There is a famous "monkey selfie" photograph that has been published many times around the globe since it was taken by Naruto the Macaque monkey in the Indonesian jungle in 2011, and which has been re-used on countless websites. It apparently is copyrighted and makes some money for its 'photographer', David Slater from Monmouthshire in the UK.
But that's where the dispute lay. After all argued Peta, the animal rights group, the photograph was actually a 'selfie' by a monkey, who therefore was the photographer, and not the owner of the camera it used who was making all the money.
Now anthropomorphism is a common enough human trait, especially with household pets and Peta's pets, but its probably going a bit too far, to start attributing a Macaque monkey with the photography skills of a David Bailey ..... Brooklyn Beckham maybe, but not a real photographer. In fact the monkey doesn't even know what a camera is ..... so Peta's argument that it should get the royalties seems too ridiculous to make. But I guess once you become immersed in the world of animal protection its comparatively easy to loose sight of reality.
A number of US judges agreed, and said that copyright protection could not be applied to the monkey, but Peta appealed on the "monkey's behalf" .... this appeal has now been dismissed after nearly two years of legal wrangling. Who ever said that the laws an ass?
Certainly not Peta's legal eagle who said that "Peta's ground breaking case sparked a massive international discussion about the need to extend fundamental rights to animals for their own sake, not in relation to how they can be exploited by humans."
However in a spirit of conservationist goodwill, Mr Slater has agreed to donate 25% of any future revenue he receives from selling the monkey selfies to registered animal charities protecting habitats .... and in the joint-statement between them, they say this case "raises important, cutting-edge issues about expanding legal rights for non-human animals".
Legal Rights for animals maybe .... Human Rights never.
NB: If the picture is taken down, you will know why 😉
 |
| Macaque Monkey Madness - Photograph © by David Slater (or Naruto the Monkey Photographer) |
But that's where the dispute lay. After all argued Peta, the animal rights group, the photograph was actually a 'selfie' by a monkey, who therefore was the photographer, and not the owner of the camera it used who was making all the money.
Now anthropomorphism is a common enough human trait, especially with household pets and Peta's pets, but its probably going a bit too far, to start attributing a Macaque monkey with the photography skills of a David Bailey ..... Brooklyn Beckham maybe, but not a real photographer. In fact the monkey doesn't even know what a camera is ..... so Peta's argument that it should get the royalties seems too ridiculous to make. But I guess once you become immersed in the world of animal protection its comparatively easy to loose sight of reality.
A number of US judges agreed, and said that copyright protection could not be applied to the monkey, but Peta appealed on the "monkey's behalf" .... this appeal has now been dismissed after nearly two years of legal wrangling. Who ever said that the laws an ass?
Certainly not Peta's legal eagle who said that "Peta's ground breaking case sparked a massive international discussion about the need to extend fundamental rights to animals for their own sake, not in relation to how they can be exploited by humans."
However in a spirit of conservationist goodwill, Mr Slater has agreed to donate 25% of any future revenue he receives from selling the monkey selfies to registered animal charities protecting habitats .... and in the joint-statement between them, they say this case "raises important, cutting-edge issues about expanding legal rights for non-human animals".
Legal Rights for animals maybe .... Human Rights never.
NB: If the picture is taken down, you will know why 😉
Animal rights can seem crazy sometimes but like most protestations the pendulum has to go the other way to redress the issue.
ReplyDeleteOf course the monkey doesn't know it's a camera and that its image will be reproduced worldwide generating money for those who use it but it doesn't understand the concept of rights either, does that mean that it can't have any? Maybe not, I don't know.
Basic Human rights had to be written down for them to be recognised, without them many more people would be in the same position as that monkey. Like morals, ultimately, rights are a fabrication or product of living/feeling beings (I don't think that they are limited to humans) and may be applied by them however they wish.
No dispute here, but we should never confuse the legal rights for the protection and welfare of animals with those given to humans.
ReplyDelete