Post by account_disabled on Dec 19, 2023 6:44:33 GMT
Monkey who in made some head-turners that would make even the stars envious. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued photographer Slater and the San Francisco company Blurb, which published a book called "Wildlife Personalities" that included the monkey selfie, for copyright infringement. In , he applied for a court order allowing him to administer all proceeds from the photos for the benefit of the monkey. Slater says the British copyright for the photos obtained by his company, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., belongs to him. PETA attorney David Schwarz argued that Naruto the monkey was used to cameras and became narcissistic when he saw himself in the lens' reflection.
A federal judge ruled against PETA and the monkey last year, saying country email list copyright protections cannot extend to animals. During Wednesday's hearing, Attorney Schwarz said the situation is as clear as possible: the photos are copyrighted and Naruto is the author. "We have to look at the word 'author' in the broadest sense," he said. The judges asked him why PETA can have active procedural standing in this case, and the Lawyer argued that PETA's activity of caring for the animal is not enough for the ethical treatment of the animal, PETA having animal rights, through therefore it can represent the monkey in court. The justices did not issue a ruling Wednesday. Angela Dunning, a lawyer for Blurb, asks “Where does it end? If a monkey can sue for copyright infringement, what else can a monkey do?” PETA General Counsel Jeff Kerr said after the hearing that the group plans to use the money from the photos to protect monkey habitats and help people study monkeys.
PETA clearly represents Naruto's best interest," he said. The photographer's lawyer said the monkey selfie was more of a publicity stunt for PETA than a lawsuit. He said after the trial that Naruto made a fatal mistake by not appearing in court. "It's like he doesn't even care," he concluded. SOURCE here Leave a reply Your email address will not be published. Mandatory fields are marked with * Comment * Name * Email * Website Save my name, email and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Official Gazette no. , , , , , of July , Official Gazette minutes • Official Gazette • July , Official Gazette no. of July , The Constitutional Court of Romania Decision regarding the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of art.
A federal judge ruled against PETA and the monkey last year, saying country email list copyright protections cannot extend to animals. During Wednesday's hearing, Attorney Schwarz said the situation is as clear as possible: the photos are copyrighted and Naruto is the author. "We have to look at the word 'author' in the broadest sense," he said. The judges asked him why PETA can have active procedural standing in this case, and the Lawyer argued that PETA's activity of caring for the animal is not enough for the ethical treatment of the animal, PETA having animal rights, through therefore it can represent the monkey in court. The justices did not issue a ruling Wednesday. Angela Dunning, a lawyer for Blurb, asks “Where does it end? If a monkey can sue for copyright infringement, what else can a monkey do?” PETA General Counsel Jeff Kerr said after the hearing that the group plans to use the money from the photos to protect monkey habitats and help people study monkeys.
PETA clearly represents Naruto's best interest," he said. The photographer's lawyer said the monkey selfie was more of a publicity stunt for PETA than a lawsuit. He said after the trial that Naruto made a fatal mistake by not appearing in court. "It's like he doesn't even care," he concluded. SOURCE here Leave a reply Your email address will not be published. Mandatory fields are marked with * Comment * Name * Email * Website Save my name, email and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Official Gazette no. , , , , , of July , Official Gazette minutes • Official Gazette • July , Official Gazette no. of July , The Constitutional Court of Romania Decision regarding the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of art.