order in 2015 allowing it to administer all proceeds from the photos taken in a wildlife reserve in Sulawesi, Indonesia to benefit the monkey.
Slater says the British copyright for the photos obtained by his company, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., should be honored.
PETA attorney David Schwarz argued that Naruto was accustomed to cameras and took the selfies when he saw himself in the reflection of the lens.
A federal judge ruled against PETA and the monkey last year, saying he lacked the right to sue because there was no indication that Congress intended to extend copyright protection to animals.
Throughout Wednesday's hearing, Schwarz pushed back, arguing that the case came down to one simple fact: photographs can be copyrighted and Naruto is the author.
"We have to look at the word 'authorship' in the broadest sense," he said.
The judges grilled him on why PETA has status to represent Naruto and said that "having genuine care for the animal" isn't enough to establish "next friend" relationship, which is required to represent the monkey in court.
The judges did not issue a ruling Wednesday.
Angela Dunning, an attorney for Blurb, wondered at the possibilities if they do not prevail.
"Where does it end? If a monkey can sue for copyright infringement, what else can a monkey do?" she said after the hearing.
PETA's general counsel Jeff Kerr said after the hearing that the group plans to use money from the photos to protect monkey habitats and help people study the monkeys.
"PETA is clearly representing Naruto's best interests," he said.
Dhuey said the legal antics were more of a publicity stunt by PETA than a lawsuit. He quipped after the hearing that Naruto made a tactical mistake by not appearing in court.
"It's like he doesn't even care," he said before walking away from cameras.
Associated Press writer Janie Har also contributed to this report.