snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Moot Court

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 19 August 2017, 04:36 PM
TallGeekyGirl's Avatar
TallGeekyGirl TallGeekyGirl is offline
 
Join Date: 31 December 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,856
Judge Bananas Monkey Selfie Case Leaves Photographer Bankrupt

Almost put this in Wild Kingdom, but I guess it's a better fit here...

Quote:
In 2011, a macaque monkey named Naruto took a selfie that went viral. Now six years later, instead of resting on the royalties, freelance photographer David Slater is near bankruptcy as a result of the shot.
http://secondnexus.com/technology-an...ie-bankruptcy/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 20 August 2017, 04:11 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 11,444
Default

I really don't get this case. It's not like we'd recognize the rights of the monkey to own a camera.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 20 August 2017, 04:31 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,215
Ponder

I really don't get this case. If he was staking his professional fortunes on a monkey taking a picture... He wasn't a very good photographer to begin with.

Did he stop all other work during this time?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 21 August 2017, 06:29 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,108
Default

He was probably not counting on having to pay close to a half million dollars in legal fees for taking a picture of a monkey. How silly of him. Still doesn't make him a bad photographer.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 21 August 2017, 01:04 PM
Mochrie99's Avatar
Mochrie99 Mochrie99 is offline
 
Join Date: 26 April 2005
Location: Sarnia, Ontario
Posts: 433
Default

I guess the moral of the story is if you take a picture of a monkey (or rather, if the monkey takes the picture itself), keep the damn picture to yourself!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 21 August 2017, 01:19 PM
TallGeekyGirl's Avatar
TallGeekyGirl TallGeekyGirl is offline
 
Join Date: 31 December 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,856
Icon106

I just want to say that Bananas Monkey Selfie is a great name for a band...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 21 August 2017, 02:05 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mochrie99 View Post
I guess the moral of the story is [...]
I can't think of a moral besides, I dunno, don't become a totally random victim of a frivolous lawsuit.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 21 August 2017, 04:51 PM
HelloLlama's Avatar
HelloLlama HelloLlama is offline
 
Join Date: 13 June 2004
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,813
Default

I understand that him not having taken the picture means he doesn't have a copyright to it. But the lawsuit, and the money he had to spend to fight it, is ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 21 August 2017, 05:02 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,108
Default

If he "didn't take the picture" then neither did anyone who, for example, set up a camera with motion sensors or otherwise didn't actually push a button for that particular frame, which is a heck of a lot of photography. It's completely absurd, and wrong, that he doesn't own the copyright. That's like saying Jackson Pollock didn't own the copyright to his paintings because the paint painted itself or the air and gravity did it. Utter nonsense. Even if a human being had incidentally triggered the taking of the photo by some movement, he would still own the copyright. Again, this is a huge segment of photography -- historically as well but especially in the digital age. (ETA I guess the idea comes from the simplistic and uneducated notion that the major contribution of taking a photo is pointing the camera and pushing a button. Anyone who has actually done any photography at all should know that's not correct.)

Last edited by ganzfeld; 21 August 2017 at 05:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 21 August 2017, 05:06 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,624
Judge

Hard to say how to come down on this one. If you used/programmed a machine or computer to take a photograph, it's yours. If you instructed another person how to take a photograph, it's theirs. So if you train an animal (which is in a sense more than a machine but less than a person) to take a photograph, whose is it?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 21 August 2017, 05:11 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,108
Default

That would be an interesting comparison but I don't think there's any evidence (despite PETA's claim) that the monkey was trained to take photos or had any idea what it was doing.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 21 August 2017, 05:38 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,624
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
That would be an interesting comparison but I don't think there's any evidence (despite PETA's claim) that the monkey was trained to take photos
The photographer contended that he did, in effect, train the monkeys to take selfies (even if they weren't aware of what they were doing):

Quote:
Slater has long maintained that the selfies were the result of his ingenuity in coaxing the monkeys into pressing the shutter while looking into the lens, after he struggled to get them to keep their eyes open for a wide-angle close-up.

“It wasn’t serendipitous monkey behavior,” he said. “It required a lot of knowledge on my behalf, a lot of perseverance, sweat and anguish, and all that stuff.”
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 21 August 2017, 09:22 PM
Mochrie99's Avatar
Mochrie99 Mochrie99 is offline
 
Join Date: 26 April 2005
Location: Sarnia, Ontario
Posts: 433
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
I can't think of a moral besides, I dunno, don't become a totally random victim of a frivolous lawsuit.
That's a good moral, as well. Utterly stupid, honestly.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 21 August 2017, 09:47 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,215
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
I can't think of a moral besides, I dunno, don't become a totally random victim of a frivolous lawsuit.
It's not at all clear that his losses are due to PETA's frivolous lawsuit (which they lost). I assumed that his losses were due to his own efforts to fight for the copyright.

Wouldn't he be able to recover court costs from PETA?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 21 August 2017, 11:34 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
The photographer contended that he did, in effect, train the monkeys to take selfies (even if they weren't aware of what they were doing):
Not seeing any training there any more than a fisher trains a fish to bite a hook by baiting it and casting it correctly through trial and error. I'm sure PETA would say the horse owned its famous photos because Muybridge showed it where to walk to trigger the right threads.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 22 August 2017, 12:33 AM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 6,885
Default

This is the type of case that makes me wish we had frivolous lawsuit protection like they do in Hungary. If you take someone to court there and the judge rules decides your case is frivolous, you have to pay the court and lawyer fees of the person you sued.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 22 August 2017, 02:10 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 11 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 6,848
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
It's not at all clear that his losses are due to PETA's frivolous lawsuit (which they lost). I assumed that his losses were due to his own efforts to fight for the copyright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
I'm sure PETA would say the horse owned its famous photos because Muybridge showed it where to walk to trigger the right threads.
Ugh...you'd think the fact that it was filed by mothereffin' PETA would be proof enough that it was frivolous and unworthy of anyone's time. Because NFBSK PETA! I know, chances are they are really that stupid and horrible, but I like my other theory better: that they are secretly a front for the meat industry.

Because there are legitimate abuses that do need to be addressed, like factory farms and the like, but they spend time comparing the slaughter of chickens to the Holocaust and lobbying towns to change their names. By being so over-the-top stupid and ridiculous, they effectively discredit much of the cause for animal rights, by making the public associate that cause with a bunch of fruitcakes, making it harder for actual legitimate issues to receive any kind of discussion. Also, you can't underestimate the power of the Spite demographic. Every time someone looks at PETA and says, "I'll eat a steak, just out of spite," a meat industry exec smiles.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 22 August 2017, 05:08 AM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
If you instructed another person how to take a photograph, it's theirs.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. News organizations can (and almost always do) require photographers to sign over all of their work related photos to the organization.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 22 August 2017, 05:10 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 11,444
Default

There are legitimate groups that monitor and advocate for animal welfare.

PETA's primary purpose seems to be to make them look bad by association.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 22 August 2017, 03:02 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,624
Judge

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy101_again View Post
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. News organizations can (and almost always do) require photographers to sign over all of their work related photos to the organization.
That's work for hire, which is a completely different circumstance to this case.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photographer's stunning images of alopecia sufferers snopes Social Studies 3 23 May 2013 11:27 PM
Don't Call Scottie Pippen Bankrupt or He'll Sue! snopes Snopes Spotting 0 17 December 2011 08:38 PM
Nature Photographer Admits to Faking Photographs Floater Fauxtography 3 16 September 2011 11:10 PM
Bankrupt Pat Robertson by calling his toll-free number snopes Inboxer Rebellion 6 27 January 2010 01:28 AM
Picture Made on 9/11 Takes a Toll on Photographer snopes Spook Central 1 10 November 2007 02:39 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.