This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/12/monkey-selfie-warring-parties-reach-settlement-over-court-case
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Monkey selfie: warring parties reach settlement over court case | Monkey selfie: warring parties reach settlement over court case |
| (about 1 month later) | |
| A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit over who owns the copyright of selfie photographs taken by a monkey. | A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit over who owns the copyright of selfie photographs taken by a monkey. |
| Under the deal, the photographer whose camera was used agreed to donate 25% of any future revenue from the images to charities dedicated to protecting crested macaques in Indonesia, lawyers for an animal rights group said. | Under the deal, the photographer whose camera was used agreed to donate 25% of any future revenue from the images to charities dedicated to protecting crested macaques in Indonesia, lawyers for an animal rights group said. |
| Its lawyers and the British photographer, David Slater, asked the San Francisco-based 9th US circuit court of appeals to dismiss the case and throw out a lower court decision that said animals cannot own copyrights. | Its lawyers and the British photographer, David Slater, asked the San Francisco-based 9th US circuit court of appeals to dismiss the case and throw out a lower court decision that said animals cannot own copyrights. |
| Andrew J Dhuey, an attorney for Slater, declined to comment on how much money the photos have generated or whether Slater would keep all of the remaining 75% of future revenue. | Andrew J Dhuey, an attorney for Slater, declined to comment on how much money the photos have generated or whether Slater would keep all of the remaining 75% of future revenue. |
| There was no immediate ruling from the 9th circuit. | There was no immediate ruling from the 9th circuit. |
| The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sued on behalf of the macaque in 2015, seeking financial control of the photographs for the benefit of the monkey named Naruto that snapped the photos with Slater’s camera. | The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sued on behalf of the macaque in 2015, seeking financial control of the photographs for the benefit of the monkey named Naruto that snapped the photos with Slater’s camera. |
| “Peta and David Slater agree that this case raises important, cutting-edge issues about expanding legal rights for non-human animals, a goal that they both support, and they will continue their respective work to achieve this goal,” Slater and Peta said in a joint statement. | “Peta and David Slater agree that this case raises important, cutting-edge issues about expanding legal rights for non-human animals, a goal that they both support, and they will continue their respective work to achieve this goal,” Slater and Peta said in a joint statement. |
| Lawyers for Slater argued that his company, Wildlife Personalities Ltd, owns worldwide commercial rights to the photos, including a now-famous selfie of the monkey’s toothy grin. | Lawyers for Slater argued that his company, Wildlife Personalities Ltd, owns worldwide commercial rights to the photos, including a now-famous selfie of the monkey’s toothy grin. |
| The photos were taken during a 2011 trip to Sulawesi, Indonesia, with an unattended camera owned by Slater. | The photos were taken during a 2011 trip to Sulawesi, Indonesia, with an unattended camera owned by Slater. |
| A judge said in a ruling in favour of Slater last year that “while Congress and the president can extend the protection of law to animals as well as humans, there is no indication that they did so in the Copyright Act”. | A judge said in a ruling in favour of Slater last year that “while Congress and the president can extend the protection of law to animals as well as humans, there is no indication that they did so in the Copyright Act”. |
| Animals | Animals |
| Indonesia | Indonesia |
| Asia Pacific | Asia Pacific |
| news | news |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |