>SAN FRANCISCO — Monkey see. Monkey sue. Monkey settle.
>Attorneys representing a macaque monkey have agreed to a compromise in a case where they asserted the animal owned the copyright to selfie photos it had shot with a photographer's camera.
>Under the deal, the photographer agreed to donate 25 percent of any future revenue from the images to charities dedicated to protecting crested macaques in Indonesia, said the lawyers from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals who filed the lawsuit.
does this mean we own the copyright to the selfies niggers take on our stolen phones?
Brandon Martinez
Yeah, well.. This is simply beyond retarded..
Caleb Harris
that photographer got his species privilege checked lmao
Adrian Jackson
PETA basically heckled and bullied the guy using the courts and he was looking at bankruptcy even if he successfully fought them off. It should be considered a terrorist organization.
Asher Flores
At this point the guys career is already fucked
Kayden Kelly
Huh interesting.
Next time someone tells me to check my entire privilege, I'll be sure to follow up and tell them to check their species privilege.
Jose Roberts
What the fuck? Goddamn leftists at it again. I swear in 20 years we won't have flying cars and space travel, but we'll definitely have literal fucking monkeys voting and fucking white women. Someone please nuke California.
Jeremiah Gutierrez
>PETA sued on behalf of the monkey in 2015, seeking financial control of the photographs for the benefit of the monkey named Naruto that snapped the photos with Slater's camera.
I'm confused. Did the monkey seek legal counsel? How can you just decide to sue on behalf of an animal who is incapable of understanding any of the concepts involved?
Ethan Roberts
>but we'll definitely have literal fucking monkeys voting and fucking white women. What's is BLACKED.
Lincoln Russell
...
Tyler Bennett
This is absolutely retarded. If a I have a camera trigger that is triggered by lightning, are photos taken with this device now considered public domain because it wasn't a human that took the photo? If I have my camera tethered to my computer and tell the computer to trigger the camera, is it now public domain because the computer took the photo and not me? If I'm taking a normal photo pressing the button on the camera, is it now public domain because I didn't actually trigger the camera, the plastic button actually did?
This is the stupidest fucking thing. Without the prior setup put into place by the photographer, the monkey couldn't do shit. It couldn't set the proper exposure, it couldn't turn the camera on, and it certainly didn't process the raw images that the photographer extracted from the memory card. This case is going to be a nightmare in the future
Angel Richardson
>And in what way does this pertain to politics? What is legal precedent?
Jeremiah Martin
>This board is for the discussion of news, world events, political issues, and other related topics.
Grayson King
REPARATIONS WHITE BOY.
Chase Jones
>peta tries to establish a legal precendent that animals can hold copyright rights >THIS THREAD ISNT ABOUT HITLER, REPORT
>I swear in 20 years we won't have flying cars and space travel, but we'll definitely have literal fucking monkeys voting and fucking white women What's the weather like back in 1945?
Ryan Jackson
Found the PETAphile.
Carter Rodriguez
That it even came this far is fucking absurd.
An animal isn't a legal entity.
Wyatt Moore
I never knew this is how photogs took lightning pictures I always assumed they just burst shot the sky hoping to catch a sweet image.
Connor Torres
There are three ways
1) The most popular way is to use a long exposure, where the camera is sitting there for like 30 seconds. So if a bolt of lightning strikes at some point during that time, it will show up in the photo
2) Pure luck of capturing it at the perfect time
3) Using a device like that which can trigger the camera fast enough to capture a bolt of lightning
Austin Wilson
user literal monkeys have been able to vote since the 1960s
Ryan Mitchell
U M A D E L I C I A
Aaron Ward
Why not just roll video and then extract whatever frames you want?
Michael Jackson
Because video footage is highly compressed and really bad for post processing. With digital cameras they have the ability to shoot "RAW" images which are essentially uncompressed image files that are designed to be heavily edited for a final product. While jpegs are very compressed and have very little data in them in comparison. Also, video is very low resolution compared to the photos. My photo camera for example, has a resolution of 7,360x4,912, vs the video it shoots, which is only 1920x1080. So the photos my camera takes is 13 times higher resolution than the video it shoots. There are cameras that can take RAW video though, like the RED cameras, which is what movies are filmed on, but those generally cost $30k+, vs $2k for a photo camera that actually has higher resolution than even those video cameras, and very often still produces better images.
Nathaniel Flores
informative post ty
Chase Myers
One step closer to sopa de macaco.
Jacob Evans
> This case is going to be a nightmare in the future
without a judgement, no it isn't
Jacob Harris
It will. Because now I have to opportunity to go steal any photo that someone took without physically pressing the button themselves, and selling it for a profit, fucking over the photographer, using the argument that it's public domain because the photographer doesn't actually have copyright of the image. Yeah, maybe there wasn't a judgment, but there is now a story out there showing that a photographer can get fucked in the ass for years trying to retain their work, and barely winning.
Logan Barnes
>Yeah, maybe there wasn't a judgment, but there is now a story out there showing that a photographer can get fucked in the ass for years trying to retain their work, and barely winning.
it's completely up to whether or not you reach a settlement, which is not a legal issue.
Noah Campbell
I hope those PETA parasites get cancer. Only they have the tenacity and will to ruin a photographers life with useless law suits like this, while "protecting animal rights".
