Photographer in Monkey Selfie Case: PETA Ruining Him to Protect Animals

Posted by on Friday July 14, 2017 | Copyright/Legal

The joke is over in the monkey selfie case.

Photographer David Slater, who is defending himself against PETA’s copyright infringement claim on behalf of a monkey, has told the Telegraph newspaper that the lawsuit has left him penniless. He is considering giving up his career as a wildlife photographer to become a tennis coach or dog walker instead, the paper says.

“I am just not motivated to go out and take photos any more. I’ve had outlays of several thousand pounds for lawyers, it is losing me income and getting me so depressed. When I think about the whole situation I really don’t think it’s worth it,” he told the Telegraph.

The case centers around a monkey named Naruto, who picked up Slater’s unattended camera in 2011 and shot a selfie. Slater published that selfie, which eventually precipitated Naruto v. David Slater, a 2015 copyright infringement claim that PETA filed in a California federal court. PETA’s argument was that because the monkey took the picture, it owned the copyright—just as any person would.

Let’s be clear: The monkey has suffered no injury. The monkey lodged no complaint to PETA or anybody else. The monkey is oblivious to the lawsuit. The monkey doesn’t give a shit about copyright. And PETA doesn’t particularly care about Naruto. Their interest is in establishing a legal precedent that gives animals the same rights as humans. Naruto’s selfie made copyright an opportune place to start. David Slater is just PETA’s collateral damage.

Judges aren’t buying PETA’s arguments, though. A federal trial court dismissed the case last year on the grounds that the US Copyright Act doesn’t give animals standing to own copyright. PETA appealed to the US Court of Appeals in San Francisco, where judges also expressed doubt this week during oral arguments that the animals can own copyright under the US Copyright Act. (A ruling from that court is pending.)

PETA’s mission to protect animals is laudable, even if it inevitably inconveniences people. But is it a winning strategy to ruin people who are doing no actual injury to animals?

Related: Appeals Court Skeptical of “Monkey Selfie” Copyright Claim

Tags:

COMMENTS

MORE POSTS

Unsplash CEO Tries to Justify Copyright Grab

Posted by on Friday August 11, 2017 | Business, Copyright/Legal

The co-founder and CEO of Unsplash, the photo-sharing platform that asks contributing photographers to grant free licenses to their images, attempted to justify the company’s terms of use in a blog post written last week. The post follows outrage by professional photographers, who blasted the company on social media. Unsplash’s terms are terrible for photographers,... More

Photog Bill Frakes Leaves U of Nebraska Following Sexual Harassment Charges

Posted by on Wednesday August 9, 2017 | Copyright/Legal

Bill Frakes, the award-winning Sports Illustrated photographer, will not return to his position as adjunct professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Journalism and Mass Communications, after university administrators concluded he violated its policy prohibiting sexual harassment and “created a hostile environment” for a female student. University spokesperson Steve Smith told PDN last week,... More

PETA Giving Up on Monkey Selfie Copyright Claim?

Posted by on Monday August 7, 2017 | Copyright/Legal

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and photographer David Slater have told a federal court in San Francisco that they are on the verge of settling PETA’s copyright infringement claim over the infamous monkey selfie. The two parties, along with Blurb, Inc., a co-defendant with Slater, have asked the US Court of Appeals... More