Animal rights activists represent the interests of the macaque in court, which made a self-portrait, but did not receive copyright

Maybe someone remembers the scandalous history of 2011 related to intellectual property issues. Lawyers, human rights activists, activists for freedom of information and the entire sympathetic blogosphere joined the discussion of that case.

The point is this: in the summer of 2011, one crested macaque in Indonesia made its self-portrait with a digital camera. She found the camera, sent it to herself, and began to play around (the monkey liked the sound that the device made when the shutter button was pressed). The problem is that experts could not immediately figure out who owns the copyright for this self-portrait.

The problem is not at all illusory. Owners of several blogs and the media received a requirement from the Caters News Agency news agency to remove photos from the Internet , because the agency allegedly has exclusive rights to distribute them .

Makaka took a few hundred shots before she was tired of the toy, but most of the photos are out of focus. Here is another one of the photos, because of which were legal proceedings:
')


Six years ago we discussed this legal incident in detail.

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation ( Article 1228 ) establishes the following definition:

1. The author of the result of intellectual activity is recognized as a citizen, by whose creative labor such result is created.

Citizens who have not made a personal creative contribution to the creation of such a result are not recognized as authors of the result of intellectual activity, including only technical, consulting, organizational or material assistance or assistance to the author, or only contributing to the registration of rights to such result or promoting its use, as well as supervising the implementation of relevant work.

As you can see, even a photographer who owns a camera (that is, who provided technical and material assistance) cannot be recognized as the author of the work. Similarly, if you gave a camera to a passerby asking you to take a picture of yourself, you do not own the rights to this photo, you do not have the right to publish and distribute it without the permission of the author.

US copyright law is similar to Russian. If the photographer installed the camera, brought the focus and only allowed the monkey to press the button, then the photographer would have the opportunity to claim authorship. But here is another case: the owner of the camera himself admitted that he had lost the camera in the forest before the monkey found it.

Who, then, is the copyright holder, to whom the author has passed the right of distribution? Six years ago, Techdirt bloggers suggested that all photos taken by monkeys be considered public domain by default. Maybe it would have been, but not everyone agrees on this outcome.

Activists of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) appealed to the US Court of Appeals for a ninth round. PETA lawyers stated the position that “for the free-living crested macaque Naruta [yes, the monkey already has its own name - approx. Ed.] should approve the copyright of photographs according to US Copyright Act (US Copyright Act). ” The lawyers explain that in this case Narutu saw her reflection in the camera lens, understood the relationship between pressing the shutter button and changing the reflection - and made different facial expressions by pressing the shutter button.

The case has already passed through several instances , and in each case PETA was losing. The last verdict was made by the district judge in January 2016 : he ruled that the competence to vest monkeys with copyright belongs to Congress and the president, and he does not have such powers. Earlier in 2014, the US Copyright Office also announced that works “produced by nature, animals, or plants” cannot receive copyright protection.

But PETA lawyers insist that it is Narutu that should own the copyright to the images. If the court agrees with this, then this will be the first time that a pet acquires the right to own any property (intellectual), and will not itself be considered property, against which PETA is categorically opposed. Their motto: "Animals do not belong to us."



“When science and technology move forward, the laws adapt to them,” said PETA general lawyer Jeffrey Kerr. “Nothing in the Copyright Act restricts ownership depending on the type of living creature, and PETA asks to interpret the act taking into account the modern scientific consensus that monkey monkeys are able to create original works.”

In fact, these photos are quite claim to the title of “original works” and even works of art from some point of view. In the end, because the pictures painted by chimpanzees are exhibited in galleries and sold to collectors - these are also valuable creative works, so why are photos worse?

The Court of Appeal of the three judges will begin consideration of the case today, July 12, 2017.

All royalties for photos in case of winning the case will belong to Naruto and his community, PETA said. I wonder how the crested macaques in Indonesia dispose of the money received? Because copyright lasts for decades, Naruto and his descendants can afford a luxurious life. For example, they can pay for the work of people who will take care of them. That would be fun.